Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180604plCC 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: 6/4/2018 Document dates: 5/16/2018 – 5/23/2018 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO HONORABLE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MIKE SARTOR, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAY 16, 2018 10 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10 -Public Works Department, Storm Drain Fund The attached memorandum is addressed to the Finance Committee from the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee. The oversight committee members have reviewed the Fiscal Year 2019 proposed budget for the Storm Drainage Fund. They found it accurately reflects capital and operating expenditures as described in the 2017 ballot measure and therefore accepted the proposed budget during their meeting held on April 18, 2018. They are forwarding their finding to the Finance Committee, as in past years. ~H MIKE SARTOR Uv i.... Director, Public Works Department 1of1 • Date: To: From: CITY OF PALO ALTO April 18, 2018 Storm Water Management Oversight Committee MEMORANDUM Honorable Finance Committee of the Palo Alto City Council Members of the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee Subject: Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2019 Storm Drainage Fund Budget As directed by the City Council, the Committee met to discuss the proposed budget on Wednesday, April 18, 2018. We have reviewed the proposed Storm Drainage (Storm Water Management) Fund budget for fiscal year 2019 and compared it with the provisions of the Storm Water Management Fee approved by Palo Alto property owners in 2017. Based on this review, we find that the proposed budget reflects the CIP projects and operating expenditures approved in the ballot measure. Prior to the meeting, Public Works staff provided informational materials about the approved 2017 ballot measure and the proposed budget for the Committee's review. During the meeting, staff presented information regarding the Storm Drainage Fund capital and operating budgets, and answered questions from the Committee members. We find that the attached spreadsheet describing the proposed budget of the Storm Drainage Fund for Fiscal Year 2019 and the document describing budget change items accurately describe the relationship between the budget and the ballot measure. Staff and the Committee concur that there will be adequate funding generated by the Storm Water Management Fee approved through the 2017 ballot measure to fund the capital improvement projects, enhanced maintenance of storm drain system, storm water quality protection programs specified for implementation in the ballot measure in Fiscal Year 2019. Attachments STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2019 Proposed Budget and Projections (Amounts in 1000s adjusted for annual inflation) ' Revenue Collected Fee Revenue Interest Earnings Development Fees & Violation Fines From Fund Reserve Total Revenue Annual Expenses Base Program (Incl. Water Quality, Flood Control) Storm Drainage Maintenance Debt Service for Past Caoital Proiect Capital Improvements Program (13) Loma Verde Ave Trunk Line Improvements (#1/ SD-19000) West Bayshore Road Pump Station (#4/ SD-20000) Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station (#2/ SD-21000) East Meadow Drive Svstem Uoarades 1#7/ SD-22000\ Recurrini:i System Reoair (SD-06101) Caoital Proaram Enaineerina Sunnnrt Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) GSI -CIP Design/Construction GSI -Consulting Services GSI -Other unassianed tasks Innovative Project Innovative Project -Green Stormwater Infrastructure Innovative Project -Rebates Innovative Project -Other unassigned tasks To Fund Reserve Total Expenses 111Charleston I Arastradero CIP project GSI elements 121Contract with EOA on development of GSI Plan Adopted Budget Year 1 2018- 7,178 6,927 130 121 0 7,178 6,300 2,787 1,486 947 0 400 175 380 33o111 35121 15 125 0 125 878 7,178 131Contract service to develop GSI engineering spec document 141Contract service to develop GSI maintenance and monitoring manual Estimated Proposed Projection Budget Year 1 Year2 2018 2019 7,184 7,382 6,914 7,128 150 130 120 124 0 989 7,184 8,371 6,195 8,371 2,750 2,522 1,440 1,603 947 947 0 2,200 2,200 400 412 175 182 380 380 33o111 33ol11 3512) 5ol31 15 0 103 125 0 30141 3 95 100 989 (0) 7,178 8,371 - Projection Projection Projection Projection Year3 Year4 Years Year& 2020 2021 2022 2023 7,595 7,815 8,041 8,273 7,335 7,547 7,766 7,991 133 137 140 144 127 131 134 138 (0) 897 445 308 7,595 8,712 8,485 8,581 6,698 8,267 8,177 8,581 2,588 2,655 2,724 2,795 1,645 1,687 1,731 1,776 950 951 950 947 400 1,840 1,620 1,892 0 200 840 200 1,000 1,220 400 424 437 450 464 187 192 197 202 380 380 380 380 300 4ol3l 40 125 125 125 125 35!41 90 897 445 308 0 7,595 8,712 8,485 8,581 4/18/2018 Stormwater Management Fund Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Change Requests l. Revenue: Fee increased by 2.9% a. Based on December 2017 CPI, fee will be increased from $13.65 to $14.05 per ERU b. FY2019 Revenue estimate (based on Q2 Actuals) is $7.13M c. FY2018 Adopted budget for Fee Revenue is $6.93M d. The proposed increase is approximately $201K 2. Expense: Fiber Connection Fee Increase a. During construction, double-strand fiber was installed for the fiber optic connection between storm drain pump stations and creek monitors to ensure an outage wouldn't affect more than one camera in line. b. This is a fee paid from the Storm Water maintenance budget to the Utilities Fiber Optic fund. c. FY2019 Expense estimate for this fee is $117,500 d. FY2018 Adopted budget for this fee is $72,800 e. The proposed increase is approximately $42,500 3. Expense: Public Safety Radio Service Fee Increase a. Maintenance group acquired 6 public safety radios via Silicon Valley Regional Communications System (SVRCS). b. This is a fee paid from Storm Water maintenance budget for the access fee of $420 per year per radio through a contract. c. No fee was associated with the old radio system, so no budget was ever allocated. d. FY2019 Expense estimate for this fee and the proposed increase is $2,520 April 17, 2018 ' . .. CITY OF PALO ALTO TO: FROM: CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PCE AGENDA DATE: MAY 21, 2018 ID# 8977 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: The City Council Will Consider Appeals of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Decision to Approve Eleven (11) Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits to Establish Small Cell Wireless Communication Antennas and Equipment on Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way Near the Following Addresses: Node #129: CPAU Pole# 3121 (near 2490 Louis Road APN 127-30-062), Node #130: CPAU Pole #2461 (near 2802 Louis Road APN 127-28-046), Node #131: CPAU Pole #3315 (near 891 Elbridge Way APN 127-26-067), Node #133E: CPAU Pole #2856 (near 949 Loma Verde APN 127-24-020), Node #134: CPAU Pole #2964 (near 3409 Kenneth Dr APN 127-09-028), Node #135: CPAU Pole# 3610 (near 795 Stone Ln APN 127-47-001), Node #137: CPAU Pole #3351 (near 3090 Ross Rd APN 127-52-031), Node #138: CPAU Pole #2479 (near 836 Colorado Av APN 127-27-063), Node #143: CPAU Pole #3867 (near 419 El Verano Av APN 132-15-017), Node #144: CPAU Pole #1506 (near 201 Loma Verde Av APN 132-48-015), Node #145: CPAU Pole #3288 (near 737 Loma Verde Av APN 127-64-039) Environmental Assessment: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Class 3, Guidelines Section 15303. Staff recently received updated vault feasibility reports from Vinculums/Verizon on May 17, 2018, which are attached. These reports update materials provided by the applicant in February. In summary, the applicant concludes that vaulting remains infeasible at all of the eleven (11) nodes reviewed by the ARB ·and the Director of Planning and Community Environment.1 1 In February 2018, the applicant removed the following four (4) nodes from consideration by the ARB and the Director, as the applicant determined that these nodes did seem to possibly provide an opportunity for vaulting and required additional study: Node #136 (3191 Manchester Court); Node #140 (450 Loma Verde Avenue); Node #141 (2801 South Court); Node #147 (181 El Verano Avenue). 6 The vault feasibility reports review potential locations for vault placement within a 30- foot radius of the selected utility pole. This 30-foot radius is based on technical requirements for the maximum length of coaxial cable connecting radio units in the vault and the antenna on the pole. The applicant indicates that a greater distance may be achieved with wider diameter coaxial cable, but states that this would be aesthetically unfavorable, as the size of the conduits attached to the pole and the antenna bayonet shroud would be dramatically increased. The applicant has not provided detailed plans for this alternative. The applicant's updated vault feasibility analysis identifies physical site constraints that limit vault placement for all eleven (11) nodes, as well as at a select number of alternate node locations. These site constraints include: narrow rights of way that cannot accommodate a vault; mature trees that would need to be removed to accommodate a vault; driveways or curb ramps limiting available space; and existing utilities that may be difficult or expensive to relocate. For the six (6) nodes that are located within the AE 10.5 special flood hazard zone, the applicant further states that vaulting is infeasible, as the risk of flood and shallow ground water table would lead to the radios in the vault being submerged in both a flood event and under normal condi~ions. Staff believe some of the alternate pole sites disqualified by the applicant based on City policies may warrant additional consideration. Specifically, the applicant has eliminated some alternate poles from consideration because they have an existing CPAU transformer; the City's Utilities staff have communicated to the applicant that some transformers may be relocated to nearby poles to accommodate wireless facilities, based on a site specific analysis. That said, alternate pole locations will likely involve many of the site constraints applicable to the poles included in the vault feasibility studies. In addition, staff disagrees with the applicant's analysis that location in the flood zone necessarily makes vaulting infeasible. However, other site constraints for each node may render the node a poor candidate for vaulting, even if the flood zone is not a disqualifying factor. Finally, vaulting at any site carries some risk, as the applicant has argued that a vaulting requirement would violate the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Staff have summarized the applicant's identified constraints in the enclosed table. Director Planning and Community Environment Node by Node Summary: Node Flood zone/ Mature tree Existing Lack of Number* Shallow impacted or underground space water table removed utilities/ (narrow ROW, laterals driveways, etc.) 129 x x 130 x x x 131 x x x 133E** x x x 133 x x 134 x x x x 1340 x x 135 x x 135A x 1350 x 137 x x 137A x 138 x x x 138E x x 143 x 144 x x x 145 x x 145A x x * Node numbers followed by a letter represent alternate pole locations ** Alternate site selected by ARB and Planning Director Other comments Requires street light relocation Requires private fence relocation Space may exist beyond driveway Tree appears to be private Storm channel occupies full width Tree appears to be private Requires private fence relocation ROW too narrow Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN‐00169   SF PALO ALTO 137 May 14, 2018     Page 1    SF Palo Alto 129 – 2490 Louis Rd  Executive Summary– Vault Feasibility Report  Summary:   The proposed location for SF Palo Alto 129 is located adjacent to two parcels in the Public Right of Way at 2490 Louis Rd. The area  where a vault could potentially be located is within the Flood Hazard Zone, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management  Agency, and underground vaulting of equipment is infeasible. Radios would be submerged in a flood event, but given the  relatively high‐water table in Palo Alto, they would often be submerged in normal conditions. Additionally, an existing street light  with a speed limit sign and a private driveway preclude the placement of a vault adjacent to this node.  No viable alternate poles exist for this proposed node.   While vaults cannot be flood proofed, and therefore cannot be located adjacent to this pole, a backup report has been included  as Exhibit A to further demonstrate the infeasibility of placing a vault in the public right‐of‐way at this location.  Report Contents:  Page 1: Summary  Page 2: Flood Hazard Zone Location  Page 3: Parcel Report – Flood Hazard Area  Page 4: Surveyor Report – Primary Pole  Page 5: Vault Infeasibility in Flood Zone – Primary Pole  Page 6: Palo Alto Groundwater Map (Flood Zone Designation)  Page 7: Zoom View – Pole Location on Flood Zone Map  Page 7‐8: Vault Infeasible in Flood Hazard Area  Page 9: Analysis of Alternate Utility Poles  Page 10: Exhibit A – Backup Vault Feasibility Analysis (Site Conditions)  Page 11: Exhibit A1: Vault Specifications & Requirements   Page 12: Exhibit A2: Vault Search Area Requirements   Page 13: Exhibit A3: Aerial View – Vault Search Area  Page 14‐16: Exhibit A4: Vault Feasibility Analysis   Page 17: Exhibit A5: Arborist Report  Page 18: Exhibit A6: Photo Simulation of Infeasible Vault     Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN‐00169   SF PALO ALTO 137 May 14, 2018     Page 2    Flood Hazard Zone Location:  The proposed pole for attachment lies between two parcels that straddle the line of a Flood Hazard Zone, as designated by the  Federal Emergency Management Agency. As such, the existing pole and one of the adjacent parcels (127‐30‐062) lie outside of the  Flood Hazard Zone. However, the other adjacent parcel (127‐30‐026) is located within the Flood Hazard Zone. See map below:         Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN‐00169   SF PALO ALTO 137 May 14, 2018     Page 3    The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 is listed on the Palo Alto Parcel Report for the adjacent parcel number 127‐30‐026:  Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN‐00169   SF PALO ALTO 137 May 14, 2018     Page 4    The elevation in AMSL (above mean sea level) of the base of the pole has been certified to be 10.77' AMSL by a State of California  Professional Land Surveyor in a 1‐A Accuracy Certification. This can be found on page T‐2 of the plan sets. The AMSL at the pole base can also  be found on page T‐1 of the plan set under “Site Information”.  Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN‐00169   SF PALO ALTO 137 May 14, 2018     Page 5    Vault Infeasibility within Flood Zone  The AMSL at the base of the pole is 10.77'. The Flood Zone designation of AE 10.5 signifies a FEMA Flood Zone level of 10.5 AMSL in the area  south of the pole. A visual example related to this proposed small cell is below, to demonstrate that in the event of flooding, the underground  vault would fill completely with water:     Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN‐00169   SF PALO ALTO 137 May 14, 2018     Page 6    Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map  The Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map demonstrates, by marking with green stripes, the Flood Zone for San Francisquito Creek and Bay tidal  floodplains as identified and mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The pole straddles the line of a Flood Hazard Area.     Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN‐00169   SF PALO ALTO 137 May 14, 2018     Page 7    Zoom of Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map:  The proposed primary pole straddles the line of a Flood Hazard Area, designated by the green lines.                         The proposed pole and its associated alternate pole for attachment are both located within the Flood Zone, as identified by FEMA. Verizon  Wireless’ radio equipment will not operate under water and cannot be placed underground in a flood zone. The proposed vault is not sealed and  thus not completely waterproof; there is absolutely no means of “flood proofing” a vault.  The vault comes equipped with sump pumps in the  event of minor water intrusion. In the event of a flood where the water levels have been documented to rise above ground level, there is no  mechanical ability to disperse water out of the vault.  This would result in the radios inside the vault to be fully submerged in water and unable  to operate. Inundation of equipment voids the radio manufacturer’s warranty.  The City of Palo Alto website contains helpful information regarding placement utilities in Flood Zones: "Other provisions require openings in  areas below flood level to allow water to enter and exit, flood proofing of utilities below the flood level, etc." Source: City of Palo Alto Website –  Q&A About Flood Zones: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=176. There is absolutely no means of “flood proofing”  vaults for radio equipment.      Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN‐00169   SF PALO ALTO 137 May 14, 2018     Page 8    Conclusion: Underground Vault Infeasible  The proposed small cell is within flood hazard zones designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and underground radios would  be submerged in a flood event and rendered non‐operational. Unlike some underground utility equipment and protected cables, RRUs that  contain radios and other sensitive electronic equipment would be ruined if submerged. The Kwan appeal for this proposed node alleges that the  residence nearest the proposed small cell at 2490 Louis Road is not in a flood hazard zone.  While that may be true of the appellant’s residence  and the pole location, the area of the right‐of‐way otherwise available for vaulting of small cell equipment falls within a flood hazard zone,  rendering vaulting infeasible for this small cell. Additionally, as the backup analysis demonstrates, an existing street light and speed limit sign  prevent vault placement in this location, even if it were not in a Flood Hazard Area.  Given the infeasibility of vault placement at this node, Verizon Wireless has proposed pole mounted equipment with a “box” style shroud. Pole  mounted equipment begins at 9'‐0" on the pole, located well above the Flood Zone.   Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN‐00169   SF PALO ALTO 137 May 14, 2018     Page 9    Analysis of Alternate Utility Poles    SF PALO ALTO 129 Alternative Site Analysis  In the Cluster 1 resubmittal dated 12/21/2017, Vinculums included an alternate site analysis for each node.  For SF Palo Alto 129, only one pole location was  determined as viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node, so there are no alternates for review.  The map and ASA of alternates reviewed is  included below:         Alternative  Candidate  ID Structure  Type Pole # Viable  Alternative  Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 129‐A Metal  Street Light 251 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is  lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service.  Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an  attachment.  CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication  equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW  attachment. 129‐B Wood  Utility Pole 3129 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC  GO95 rules require clear climbing space. There is not enough climbing  space on this pole to safely allow a VZW attachment. Additionally, the  pole is located near a more visible corner along Louis Rd and therefore  would is more visible than the primary pole. 129‐C Wood  Utility Pole 3207 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High  voltage lines located on pole. 129‐D Wood  Utility Pole 3120 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment.  Transformer located on pole ‐ wireless equipment not permitted.  Additionally, not selected as primary because high visibility corners are not  preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 129‐E Metal  Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is  lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service;  2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting  guidelines. 129‐F Wood  Utility Pole 3208 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High  voltage lines located on pole. 129‐G Metal  Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is  lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Vault Feasibility Report – Cluster 1 – 17PLN‐00169   SF PALO ALTO 137 May 14, 2018     Page 10    Exhibit A—Backup Vault Feasibility Analysis (Site Conditions) at Primary Pole    As explained above, Verizon Wireless is unable to locate network critical equipment underground in Flood  Hazard Zones, as designated by FEMA. As such SF PALO ALTO 129 is infeasible for an underground vault. However,  to further demonstrate the restrictions at this site, the exhibits listed below provide detail regarding the  infeasibility of placement of an underground vault in this area, even if somehow it could be flood‐proofed.    Contents:    Page 10: Exhibit A – Backup Vault Feasibility Analysis (Site Conditions)  Page 11: Exhibit A1: Vault Specifications & Requirements   Page 12: Exhibit A2: Vault Search Area Requirements   Page 13: Exhibit A3: Aerial View – Vault Search Area  Page 14‐17: Exhibit A4: Vault Feasibility Analysis   Page 18: Exhibit A5: Arborist Report  Page 19: Exhibit A6: Photo Simulation of Infeasible Vault     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:James VanHorne <james_vanhorne@stanford.edu> Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 4:47 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Verizon Cell Tower application We are residents of Palo Alto and have been for over 50 years. We urge you not to approve the installation of cell towers under Verizon's current plan. The equipment will detract from the residential neighborhoods, being heavy, noisy and with potential health hazards. The City will be liable for falling equipment, damage to the poles, and to kids climbing the poles and falling. The equipment could be located underground, and Verizon is taking advantage of the City in getting a very cheap yearly price. The cost to Verizon is far, far less than the alternative of acquiring land or land use and constructing a cell tower. The City is not using value pricing, but rather fixing a yearly price that is extremely favorable to Verizon. To have Verizon bury equipment (except for the antenna) is a cost that they should be forced to pay. Please do not approve the Verizon cell tower proposal as it currently stands. It will be the start of a proliferation of many more unwelcome intrusions in our lives. Thank you for your consideration. James C. Van Horne City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:15 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Taffy Hoffman <taffyhrn@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 10, 2018 4:42 PM To:Atkinson, Rebecca; Council, City Cc:Andrea Sobel Subject:Verizons proposal to improve wireless service To the Council: As a Palo Alto resident, I support the need for improvements to cellular service to ensure public safety.  We need reliable wireless coverage to reach emergency services – including the fire department, police,  and ambulance, among others. In addition, these improvements will help avoid dropped calls,  interruptions and data delays in the future as demand increases.   Verizon’s plan to mount small cell antennae on existing utility poles makes sense. It does not make  sense to place the equipment underground for several reasons.     Several antenna sites are in the flood plain, which means heavy rain can make radios non‐ operational.                                                                                         Placing equipment underground would increase the noise level due to the necessary ventilation  systems to keep the underground radios at working temperatures.   Also, big underground vaults could interfere with private property landscaping and harm trees. I  do not want to see our trees removed in order to place the underground vaults.    We need improved wireless service ‐ especially in the event of an emergency ‐ and I hope Palo Alto  Council members will agree that placing the equipment underground is not feasible.   Sincerely, Yvonne Hoffman 899 E. Charleston Road   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:15 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:jilan yin <jilanyin@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: Fw: Wireless tower Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Chunming Niu" <chunmingniu@gmail.com> To: "chunming_niu@yahoo.com" <chunming_niu@yahoo.com>, "Jilan Yin" <jilanyin@yahoo.com> Sent: Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 10:36 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Wireless tower To whom It May Concern, We are writing to oppose proposed small cell antenna installation next to our home (450 Loma Verde Ave., Palo Alto) for reasons: 1) We are living at the corner of Loma Verde Ave. and Kipling St. We already have an antenna across street on the Kipling side of the street (See Fig. 1). New proposed installation is on another side our house (Loma Verde Ave., See Fig. 2). It is unfair to have antennas surround our house. 2)The proposed installation is too close to our bed room, ~5 yard (Does The city code have any say about the distance? if not, shouldestablish one). 3)The proposed installation pole is a support pole for the utility pole across the street (see Fig. 3&4). The pole is not straight, tiledtoward our yard about 5-10 degree and ~7' shorter than the utility pole across the street (see Fig. 3&4). To install an antenna on the top of this tilted and short support pole ought to be problematic from engineering, safety and aestheics standards. How they are going to place an antenna with increased length (needed, otherwise it will be to close to the ground) on the top of a tilted pole? We request the city approval board sending an engineer to check out the pole before final approve. Thank you very much, Chunming Niu and Jilan Yin Residents of 450 Loma Verde Ave., Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:15 AM 5 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:15 AM 6 On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Chunming Niu <chunming_niu@yahoo.com> wrote: Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Chunming Niu" <chunming_niu@yahoo.com> To: "City.Council@cityofpaloalto. org" <City.Council@cityofpaloalto. org> Sent: Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:39 AM Subject: Wireless tower Dear council members: In light of Governor Browns veto of 649, we are writing to ask the city council to review and stop current plan to build small cell antenna on utility poles in our city. We are living at the corner of Loma Verde and Kipling. We already have an antenna across street on the Kipling side of the street. Now proposal to build another one on the side of Loma Verde is post on a pole just a few yards away form one of my bed room by another company. By federal law, tower companys suppose to share antenna resourses. Why two towers around one house? How could city approve this? What is our city's regulation to say about this? I hope someone can answer us. Chunming Niu and Milan Yin Residents of 450 Loma Verde Ave., Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:15 AM 10 Carnahan, David From:Jason Pittman <jason.pittman7@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 12, 2018 11:41 AM To:Atkinson, Rebecca Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for Verizon’s plan to improve wireless service Hi Rebecca Atkinson,  Palo Alto residents need improvements to cellular service to avoid dropped calls, interruptions and data delays in the  future as demand increases and to ensure public safety by having reliable coverage to reach emergency services  – including the fire department, police, ambulance, among others. Verizon’s plan – which the ARB recommended for approval – to mount small cell antennae on existing utility poles  makes sense. It does not make sense to place the equipment underground for several reasons.    Several antenna sites are in the flood plain, which means heavy rain can make radios non‐operational.                                                                                                Placing equipment underground would increase the noise level due to the necessary ventilation systems to keep the  underground radios at working temperatures.    Also, big underground vaults could interfere with private property landscaping and harm trees. I do not want to see our  trees removed in order to place the underground vaults.    Views are already protected under the proposal and attempts to block wireless improvements or force them  underground are both unnecessary and detrimental to public safety, since the Fire Department relies on Verizon  services.    We need improved wireless service and we need it fast and I hope Palo Alto Council members will agree that placing  the equipment underground is not feasible.   Best regards,   Jason Pittman 99 Vista Montana #1517 San Jose Ca, 95134 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:15 AM 11 Carnahan, David From:RoseAnn Freeberg <roseannfreeberg@att.net> Sent:Saturday, May 12, 2018 1:46 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Verizon's cell towers Please overturn the decision to install Verison's first wave of cell towers in our peaceful and beautiful neighborhoods. Thank you, Rose Ann Freeberg City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:15 AM 12 Carnahan, David From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Sunday, May 13, 2018 2:53 PM To:Council, City Cc:UNPaloAlto@gmail.com Subject:wireless infrastruture Dear Councilmembers, Please use all power available to you to ensure that wireless service providers give residents full benefit of information technology with minimal disruption of our community environment, and that they compensate us for use of public rights-of-way. Specifically, please do what you're able to limit the number, noise, and size of new wireless infrastructure, to make it as invisible as possible, and to require that what is visible be as unobtrusive and aesthetically pleasing as possible. At the URL below, a planning official with extensive experience of wireless infrastructure provider/municipal government interactions provides an overview of issues. On the chance that you may find his perspective useful I include it. https://medium.com/@omarmasry/10-key-issues-for-california-cities-counties-on-the-challenges-of-small-cells-not-so-small-c9e966f257a Thank you for considering this request. David Schrom ********** Magic, 1979-2018: thirty-nine years of valuescience leadership *********** Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize it more fully. Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one-time or recurring gifts at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law. THANK YOU! www.ecomagic.org -------- (650) 323-7333 --—----- Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309 ************************************************************************************** City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:37 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Carnahan, David Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 9:41 AM To:Francesca Cc:Council, City; Minor, Beth; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:RE: Appeal of Node 143 within 17PLN-00169 Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1. The reference number is 18-AP-3. Ms. Kautz,    When Council hears appeals of Director's decisions, Appellants and Applicants presentations are part of a public hearing.  Members of appellant or applicant teams are not permitted to speak again during public comment as this would  essentially allow appellants or applicants to extend the time for their presentation.    By agreeing to be part of an appellant team, Ms. Mytels would give up her option to speak during public comment.    David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA  O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org          ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Francesca [mailto:dfkautz@pacbell.net]   Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:56 AM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Minor, Beth  <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Appeal of Node 143 within 17PLN‐00169 Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1. The reference number is 18‐AP‐3.    Dear City of Palo Alto,    Unfortunately, I will not be present on May 21st for the public hearing before City Council, but I have designated Debbie  Mytels to read my statement and rebuttal. She is also planning to speak on her own behalf. Please advise if there are  any problems with this.    Thank you,    Francesca Kautz  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:37 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Carnahan, David Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 9:41 AM To:Amrutha Kattamuri Cc:Council, City; Cervantes, Yolanda; French, Amy; Architectural Review Board; Atkinson, Rebecca; Fleming, Jim; Minor, Beth Subject:RE: Wireless application (17PLN-00169): Time duration for my appeal presentation on May 21st 2018, Monday Ms. Kattamuri,    Participation by Applicants and Appellants at public hearings pertaining to appeals of Director’s decisions occurs in line  with the City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook, available HERE. In particular, see Page 4, Quasi‐ Judicial/Planned Community Hearings.  Given the number of Appellants for this project, the likely public hearing  period will run as follows:  1. Appellant teams – most likely 5 minutes each; 2. Applicant team 10 minutes; 3. Public comment – typically 3 minutes each (members of appellant or applicant teams are not permitted to speak  again during public comment); 4. Appellant team rebuttals – most likely 3 minutes each; and 5. Applicant 3 minutes. It would be most helpful to have any presentations or associated files a few hours before the meeting on May 21.      David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA  O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org      From: Amrutha Kattamuri [mailto:vkattamuri@yahoo.com]   Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:46 AM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review  Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Atkinson, Rebecca  <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fleming, Jim <Jim.Fleming@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cervantes, Yolanda  <Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Wireless application (17PLN‐00169): Time duration for my appeal presentation on May 21st 2018, Monday  Hello All, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:37 PM 3 I am writing this email to get a clear confirmation from the city regarding the allocation of time for me and the subject matter experts that would be speaking on my behalf to present the argument for my appeal on May 21st, 2018. 1. Since the city council agendized the wireless application (17PLN-00169) appeal as a single item. The City Council should instead agendize each appeal as a separate agendized item, since each appellant paid a separate $280 fee to have our (individual) appeals heard with full due process. 2. How many minutes will each appellant/applicant be allotted to give their presentation? Does appellant have freedom to allocate this time to themselves and other own subject matter experts to speak on their behalf? 3. What is the time allotted for presentation for the following: - The appellant: 15 minutes with slide support? - The applicant (for rebuttal): equal time? - Public comments on the agendized item (a variable number at three minutes each)? Since I appear to be the last scheduled appellant, I am afraid that my time to present my appeal will be cut short. Therefore, I am requesting to confirm that my presentation (along with any presentation by my subject matter experts who would be presenting on my behalf) have least 30 minutes, allowing additional time for subsequent Council discussion/questions and related public comments. For most agendized items, I have observed that it goes as follows: - Proponent of project gets 10-30 minute slide presentation/discussion, followed by public comments on the agendized item (2-3 minutes per person x a variable number of people) - Let's assume each appeal gets a 10-minute presentation by the appellant, a 10- minute rebuttal by the applicant, a ten minute discussion by the City Council and ten 3- minute public comments. That's an hour per appeal. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:37 PM 4 - 7 appeals x 1 hour each = 7 hours, which is quite a bit longer than the 2.25 hours currently allotted on 5/21/18 Perhaps it would be better to schedule only 2-3 appeals per City Council meeting. Otherwise, the current time allocation would be disadvantaging my appeal. I will have my own unique arguments using the facts and data already in the public record. I, therefore, need ample amount of time to present my appeal. Thanks, Amrutha City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 7:46 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Paul McGavin <paul.mcgavin@scientists4wiredtech.com> Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 12:17 PM To:Minor, Beth Cc:Kniss, Liz (internal); Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Carnahan, David; Lait, Jonathan; Amrutha Kattamuri; susan downs Subject:Request to Correct Error in May 21, 2018 City Council Agenda May 14, 2018 Ms. Beth Minor <beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org> City Clerk, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2379 cc: Mayor Liz Kniss <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org> Vice Mayor Eric Filseth <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Tom DuBois <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Adrian Fine <adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Karen Holman <karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Lydia Kou <lydia.kou@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Gregory Scharff <greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Greg Tanaka <greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Cory Wolbach <cory.wolbach@cityofpaloalto.org> David Carnahan <david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org> Jonathan Lait <jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org> Dear Ms. Minor, The recent emails, quoted below in Appendix A, from you, David Carnahan and Jonathan Lait are a problem for both the City of Palo Alto and for the residents of Palo Alto because these emails and the 5/21/18 City Council Agenda (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65028) attempt to deny City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 7:46 PM 2 Palo Alto residents their proper due process for their seven separate, independent appeals/complaints against Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169. The residents of Palo Alto and Appellants Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs respectfully request that the City Clerk and the City Council correct this mistake today by revising the May 21, 2018 City Council Agenda . . . 1. To list each separate, independent appeal/complaint as a separate agendized item 2. To schedule no more than three of these separate, independent appeals/complaints in any one City Council meeting . . . in order to balance the due process rights of the appellants and the needs for the City Council to run meetings of reasonable length. Basis for The Reasonable Request The City of Palo Alto has established through transactions in the public record that Palo Alto collected seven separate, independent $280 fees for these seven separate, independent appeals/complaints. Therefore, it is not correct for the City of Palo Alto to attempt to group together these seven separate, independent appeals/complaints for the purpose of applying City Council procedures (D. Specific Requirements and Time Limits --> 4) Quasi-Judicial/ Planned Community Hearings), quoted below, to these appeals as if they were part of one group. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS HANDBOOK https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8258 D. Specific Requirements and Time Limits (emphases in red were added) 2) Other Agenda Items Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker unless additional time is granted by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to less than two minutes if necessary to City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 7:46 PM 3 accommodate a larger number of speakers. 3) Spokesperson for a Group When any group of people wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, the presiding officer will request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council. Spokespersons who are representing a group of five or more people who are present in the Council chambers will be allowed ten minutes and will to the extent practical be called upon ahead of individual speakers. 4) Quasi-Judicial/ Planned Community Hearings In the case of a quasi-judicial/planned community hearing, single applicants and appellants shall be given ten minutes for their opening presentation and three minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed. In the case of a quasi-judicial/planned community hearing for which there are two or more appellants, the time allowed for presentation and rebuttal shall be divided among all appellants, and the total time allowed for all appellants shall be a total of twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed; However, under no circumstances shall an individual appellant be given less than five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. In the event a request is made and the need for additional time is clearly established, the presiding officer shall independently, or may upon advice of the city attorney, grant sufficient additional time to allow an adequate presentation by the applicant or appellant in a hearing required by law. The seven separate, independent appeals/complaints (and the seven, separate, independent receipts for the seven separate, independent payments are in the public record at the City of Palo Alto web site: Project Documents for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 Formal Application https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3999&TargetI City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 7:46 PM 4 D=319 Public Correspondence https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4106 Palo Alto Cluster One Appeals 1. Appeal — Ap-18-2: Herc Kwan, 2490 Louis Rd. (27 pages) 2. Appeal — Ap-18-3: Francesca Kautz, 3324 South Court (8 pages) 3. Appeal — AP-18-4: Christopher Lynn, 2802 Louis Rd. (5 pages) 4. Appeal — AP-18-5: Jeanne Fleming, 2070 Webster St. (20 pages) 5. Appeal — AP-18-6: RK Partharathy, 3409 Kenneth Dr. (12 pages) 6. Appeal — AP-18-7: Russell Targ, 1010 Harriett St. (46 pages) 7. Appeal — AP-18-8: Amrutha Kattamuri, 3189 Berryessa St. (126 pages) The Palo Alto City Clerk and City Council made an error by agendizing seven separate, independent appeals/complaints against 17PLN-00169 appeals as a single agendized item. It is clear that Appeal #7 was jointly signed by Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs, so the City Council procedure "In the case of a quasi-judicial/planned community hearing for which there are two or more appellants, the time allowed for presentation and rebuttal shall be divided among all appellants, and the total time allowed for all appellants shall be a total of twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed;" must apply to this independent appeal/complaint against Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169. Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs paid their $280 to the City of Palo Alto with the understanding that they purchased "twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal", as clearly stated in the procedures manual. Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs are open to making their twenty minutes opening presentation, six minutes of rebuttal, ten minutes for a spokesperson for a group of five public commenters and however many additional independent public commenters wish to speak in support of Appeal #7 against Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169. Note this is a presentation/discussion/rebuttal/public comment period that can range from 36 to 60 minutes or more for this one appeal -- as specified in the PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS HANDBOOK. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 7:46 PM 5 This is why it is impractical to schedule more than three separate, independent appeals/complaints against 17PLN-00169 for any one City Council meeting. Due process truly matters when the City of Palo Alto is attempting to  Significantly damage Palo Alto residents' property values  Force the City of Palo Alto and its residents to take on unnecessary liabilities  Violate Federal ADA and other laws by creating permanent access barriers to residents' own homes and communities  Violate Palo Alto's residents inalienable rights to privacy and safety -- all of which would occur if Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 is approved, as-is - - as clearly explained in the substantial evidence that is already in the Palo Alto public record. We will look forward to your response that will correct this agenda error by the end of the day today. We will address this matter to the City Council in public comment this evening, if this matter is not corrected by the end of the day. Thank you. Appendix A ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com>; Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cervantes, Yolanda <Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018, 7:56:42 AM PDT Subject: RE: RE: FW: Oral Communication | Multiple Appellants Amrutha, Here is the link to Council Procedures. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 7:46 PM 6 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8258 Thanks, B- Beth D. Minor | City Clerk | City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue| Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650- 329-2379 E: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Cervantes, Yolanda <Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fleming, Jim <Jim.Fleming@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018, 9:40:49 AM PDT Subject: RE: Wireless application (17PLN-00169): Time duration for my appeal presentation on May 21st 2018, Monday Ms. Kattamuri, Participation by Applicants and Appellants at public hearings pertaining to appeals of Director’s decisions occurs in line with the City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook, available HERE. In particular, see Page 4, Quasi- Judicial/Planned Community Hearings. Given the number of Appellants for this project, the likely public hearing period will run as follows: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 7:46 PM 7 1. Appellant teams – most likely 5 minutes each; 2. Applicant team 10 minutes; 3. Public comment – typically 3 minutes each (members of appellant or applicant teams are not permitted to speak again during public comment); 4. Appellant team rebuttals – most likely 3 minutes each; and 5. Applicant 3 minutes. It would be most helpful to have any presentations or associated files a few hours before the meeting on May 21. David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA O: 650-329-2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> Cc: Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cervantes, Yolanda <Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018, 2:00:31 PM PDT Subject: RE: FW: Oral Communication | Multiple Appellants Hi Amrutha, Thank you for your email. All of the appeals will be considered at one hearing. Representatives for each of the appeals may speak for a combined total time of five minutes and will have an opportunity for a (combined) three minute rebuttal. The order of the presenters will be to hear from 1. the appellants first, 2. then the applicant, 3. followed by public comments, and 4. ending with rebuttals from appeal representatives and applicant. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 7:46 PM 8 This process is set forth in the city council’s procedures. The mayor has the discretion to adjust these time limits at the meeting. Your five minutes includes your time and anyone you ask to speak on your behalf. Community members not associated with applicant or appellant teams will also be permitted to speak, but generally receive less time than the applicant or appellant. Again, the mayor has discretion to adjust these time limits too. Thank you, Jonathan -- On behalf of Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs, Paul McGavin Scientists For Wired Technology work: 415-382-4040 text: 707-939-5549 skype: paulmcgavin City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2018 8:57 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Paul McGavin <paul.mcgavin@scientists4wiredtech.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 7:19 AM To:Kniss, Liz (internal); Minor, Beth Cc:Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Carnahan, David; Lait, Jonathan; Amrutha Kattamuri; Susan Downs Subject:Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169: "Because We Said So" Is Not a Credible Reason May 15, 2018 Mayor Liz Kniss <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org> Ms. Beth Minor <beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org> City Clerk, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2379 cc: Vice Mayor Eric Filseth <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Tom DuBois <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Adrian Fine <adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Karen Holman <karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Lydia Kou <lydia.kou@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Gregory Scharff <greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Greg Tanaka <greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Cory Wolbach <cory.wolbach@cityofpaloalto.org> David Carnahan <david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org> Jonathan Lait <jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org> Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> Susan Downs <susanrdowns@hotmail.com> Dear Mayor Kniss and City Clerk Minor, Will you please ensure that this email is placed in the public record for for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169? With all due respect, Ms. Minor, we were already quite aware that "numerous people City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2018 8:57 AM 2 stated each appellant group will be given 5 minutes and 3 minutes for rebuttal. The appeal documents have been given to the council members so they are aware of the appeals." I already demonstrated my understanding of that information by quoting the emails from you, David Carnahan and Jonathan Lait in my 5/14/18 email to you. >>> On 5/15/18 Beth Minor wrote: Mr. McGavin, I received your emails and your voice messages. I am in committee meeting until 1:00 PM today. As stated by numerous people each appellant group will be given 5 minutes and 3 minutes for rebuttal. The appeal documents have been given to the council members so they are aware of the appeals. Have a good day, Beth Minor City Clerk It is disappointing that the only statement you have provided for violating Palo Alto's residents due process for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 does not qualify as any credible reason for this due process violation. We are arguing persuasively and with substantial evidence already in the public record that these "numerous people" (all Palo Alto City employees, by the way) are simply wrong and the City of Palo Alto must correct this mistake. We are asking for the Palo Alto City Council members to weigh in on this decision. If you are maintaining that violating Palo Alto residents' due process is not a mistake and it is the City of Palo Alto's intention to continue to do so, then please provide solid analysis and reasons -- not just "because we said so". We have provided the following reasons which are clearly evidenced in the public record: 1. The City of Palo Alto collected a separate $280 fee for each of the seven separate independent appeals, which means that the city cannot cherry pick and have it both ways: collect a separate fee for seven, separate independent City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2018 8:57 AM 3 appeals and the turn around and attempt to treat all of this as one appeal -- effectively violating due process for the Palo Alto residents by limiting their presentation time to defend their own homes. 2. Such a position does not respect the City of Palo Alto's own City Council Policy and Procedures which state ""In the case of a quasi-judicial/planned community hearing for which there are two or more appellants, [myself and fellow Palo Alto resident, Dr. Susan Downs] the time allowed for presentation and rebuttal shall be divided among the appellants, and the total time allowed for the appellants shall be a total of twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed;" We do not and should not accept your "because we said so" reason. We, instead, are respecting the stated rules and democracy. Your statement does neither. Will you please correct the mistake of attempting to misclassify seven separate independent appeals as one appeal. Otherwise, the City of Palo Alto must refund $240 of the $280 for each appeal fee collected. The City of Palo Alto simply cannot have it both ways. What is your position on this, Mayor Kniss? Will you respect the stated Palo Alto City Council Policy and Procedures for each separate, independent appeal of Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169? The Palo Alto residents will not and should not tolerate being railroaded like this regarding the appeal of Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169. Will you please clarify today how you will proceed in granting the time to which Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs are entiteld: " twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal", as stated in the current Palo Alto City Council Policy and Procedures? Thank you. Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2018 8:57 AM 4 On May 15, 2018, at 6:02 AM, Paul McGavin <paul.mcgavin@scientists4wiredtech.com> wrote: - hide quoted text - May 15, 2018 Ms. Beth Minor <beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org> City Clerk, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2379 cc: Mayor Liz Kniss <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org> Vice Mayor Eric Filseth <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Tom DuBois <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Adrian Fine <adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Karen Holman <karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Lydia Kou <lydia.kou@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Gregory Scharff <greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Greg Tanaka <greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Cory Wolbach <cory.wolbach@cityofpaloalto.org> David Carnahan <david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org> Jonathan Lait <jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org> Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> Susan Downs <susanrdowns@hotmail.com> Dear Ms. Minor, I did not receive a response by email from you yesterday or a return call to my two voice mails form yesterday. Will you please call me this morning with a response to my 5/14/18 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2018 8:57 AM 5 email? I can be reached at 415-382-4040. Will you also please ensure that both my 5/14/18 email to you entitled "Request to Correct An Error in the May 21, 2018 City Council Agenda" and this 5/15/18 email entitled "Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169: Will You Please Respond to Our Request to Correct An Error in the May 21, 2018 City Council Agenda?" are both placed in the public record for for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169? Thank you. Transcript of Amrutha Kattamuri's public comment to the Palo Alto City Council on 5/14/18: "Good evening commissioners. My name is Amrutha Kattamuri. I am here to follow up on an email request that was sent to you and the City Clerk around noon today that asked each of you to please correct a serious due process error for the seven separate, independent appeals of Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 -- an 11-Cell tower application for residential zones in Cluster one, the mid- town Neighborhood of Palo Alto. I am a homeowner and I am facing over a $200,000 drop in my home value if the City forces these cell towers into our neighborhood. That is why I need my due process to be protected so that I will have sufficient time to defend my rights and my property from this attack. Specifically, I need the time specified by the PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS HANDBOOK: Section D(4) "In the case of a quasi-judicial/planned community hearing for which there are two or more appellants, [myself and fellow Palo Alto resident, Dr. Susan City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2018 8:57 AM 6 Downs] the time allowed for presentation and rebuttal shall be divided among the appellants, and the total time allowed for the appellants shall be a total of twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed;" This is clearly in this City Council's procedures. The problem is that the City Clerk and/or the City Council are cutting corners on due process. They are attempting to group our separate, independent appeal with six other separate and independent appeals and then cut our time back to five minutes with a three-minute rebuttal. This is not enough time to adequately defend my home. My home that we bought six years ago. Our major life's investment. The solution is simple: 1. List each separate, independent appeal as a separate agendized item 2. Schedule no more than three of these separate, independent appeals in any one City Council meeting in order to balance the due process rights of the appellants and the needs for the City Council to run meetings of reasonable length. That is my reasonable request tonight. I love America for its democracy. I am standing up for my rights. The City of Palo Alto has established through transactions in the public record that Palo Alto collected seven separate, independent $280 fees for these seven separate, independent appeals. There is no basis to list them as one agendized item, solely to limit our time. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2018 8:57 AM 7 Due process truly matters when the City of Palo Alto is attempting to . . .  Significantly damage Palo Alto residents' property values  Force the City of Palo Alto and its residents to take on unnecessary liabilities  Violate Federal ADA and other laws by creating permanent access barriers to residents' own homes and communities  Violate Palo Alto's residents inalienable rights to privacy and safety . . . all of which would occur if this Verizon Wireless application is approved, as-is -- as clearly explained in the substantial evidence that is already in the Palo Alto public record. I will need your help tomorrow to correct this error in the agenda and make sure that Palo Alto is not the place where Democracy goes to die and cell towers metastasize." -- Regards, Paul McGavin Scientists For Wired Technology work: 415-382-4040 text: 707-939-5549 skype: paulmcgavin City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:39 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ann L <annyeawon@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:43 PM To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; French, Amy; Atkinson, Rebecca; Cervantes, Yolanda; Fleming, Jim; City Attorney; Stump, Molly; Yang, Albert Subject:Scientific Studies Show Adverse Health Effects from RF Radiation Exposure Attachments:Pacemaker and defib studies.docx; Pacemakers IEEE Article.docx; EHS Treatment Guidelines 2016.docx Dear City Council, Please consider the attached scientific studies which address adverse health effects, specifically as it relates to people who have pacemakers and other electronic medical devices. The proposed installation of cell towers in residential areas would have potential to inadvertently cause malfunctioning of life-saving medical devices for Palo Alto residents who have them, many who are elderly or otherwise already compromised in their health status. Thank you, Ann Lee MD Parent of Palo Alto elementary school student Rev Environ Health. 2016 Sep 1;31(3):363-97. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. Belyaev I, Dean A, Eger H, Hubmann G, Jandrisovits R, Kern M, Kundi M, Moshammer H, Lercher P, Müller K, Oberfeld G, Ohnsorge P, Pelzmann P, Scheingraber C, Thill R. Abstract Chronic diseases and illnesses associated with non-specific symptoms are on the rise. In addition to chronic stress in social and work environments, physical and chemical exposures at home, at work, and during leisure activities are causal or contributing environmental stressors that deserve attention by the general practitioner as well as by all other members of the health care community. It seems necessary now to take "new exposures" like electromagnetic fields (EMF) into account. Physicians are increasingly confronted with health problems from unidentified causes. Studies, empirical observations, and patient reports clearly indicate interactions between EMF exposure and health problems. Individual susceptibility and environmental factors are frequently neglected. New wireless technologies and applications have been introduced without any certainty about their health effects, raising new challenges for medicine and society. For instance, the issue of so-called non-thermal effects and potential long-term effects of low-dose exposure were scarcely investigated prior to the introduction of these technologies. Common electromagnetic field or EMF sources: Radio-frequency radiation (RF) (3 MHz to 300 GHz) is emitted from radio and TV broadcast antennas, Wi-Fi access points, routers, and clients (e.g. smartphones, tablets), cordless and mobile phones including their base stations, and Bluetooth devices. Extremely low frequency electric (ELF EF) and magnetic fields (ELF MF) (3 Hz to 3 kHz) are emitted from electrical wiring, lamps, and appliances. Very low frequency electric (VLF EF) and magnetic fields (VLF MF) (3 kHz to 3 MHz) are emitted, due to harmonic voltage and current distortions, from electrical wiring, lamps (e.g. compact fluorescent lamps), and electronic devices. On the one hand, there is strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer's disease, and male infertility. On the other hand, the emerging electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is more and more recognized by health authorities, disability administrators and case workers, politicians, as well as courts of law. We recommend treating EHS clinically as part of the group of chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI), but still recognizing that the underlying cause remains the environment. In the beginning, EHS symptoms occur only occasionally, but over time they may increase in frequency and severity. Common EHS symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, a lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms. A comprehensive medical history, which should include all symptoms and their occurrences in spatial and temporal terms and in the context of EMF exposures, is the key to making the diagnosis. The EMF exposure is usually assessed by EMF measurements at home and at work. Certain types of EMF exposure can be assessed by asking about common EMF sources. It is very important to take the individual susceptibility into account. The primary method of treatment should mainly focus on the prevention or reduction of EMF exposure, that is, reducing or eliminating all sources of high EMF exposure at home and at the workplace. The reduction of EMF exposure should also be extended to public spaces such as schools, hospitals, public transport, and libraries to enable persons with EHS an unhindered use (accessibility measure). If a detrimental EMF exposure is reduced sufficiently, the body has a chance to recover and EHS symptoms will be reduced or even disappear. Many examples have shown that such measures can prove effective. To increase the effectiveness of the treatment, the broad range of other environmental factors that contribute to the total body burden should also be addressed. Anything that supports homeostasis will increase a person's resilience against disease and thus against the adverse effects of EMF exposure. There is increasing evidence that EMF exposure has a major impact on the oxidative and nitrosative regulation capacity in affected individuals. This concept also may explain why the level of susceptibility to EMF can change and why the range of symptoms reported in the context of EMF exposures is so large. Based on our current understanding, a treatment approach that minimizes the adverse effects of peroxynitrite - as has been increasingly used in the treatment of multisystem illnesses - works best. This EMF Guideline gives an overview of the current knowledge regarding EMF-related health risks and provides recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment and accessibility measures of EHS to improve and restore individual health outcomes as well as for the development of strategies for prevention. PMID: 27454111 DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2016-0011 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27454111 Cindy Sage, Sage Associates 19 January 2018 Effects of Electromagnetic Interference by Radiofrequency Radiation on Implantable Devices like Pacemakers, Defibrillators and Deep Brain Stimulators. Abstracts from Henry Lai RFR Research Summary, BioInitiative Report Updated 2017, Downloaded January 19, 2018. Altamura G, Toscano S, Gentilucci G, Ammirati F, Castro A, Pandozi C, Santini M, Influence of digital and analogue cellular telephones on implanted pacemakers. Eur Heart J 18(10):1632-4161, 1997. The aim of this study was to find out whether digital and analogue cellular 'phones affect patients with pacemakers. The study comprised continuous ECG monitoring of 200 pacemaker patients. During the monitoring certain conditions caused by interference created by the telephone were looked for: temporary or prolonged pacemaker inhibition; a shift to asynchronous mode caused by electromagnetic interference; an increase in ventricular pacing in dual chamber pacemakers, up to the programmed upper rate. The Global System for Mobile Communications system interfered with pacing 97 times in 43 patients (21.5%). During tests on Total Access of Communication System telephones, there were 60 cases of pacing interference in 35 patients (17.5%). There were 131 interference episodes during ringing vs 26 during the on/off phase; (P < 0.0001); 106 at maximum sensitivity level vs 51 at the 'base' value; P <0.0001). Prolonged pacing inhibition (> 4 s) was seen at the pacemaker 'base' sensing value in six patients using the Global system but in only one patient using Total Access. CONCLUSION: Cellular 'phones may be dangerous for pacemaker patients. However, they can be used safely if patients do not carry the 'phone close to the pacemaker, which is the only place where high risk interference has been observed. Barbaro V, Bartolini P, Donato A, Militello C, Electromagnetic interference of analog cellular telephones with pacemakers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 19(10):1410-1418, 1996. The aim of this study was to verify whether there is a public health risk from the interference of analog cellular telephones with pacemakers. We used a human trunk simulator to reproduce an actual implant, and two cellular telephones working with the TACS (Total Access Communication System) standard. Results showed that the electromagnetic field radiated from the analog cellular telephones interfered with a large number of the pacemakers tested (10/25). When the telephone antenna was in close proximity to the pacemaker head, pacemaker desensitizing and sensitizing and pulse inhibition was detected at the moment of an incoming call and throughout ringing. In the worst case of pulse inhibition, the pacemaker skipped three nonconsecutive beats and then resumed its normal pacing, while the desensitizing and sensitizing phenomena persisted as long as the interfering signal was on. Pulse inhibition was also observed when the connection did not succeed. Maximum sensing threshold variation was about 186% (increase) and 62% (decrease) for Cindy Sage, Sage Associates 19 January 2018 desensitizing and sensitizing phenomena, respectively. It was also demonstrated that the signal emitted by analog cellular telephones during the crossing of contiguous cells could induce pacemaker pulse inhibition, but under our experimental conditions this event did not seem to pose a risk for the pacemaker patient. Bassen HI, Moore HJ, Ruggera PS, Cellular phone interference testing of implantable cardiac defibrillators in vitro. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 21(9):1709-1715, 1998. An in vitro study was undertaken to investigate the potential for cellular telephones to nterfere with representative models of presently used ICDs. Digital cellular phones (DCPs) generate strong, amplitude modulated fields with pulse repetition rates near the physiological range sensed by the ICD as an arrhythmia. DCPs with Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) pulsed amplitude modulation caused the most pronounced effect--high voltage firing or inhibition of pacing output of the ICDs. This electromagnetic interference (EMI) occurred only when the phones were within 2.3- 5.8 cm of the ICD pulse generator that was submerged 0.5 cm in 0.18% saline. ICD performance always reverted to baseline when the cellular phones were removed from the immediate proximity of the ICD. Three models of ICDs were subjected to EMI susceptibility testing using two types of digital phones and one analog cellular phone, each operating at their respective maximum output power. EMI was observed in varying degrees from all DCPs. Inhibition of pacer output occurred in one ICD, and high voltage firing occurred in the two other ICDs, when a TDMA-11 Hz DCP was placed within 2.3 cm of the ICD. For the ICD that was most sensitive to delivering unintended therapy, inhibition followed by firing occurred at distances up to 5.8 cm. When a TDMA-50 Hz phone was placed at the minimum test distance of 2.3 cm, inhibition followed by firing was observed in one of the ICDs. EMI occurred most frequently when the lower portion of the monopole antenna of the cellular phone was placed over the ICD header. Cecil S, Neubauer G, Rauscha F, Stix G, Müller W, Breithuber C, Glanzer M. Possible risks due to exposure of workers and patients with implants by TETRA transmitters. Bioelectromagnetics. 2014 Jan 16. doi: 10.1002/bem.21839. [Epub ahead of print] Several studies have demonstrated that mobile telephones that use different technologies, such as Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM) or Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (UMTS), have the potential to influence the functionality of active electronic implants, including cardiac pacemakers. According to these studies, a few safety measures, such as maintaining minimum distances of 25 cm between implants and transmitters, are sufficient to avoid such effects. Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) has become a well-established communication standard in many countries, including Germany and Austria. TETRA transmitters are typically used by police forces and emergency services. Employees and volunteers working for such institutions are often in close contact with patients, causing TETRA transmitters to potentially have an impact on the functionality of the implants of patients. Therefore, the main focus of our study was to investigate the functionality of several types of implants when exposed to TETRA transmitters. Moreover, we investigated the difference in the degree of exposure of users of TETRA transmitters when they carry the devices in different locations near the body, and when they use them in different positions near the head. Our results show that a Cindy Sage, Sage Associates 19 January 2018 compliance distance of 30 cm between implant and transmitter is sufficient to exclude any influence on the examined implants. All examined exposure conditions demonstrated. Chen WH, Lau CP, Leung SK, Ho DS, Lee IS, Interference of cellular phones with implanted permanent pacemakers. Clin Cardiol 19(11):881-886, 1996. BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Occasional reports have suggested that cellular phones may interfere with permanent pacemakers. Our investigation sought to determine systematically the effects of commercially available cellular phones on the performances of different pacing modes and sensing lead configurations of permanent implanted pacemakers. METHODS: We conducted the study in 29 patients implanted with single- or dual-chamber bipolar rate-adaptive permanent pacemakers (a total of nine different models and six different sensors: minute ventilation, activity sensing using either accelerometer or piezoelectric crystal, QT and oxygen saturation sensing) from four different manufacturers. Three different cellular phones with analog or digital coding with maximum power from 0.6 to 2 W were used to assess the effect of pacemaker interference. Each cellular phone was positioned at (1) above the pacemaker pocket, (2) the ear level ipsilateral to the pacemaker pocket, and (3) the contralateral ear level. Surface electrocardiograms, intracardiac electrograms, and marker channels were recorded where possible during the following maneuvers at each position: (1) calls made by a stationary phone to cellular phone, and (2) calls made from the cellular phone to a stationary phone. A total of eight different pacing modes [DDD(R), VDD(R), AAI(R) and VVI(R)] in both unipolar and bipolar sensing configurations was tested. RESULTS: Interference was demonstrated during cellular phone operation in 74 of 2,418 (3.1%) episodes in eight patients. Three types of interference were observed: inhibition of pacing output, rapid ventricular tracking in DDD(R) or VDD(R) mode, and asynchronous pacing. All were observed only with the cellular phone positioned above the pacemaker pocket. Interference occurred prior to and after the termination of the above the pacemaker pocket. Interference occurred prior to and after the termination of the ringing tone of the cellular ringing tone of the cellular phone in 57% of cases. Cellular phones with either digital or analog technology could cause interference. Unipolar atrial lead was most susceptible to interference (relative frequency of interference: unipolar 1.8%, bipolar 0.4%, p < 0.05; atrial 2.9%, ventricular 1%, p < 0.05). There was no sensor-driven rate acceleration during all tests. In all patients, reprogramming of the sensitivity level successfully prevented cellular phone interference. CONCLUSIONS: Commercially available cellular phones can cause reversible interference to implanted single- or dual-chamber permanent pacemakers. The effect is maximal with high atrial unipolar sensitivity, especially in single pass VDD(R) systems. Both digital and analog cellular phones can lead to interference. Pacemaker interference can occur prior to a warning sign (ringing tone) of the phone and may have significant implications in patient safety. Fetter JG, Ivans V, Benditt DG, Collins J, Digital cellular telephone interaction with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. J Am Coll Cardiol 31(3):623-628, 1998. Cindy Sage, Sage Associates 19 January 2018 OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine, in vivo, whether electromagnetic interference (EMI), generated by North American Digital Communications (NADC)/Time Division Multiple Access-50-Hz (TDMA-50) mobile cellular digital telephone model AT&T 6650, disturbs normal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) operation and to verify these observations in vitro by testing a selection of telephones representing worldwide systems. METHODS: The effects of cellular phone interference on the operation of various models of market-released ICDs from a single manufacturer, Medtronic, Inc., were tested. The in vivo clinical test was undertaken in 41 patients using the AT&T 6650 digital telephone with the NADC/TDMA-50 technology. The in vitro component of the study was examined twofold: 1) antenna generated far field; and 2) analog/digital cellular telephone near field. RESULTS: None of the ICDs tested in 41 patients were affected by oversensing of the EMI field of the cellular telephones during the in vivo study. Therefore, the binomial upper 95% confidence limit for the failure rate of 0% is 7%. The in vitro antenna-generated field testing showed that telephone modulation frequencies used in the international Global System Mobile and TDMA-50 cellular telephone technologies did not result in ICD sensing interference at the predicted electric field intensity. The in vitro near field tests were performed using both analog and digital cellular telephones in service, or in the test mode, and indicated no interaction with normal operation. However, the static magnetic field generated by the cellular telephone placed over the ICD at a distance < or = 0.5 cm will activate the internal reed switch, resulting in temporary suspension of ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation detection. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that TDMA-50 cellular telephones did not interfere with these types of ICDs. However, we recommend that the patient not carry or place the digital cellular telephone within 15 cm (6 in.) of the ICD. Geller L, Thuroczy G, Merkely B. Orv Hetil 142(36):1963-1970, 2001. [Article in Hungarian] Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) of cellular phones and pacemakers (PM) was examined in four different cellular phone system (NMT, GSM, RLL, DCS 1800 MHz) and in fifteen different PM type in-vitro and in-vivo in humans. After more than 1100 in-vitro and 130 in-vivo tests we concluded, that the electromagnetic immunity of the PMs which are implanted in Hungary is suitable with only few exceptions. The highest rate of EMC problems was observed with NMT 450 MHz cellular phones (10.5%-63%). There was no EMC disturbance observed with GSM and DCS 1800 MHz cellular phones. There was only one case when clinically significant symptom was noticed with only one PM type and with NMT system cellular phone when the distance of cellular phone was 3-4 cms, and the power was maximal. There was not any EMC disturbance observed with none of the cellular phone systems during normal talking and when the distance of the PM and cellular phone was more than 20 cms. Our study supports guidelines which suggest that PM patients should contact their physicians when using cellular phones and cellular phones and PMs should not get closer than 20 cms. Grant FH, Schlegel RE, Effects of an increased air gap on the in vitro interaction of wireless phones with cardiac pacemakers. Bioelectromagnetics 21(7):485-490, 2000. Several clinical and laboratory studies have demonstrated electromagnetic interaction between implantable cardiac pacemakers and hand-held wireless phones operated in close proximity. Current FDA and HIMA labeling guidelines indicate that a minimum separation of 6 in (15 cm) should be maintained between a hand-held wireless phone and an implanted pacemaker. This separation requirement does not distinguish between lateral locations on the chest and a perpendicular air gap. Evidence is provided here for a substantially Cindy Sage, Sage Associates 19 January 2018 reduced separation threshold when measured across an air gap rather than near the saline conductive media of a simulated torso. Twenty pacemaker-phone combinations involving 6 pacemakers and 9 phones were evaluated in vitro under worst-case conditions with respect to phone output power and pacemaker sensitivity. The phones represented CDMA, TDMA-11 Hz, TDMA-22 Hz, TDMA- 50 Hz, and TDMA-217 Hz digital wireless technologies. Small increases in the perpendicular air gap between the phone and the saline surface resulted in a dramatic reduction in interaction. Approximately half of the 208 test runs exhibiting interaction at an air gap of 1 cm no longer resulted in interaction when the gap was increased to 2 cm. At a gap of 7.4 cm, the percentage of runs with interaction decreased to 1.4%. The overall interaction rate, considering a total of 8296 test runs from an earlier study, was less than 0.07% at a total perpendicular distance of 8.6 cm from the saline surface to the phone antenna axis. The perpendicular distance threshold of 8.6 cm was significantly less than the horizontal plane projection threshold of 19 cm previously reported. This difference is a function of the electromagnetic field coupling to the saline bath rather than field strength changes along the axis of the phone antenna. The results have implications for those making recommendations to pacemaker patients who may be unaware of this distinction. Grant H, Heirman D, Kuriger G, Ravindran MM. In vitro study of the electromagnetic interaction between wireless phones and an implantable neural stimulator. Bioelectromagnetics. 25(5):356-361, 2004. Several clinical and laboratory studies have demonstrated electromagnetic interaction between implantable medical devices like pacemakers and cell phones being operated in close proximity. Those devices are largely now immune to phone interaction or procedures have been established to limit their interaction. The use of cell phones near people with implanted neural stimulators has not been studied. This research was initiated to investigate electromagnetic interaction between current cell phone technology and specific models of Cyberonics neural stimulators. Out of 1080 test runs conducted for this study, no interactions were observed, and it was concluded that the phone technologies examined in this study did not adversely affect the Cyberonics NeuroStar (Model 102) NeuroCybernetic Prosthesis (NCP) System. This article provides details on the experimental procedure that was used, which can also be used to test other neural stimulators and test technologies, and the results obtained. Hayes DL, Wang PJ, Reynolds DW, Estes M 3rd, Griffith JL, Steffens RA, Carlo GL, Findlay GK, Johnson CM. Interference with cardiac pacemakers by cellular telephones. N Engl J Med 336(21):1473-1479, 1997. BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence suggests that electromagnetic interference may occur between cardiac pacemakers and wireless hand-held (cellular) telephones, posing a potential public health problem. Electromagnetic interference may occur when the pacemaker is exposed to an electromagnetic field generated by the cellular telephone. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, crossover study, we tested 980 patients with cardiac pacemakers with five types of Cindy Sage, Sage Associates 19 January 2018 telephones (one analogue and four digital) to assess the potential for interference. Telephones were tested in a test mode and were programmed to transmit at the maximal power, simulating the worst-case scenario; in addition, one telephone was tested during actual transmission to simulate actual use. Patients were electrocardiographically monitored while the telephones were tested at the ipsilateral ear and in a series of maneuvers directly over the pacemaker. Interference was classified according to the type and clinical significance of the effect. RESULTS: The incidence of any type of interference was 20 percent in the 5533 tests, and the incidence of symptoms was 7.2 percent. The incidence of clinically significant interference was 6.6 percent. There was no clinically significant interference when the telephone was placed in the normal position over the ear. Interference that was definitely clinically significant occurred in only 1.7 percent of tests, and only when the telephone was held over the pacemaker. Interference was more frequent with dual- chamber pacemakers (25.3 percent) than with single-chamber pacemakers (6.8 percent, P<0.001) and more frequent with pacemakers without feed-through filters (28.9 to 55.8 percent) than with those with such filters (0.4 to 0.8 percent, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Cellular telephones can interfere with the function of implanted cardiac pacemakers. However, when telephones are placed over the ear, the normal position, this interference does not pose a health risk. Hofgartner F, Muller T, Sigel H, [Could C- and D-network mobile phones endanger patients with pacemakers]? Dtsch Med Wochenschr 121(20):646-652, 1996. [Article in German] OBJECTIVE: To investigate prospectively the extent of potentially harmful interference of cardiac pacemakers by mobile phones in the C (analog) and D (digital) networks in use in Germany. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 104 patients (54 men, 50 women; mean age 75.8 [40-100] years) with 58 different implanted pacemaker models (43 one-chamber and 15 two-chamber systems) underwent uniform tests at various functional states with three different telephones (D1 portable 8 Watt, D1 Handy model 2 Watt, C Handy model 0.5 Watt). The distances between telephone aerial and pacemaker, as well as reception sensitivity and polarity of the pacemaker were varied. All tests were done during continuous ECG monitoring. RESULTS: 28 different pacemaker types (48.3%) in 43 patients (41.3%) showed interference in the form of pacemaker inhibition and switching to interference frequencies as well as triggering of pacemaker-mediated tachycardias in the DDD mode, as well as in the temperature-regulated frequency-adaptive function. D portables influenced pacemaker function more often and at greater distance than the D Handy model, which was little different from the c network hand phone. Reduction in pacemaker sensitivity as well as switching to bipolar reception only partly eliminated the interference. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with implanted pacemakers should if possible not use mobile phones in the C and D networks. Individual testing with suitable programming of pacemaker sensitivity and polarity can reduce the risk of interference. Irnich W, Tobisch R, [Effect of mobile phone on life-saving and life-sustaining Cindy Sage, Sage Associates 19 January 2018 systems]. Biomed Tech (Berl) 43(6):164-173, 1998. [Article in German] Since the beginning of the nineties there have been warnings not to use mobile phones in the vicinity of medical devices. Functional failures of dialysis machines, respirators and defibrillators prompted the banning of their use in many hospitals in Scandinavia, and then in other countries. Since we believe that a general ban in hospitals is problematic, we decided to investigate the influence of mobile telephone on life-saving and/or life-support systems, with the aim of establishing rules for its use in hospitals. We investigated available phones of varying power of the C-, D- and E- net, as also of a cordless phone meeting the DECT standard. The aim was to identify the devices susceptible to interference and determine the minimum distances at which interference occurred. A total of 224 devices classified into 23 types of devices were examined. Nine different sets of transmission conditions were applied, giving a total of 2016 tests. Our results permit the conclusion that the ban on mobile phones in hospitals is based not on actual events, but on theoretical considerations in the absence of any practical information on the actual susceptibility of devices and their reaction to the electromagnetic fields involved. The fact that hazardous situations are very rare is due firstly to the need for the simultaneous occurrence of four coincidences, and the fail-save feature of medical devices. We would therefore recommend that all life-saving and life-support systems that can also be used outside the hospital should be made mobile phone-proof. When apnoea monitors and respirators are protected from such interference, hazardous situations could be avoided by establishing the rule: "No portables, and mobile phones only at a distance of at least 1 metre from medical devices". With regard to emergency telephones, the minimum distance to medical devices should be at least 1.5 metres. Irnich W, Batz L, Muller R, Tobisch R, electromagnetic interference of pacemakers by mobile phones. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 19(10):1431-1446, 1996. The topic of interference of pacemakers by mobile phones has evoked a surprisingly strong interest, not only in pacemaker patients, but also in the public opinion. The latter is the more surprising, as in the past, the problem of interference has scarcely found the attention that it deserves in the interest of the patient. It was the intention of our investigation to test as many pacemaker models as possible to determine whether incompatibility with mobile phones of different modes may exist, using an in vitro measuring setup. We had access to 231 different models of 20 manufacturers. During the measurements, a pulse generator together with a suitable lead was situated in a 0.9 g/L saline solution, and the antenna of a mobile phone was positioned as close as possible. If the pulse generator was disturbed, the antenna was elevated until interference ceased. The gap in which interference occurred was defined as "maximum interference distance." All three nets existing in Germany, the C-net (450 MHz, analogue), the D-net (900 MHz, digital pulsed), and the E-net (1,800 MHz, digital pulsed) were tested in succession. Out of 231 pulse generator models, 103 pieces corresponding to 44.6% were influenced either by C- or D-net, if both results were totaled. However, this view is misleading as no patient will use C- and D-net phones simultaneously. Separated into C- or D-net interference, the result is 30.7% for C or 34.2% for D, respectively, of all models tested. The susceptible Cindy Sage, Sage Associates 19 January 2018 models represent 18.6% or 27% of today's living patients, respectively. All models were resistant to the E-net. With respect to D-net phones, all pacemakers of six manufacturers proved to be unaffected. Eleven other manufacturers possessed affected and unaffected models as well. A C-net phone only prolonged up to five pacemaker periods within 10 seconds during dialing without substantial impairment to the patient. Bipolar pacemakers are as susceptible as unipolar ones. The following advice for patients and physicians can be derived from our investigations: though 27% of all patients may have problems with D-net phones (not C- or E-net), the application should generally not be questioned. On the contrary, patients with susceptible devices should be advised that a distance of 20 cm is sufficient to guarantee integrity of the pacemaker with respect to hand held phones. Portables, on the other hand, should have a distance of about 0.5 m. Pacemaker patients really suffering from mobile phones are very rare unless the phone is just positioned in the pocket over the pulse generator. The contralateral pocket or the belt position guarantees, in 99% of all patients, undisturbed operation of the pacemaker. A risk analysis reveals that the portion of patients really suffering from mobile phones is about 1 out of 100,000. Nevertheless, it would be desirable in the future if implanting physicians would use only pacemakers with immunity against mobile phones as guaranteed by the manufacturers. Jimenez A, Hernandez Madrid A, Pascual J, Gonzalez Rebollo JM, Fernandez E, Sanchez A, Ortega J, Lozano F, Munoz R, Moro C, [Electromagnetic interference between automatic defibrillators and digital and analog cellular telephones]. Rev Esp Cardiol 51(5):375-382, 1998. [Article in Spanish] BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Functional pacemaker interference by mobile telephones has been described with analogical systems and with possible greater influence, digital systems, including inhibition and inadequate pacing. The influence of both system has not been extensively studied in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied the influence of mobile phones, both digital and analogic network, on the performance of several models of defibrillators, in a standardised test set up designed to provide high sensitivity. The purpose of our study was to establish whether there are any influences on ICD functions, both in in vivo and in in vitro models. Several mobile phones, with different transmission powers, were moved towards the defibrillator and the electrode, under continuous documentation of defibrillator sensing and interrogation afterwards. The experimental model was performed with the aid of an arrhythmia simulator (Intersim) and demo-defibrillators. The tests were repeated both in and out of a solution of saline water with an impedance within normal human limits. RESULTS: Partial loss of telemetry was found in 14 patients, 8 with analogical phones and 6 with digital phones. Fourteen patients showed alterations only on the surface electrocardiogram channel and five on the intracavitary channel. The same results were reproduced in the in vitro model. However, the in vitro test allowed us to simulate multiple ventricular arrhythmias, and demonstrate the normal sensing and functioning of the defibrillator during a "spontaneous" arrhythmia. After testing, we demonstrate that no real oversensing/undersensing was documented in any device. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:44 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ryan Globus <ryanglobus@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 7:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page To the Palo Alto City Council, Regarding the eleven small cell wireless communication antennas on utility poles (agenda item #6 for the May 21, 2018 City Council meeting), I would like to add my support for the antennas. I live in Midtown, and the cell reception is awful at my house. Data is slow and intermittent, and phone calls go in and out. Due to her physical disability, my mother can't go out and socialize or visit her children without assistance. Her phone calls with me and my sister are precious to her, but the terrible reception at my house makes phone calls with my mom difficult. Please approve the installation of the small antennas. Thank you, Ryan Globus Palo Alto Midtown Resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:44 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:maryann.hinden@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 7:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cell tower installation Dear Council,    I would like to voice our family’s support for more cell tower installations.  It is very frustrating to me not to be able to  use my cell phone in various parts of our house because of poor reception.  Anything we can do to improve this would  be welcomed by me and my husband.    Sincerely,  Maryann Hinden  3271 Murray Way   Palo Alto  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:44 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Dave <dave5104@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 6:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Regarding Action Item #6 (Installation of Small Cell Wireless Antennas), May 21, 2018 Meeting Hello, I am writing to you regarding action item #6, the installation of Small Cell Wireless Antennas, in the May 21, 2018 council meeting. I am a resident in the Midtown neighborhood that would be affected by the addition of more wireless coverage, and I support the installation of this new equipment. Current cell service is very poor, and it's difficult to get any reception in certain parts of my household. Service usually switches between 1x and 3G, very rarely getting LTE coverage. I have the latest iPhone, so hardware is not an issue. Please vote yes to install this new equipment. Thank you, David Luciano, Midtown Resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:44 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 11:39 AM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Cell Towers Appeal: United Neighbors' Opening Statement Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice-Mayor Filseth and Council Members DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka and Wolbach. As I understand the rules, United Neighbors—the grass roots group of Palo Alto residents who are appealing former Director Gitelman’s decision to allow Verizon to install equipment on eleven utility poles in the Midtown area—will have only five minutes to make an Opening Statement when City Council hears our appeal next Monday (May 21st). Also, as I understand it, you are authorized to grant appellants more time. As the individual who will be speaking on behalf of United Neighbors, I am writing to request additional time for our Opening Statement. Specifically, I am requesting 15 minutes, rather than five. I am not, however, requesting more time for our Rebuttal, which will be the prescribed three minutes. In making this request, I would like to point out that the Staff Report prepared in defense of former Director Gitelman’s decision is 492 pages long. Surely it is only fair to allow a residents group with a long-standing interest and involvement in this matter 15 minutes to make its case in response. Also, in fairness, I would ask you to take note that it was City Staff who chose to consolidate the seven appeals of Ms. Gitelman’s decision into one hearing. This was not the preference of United Neighbors, and had the appeals not been consolidated, we would have been allotted twenty minutes, not five.   As you know, your decision with respect to this first wave of eleven proposed cell towers is critically important, as it will set the standard for all cell towers in our residential neighborhoods. Right now, Verizon, AT&T and Mobilitie have applied to install or are about to apply to install over 150 cell towers here, most of them next to people’s homes. If these facilities are placed completely above ground, the impact on our community will be felt for generations to come. Surely a project of this magnitude should not be decided in a forum in which a concerned residents group is given only five minutes to explain its position. Hence United Neighbors would appreciate being given 15 minutes to make its Opening Statement to you on May 21st. Thank you for your consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:44 AM 5 Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:44 AM 6 Carnahan, David From:Mary Thomas <mj_thomas_2000@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 8:27 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Verizon Installations Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to request that you overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous equipment on poles just yards from our Palo Alto homes. Verizon's on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto aesthetics, noise and other ordinances. Verizon's claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its equipment ONLY if it locates all equipment, except antenna, underground in flush-to-the ground vaults with no protuberances and none of the equipment exceeds the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto ordinances. Thank you. Mary Thomas 249 Santa Rita Avenue Palo Alto, 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:44 AM 7 Carnahan, David From:Ofer Bruhis <ofer.bruhis@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 8:36 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Cell towers in residential neighborhoods Dear city council We have lived in Palo Alto Midtown for 35 year. We raised 4 children through the Palo Alto school system. Slowly we could see the deterioration of our quality of life. Starting with the jet noise, the traffic changes on Ross road and now the Verizon towers. We are very much against the installation of these devices on the electric poles. We are seriously thinking of selling our home and moving to a less intrusive community. We were forced to provide underground electrical service when we did our home remodel a few years ago. Every modern city moved to underground, yet our back yard looks like a third world country with all the wires hanging from the poles. These poles should be removed and replaced by underground service instead of supporting more devices on them. The Verizon boxes that would be attached to the poles do not comply with aesthetics and noise ordinance. The solution is either to put them underground or not at all. In fact the best solution is install local boxes in homes of Verizon customers. 70% of the users are NOT Verizon customers and are not benefiting from this installation. And the big question, what will happen when ATT, Sprint and T-mobile will want to install their devices? Will we have a forest of antennas? What is really not clear to me, is why Palo Alto agrees to that if so many citizens are against it. Does someone in the system is getting a kick back? Is the City of Palo Alto getting any financial benefit from Verizon? All this does not add up. Best Ofer Bruhis 3272 Bryant St. Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:44 AM 8 Carnahan, David From:Jason Pittman <jason.pittman7@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 8:40 PM To:Atkinson, Rebecca; Council, City Subject:Support for Verizon’s plan to improve wireless service Hi Rebecca Atkinson,  Palo Alto residents need improvements to cellular service to avoid dropped calls, interruptions and data delays in the  future as demand increases and to ensure public safety by having reliable coverage to reach emergency services  – including the fire department, police, ambulance, among others. Verizon’s plan – which the ARB recommended for approval – to mount small cell antennae on existing utility poles  makes sense. It does not make sense to place the equipment underground for several reasons.    Several antenna sites are in the flood plain, which means heavy rain can make radios non‐operational.                                                                                                Placing equipment underground would increase the noise level due to the necessary ventilation systems to keep the  underground radios at working temperatures.    Also, big underground vaults could interfere with private property landscaping and harm trees. I do not want to see our  trees removed in order to place the underground vaults.    Views are already protected under the proposal and attempts to block wireless improvements or force them  underground are both unnecessary and detrimental to public safety, since the Fire Department relies on Verizon  services.    We need improved wireless service and we need it fast and I hope Palo Alto Council members will agree that placing  the equipment underground is not feasible.   Best regards,   Jason Pittman Work Address: 130 Lytton St.  Palo Alto, CA, 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:45 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Peggy Phelan <pphelan@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 7:47 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:May 21 meeting to discuss Verizon cell towers Attachments:anti verizon letter.docx Hello all,  I am unable to attend the meeting to discuss Verizon's land‐grab and cell tower proposal scheduled for May  21.     Please see letter below and attached. (Both are the same). You have permission to forward as appropriate.    To the Clerk, if you are tallying sentiment ‐‐ I know I do not have a formal vote ‐‐ please record this  communication as "vehemently opposed" or the like.    Do not allow this.  Thank you,  PP    Letter:    15 May 2018 I am writing once more to express my FIERCE opposition to Verizon’s attempt to commandeer Palo Alto’s public property for their ambitious corporate agenda. Verizon has a fiduciary duty to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. Verizon does not want to spend one penny more than they are absolutely forced to spend for anything ever. The job of city government is to protect and defend the citizens they serve, to steward the land, and to defend citizens’ interests, not the interests of capitalist corporations such as Verizon. Palo Alto is the home of Stanford University, one of the premier educational institutions in the world. Central to the mission of Stanford, my employer of several decades, is to investigate long term health effects and to advise the public about those results. In the case of the cell towers, the research simply has not been done. There are no reliable studies to indicate whether or not cell towers of any size, towers which are designed to emit and to redirect electromagnetic fields, are safe for humans over the long-term. Why risk the health of Palo Altoans until such studies are done? What is the big rush? Verizon knows that G5 is important and so do most of us. But even more important is the social health and physical well-being of the inhabitants of Palo Alto (human, animal, tree, flower, plant). Verizon has already sewn dissension in the community. The corporate vision is to ram-rod their equipment into thousands of towns and cities for a very low cost relative to the potential profit. As  you may have heard on a recent CBS newscast (January 2018): “More than 230 scientists from 41 nations  — who have published over 2,000 peer‐reviewed papers on electromagnetic fields and biology and health —  have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. They cite “serious concerns” about “increasing exposure  to EMF” based on “numerous recent scientific publications” linking low levels of wireless radiation to health  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:45 AM 2 effects. They’re calling for stronger regulations, disclosure about wireless industry ties to regulatory agencies,  and they want publicly funded studies on the health effects of EMF emitting devices/base stations (i.e. cell  towers).”  I am a mother, a professor, and a long‐time resident of Palo Alto. I absolutely oppose giving/selling/leasing  ANY property to Verizon or any other corporation trying to use our land to increase their profit. I know some  people have suggested burying the cell towers underground but I am not in favor of this either. We simply do  not know what EMF will do to ground water, soil, or the abundant insect and microbiological cultures that  inhabit our land below the street surface. Verizon should be told to keep any more of their cell towers outside  of Palo Alto, above and below ground.  Should the decision be made to allow Verizon to proceed, I will join others in this community in an effort to  investigate and expose the ties, if any, between these policymakers and Verizon.  Yours Sincerely,  Professor P. Phelan       City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2018 1:04 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:we oppose Verizon cell towers in our neighborhoods On May 21 the council will be considering the Palo Alto Planning Department’s decision to allow Verizon to install ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous cell tower equipment on utility poles in residential neighborhoods. We are opposed to the installation of this equipment. Verizon should be required to install all of their equipment, except for the antennas, underground. Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous equipment on poles within a few yards of our homes. Sincerely, Carol and Richard Heermance 208 N California Ave Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Traube <ntraube26@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2018 3:55 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Verizon Cell Towers Dear City Council: Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous equipment on poles within a few yards of our homes. 1. Verizon’s on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances; 2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible; and 3. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the conditions that: a) the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground, in flush-to-the- ground vaults with no protuberances; and b) none of its equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances. Thank you, Nancy Traube City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Dustin Fink <dustinsfink@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 9:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Small Cell Antennas Hello, I am writing to you regarding action item #6, the installation of Small Cell Wireless Antennas, in the May 21, 2018 council meeting. I am a resident in the Midtown neighborhood that would be affected by the addition of more wireless coverage, and I support the installation of this new equipment. Current cell service is very poor, and it's difficult to get any reception in certain parts of my household. I have an LG G5 with sprint, and it has not been an issue outside the immediate area. Please vote yes to install this new equipment. Thank you, Dustin Fink, Midtown Resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:Cindy Russell <cindyleerussell@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 10:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: May 21, 2018 Special Meeting Verizon Cell towers- Dr. Russell Letter Hi Beth: Here is the letter. Could you make sure the City Council received it? Thank you so much!! Cindy ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cindy Russell <cindyleerussell@gmail.com> Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:50 AM Subject: May 21, 2018 Special Meeting Verizon Cell towers- Dr. Russell Letter To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Dear City Clerk: Kindly distribute this to Mayor Kniss and the Palo Alto City Council. Thank you, Cindy Russell, MD To: The Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss and Councilmembers in the City of Palo Alto From: Cindy Russell, MD Re:Verizon Cell Tower Proposal Date: May 15. 2018 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 5 Dear Honorable Mayor Kniss and Councilmembers: I am a physician who has worked through our local Santa Clara County Medical Association and the California Medical Association for many years putting forth resolutions to reduce exposures to toxins, especially those we are exposed to on a regular basis. Learning the connection between environmental toxic exposures and chronic health conditions, which cost trillions of dollars annually, has made me realize how important preventative measures are for a healthy community. I have learned that wireless radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation acts as a toxic exposure to living organisms depending on frequency, distance, length of exposure and pulsation. It is linked to infertility, reproductive harm, neurologic impairment, birth defects, immune system dysfunction and cancer. There are persons who are more vulnerable to harm including pregnant women, children, the elderly and those with chronic illness. The science is sufficiently strong now with epidemiologic studies, basic science research and long term exposure studies converging toward the finding of broad health risks which are not addressed adequately by regulatory authorities or by the telecommunications industry. Liability is also a critical issue. Because of the ubiquity and use of wireless devices the risk to the public is magnified. I am writing to ask that you 1) Deny Verizon’s request for cell towers clusters in Palo Alto and amend your municipal code (Ordinance 5340) to “maintain substantial local control over siting of cell towers” as per Section 332(c)(7) of the City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 6 Telecommunications Act of 1996. You may deny these cell towers in writing and with substantial evidence that there is not a significant gap in coverage. If there was a significant gap found then the telecommunications company must remedy this in the least intrusive way, again as per 1996 Telecommunications Act. There is substantial evidence to oppose these cell towers given by the citizens of Palo Alto in their written appeal. While you may not wish to reject on the grounds of health or environmental effects they never the less are real. You can deny cell towers on other grounds. 2) Revise and amend Palo Alto Wireless Communications Facilities Siting ordinance 5430 and other codes or zoning laws to maximally preserve your land use authority. * Require that a significant gap in coverage be demonstrated * Require that the least intrusive method is used to remedy the situation * Require a 1500 foot setback from homes, schools, day care centers, fire stations (AB57), hospitals. A setback was codified in Long Island. https://toh.li/permits-and-applications/wireless-telecom-ordinance. This considers the evidence of adverse health effects with chronic exposure to cell towers at or closer than 1200 feet. * Do not permit cell towers in residential neighborhoods, only in industrial or commercial zones * Maintain a requirement for undergrounding of accessory antenna equipment * Maintain a requirement for placement of cellular communication equipment that is only currently commercially available not for future unknown technology City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 7 * Require that the telecommunications company have updated broad liability insurance. Example Palos Verde. “The permittee shall assume full liability for damage or injury caused to any property or person by the facility.” …“The permittee shall obtain, pay for and maintain, in full force and effect until the facility approved by the permit is removed in its entirety from the public right-of-way, an insurance policy or policies of public liability insurance. * No Dangerous Condition or Obstruction is Allowed. Example-“No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any public right- of-way, when such installation, use or maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location.” * Shot Clock Notification. Require that the carrier notify the city 20 days before the shot clock ends. Example-P.V. “Notice of Shot Clock Expiration. The city acknowledges there are federal and state shot clocks which may be applicable to a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. That is, federal and state law provide time periods in which the city must approve or deny a proposed wireless telecommunications facility. As such, the applicant is required to provide the city written notice of the expiration of any shot clock, which the applicant shall ensure is received by the city (e.g. overnight mail) no later than twenty (20) days prior to the expiration. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 8 3) Consider other options for providing fast broadband connectivity through an open access fiberoptic broadband network as San Francisco is now doing. There are several cities in the Bay Area doing this. Fiberoptic broadband is a safer, more reliable, more private and a more secure way to deliver high speed broadband to residents. See below. https://www.wired.com/story/san-francisco-municipal-fiber/ Substantial Evidence of Harm: A growing body of science is confirming earlier studies which reveal biological harm from radiofrequency radiation emitted from wireless devices and the antenna that support them. Recent and historical studies can be found at Biointiative Report in addition to MDSafeTech.org and SaferEMR.com, among others. NTP Study Demonstrates Carcinogenic Potential of Cell Phone Radiation The recently completed National Toxicology Program (NTP) Report on Cell Phones and Cancer has confirmed, along with 2 other studies, carcinogenicity from long term non-thermal exposure to this non-ionizing radiation. Positive findings from this 10 year and $25 million study included heart tumors, brain tumors, tumors of the adrenal medulla (near kidney). Their research also showed DNA damage and an unusual pattern of cardiomyopathy or heart damage that they stated appeared to be similar to aging. Compared to controls there was a higher incidence of cancers of the pituitary, prostate, pancreas, liver and lung, although this was not statistically significant. This is consistent with research showing that this City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 9 radiation passes through the body thus can damage internal organs. https://mdsafetech.org/ntp-study-2016/ The NTP study is downplayed in some media but proves the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation, something physicists have denied for decades. Thousands of other studies show DNA damage, sperm damage, ovarian damage, neurological damage, immune system malfunction, stress response. Can Cell Phones Cause Cancer? http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/03/29/can-cellphones-cause-cancer/ Cell towers found to cause blood abnormalities. In a recent study from India, Zothansiama examined abnormalities in blood samples in people living at different distances from cell towers. They identified a significant increase blood cell damage in those living within 80 meters of a cell tower versus those living greater than 300 meters from a cell tower. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. (2017) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28777669 5G Technology: No Safety Testing The new 5G technology uses much higher frequency wavelengths that penetrate the outer layers of the skin and can be hazardous to the eyes, produce heart rate variability and birth defects, depending on the frequency and duration of exposure. There are no long term studies of 5G technology that confirm that this technology is safe. There are studies that indicate harm. Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is a medical condition whereby persons who are in the presence of radiofrequency radiation, even at low levels, experience one or more nonspecific symptoms including headaches, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 10 insomnia, dizziness, fatigue, irritability, heart palpitations. EHS is estimated to occur in about 3% of the population. It is not recognized by most physicians. NASA, however, reported a constellation of EHS symptoms in servicemen who worked with radar. Symptoms were vague and included depression, memory impairment, muscle pain, eyestrain in addition to those listed above. Firemen who work in a fire station with adjacent cell tower have experienced the same symptoms. Performance testing revealed delayed reaction time, lack of impulse control, and cognitive impairment. See below. The Austrian Medical Association has written an extensive white paper on this issue for physicians to help them with diagnosis and treatment of this condition. EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illness. (2016) Belyaev I. Rev Environ Health. 2016 Sep 1;31(3):363-97. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27454111 Firefighters Have Exemptions for Health Reasons People who live near cell towers have reported adverse health symptoms. This has been shown in many studies, even when people are not aware of a nearby cell tower. When the tower is removed the symptoms subside. https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-health-effects/ In 2004 The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) passed a resolution approved by over 80% of firefighters calling for a moratorium on placing cell towers on or adjacent to fire stations. They did this in response to a number of reports in their firefighters of headaches, dizziness, inability to concentrate, insomnia and other neurologic symptoms soon after first responder cell towers were erected on their fire stations. They conducted City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 11 their own pilot study in 2004 and found the firefighters studied had delayed reaction time, lack of impulse control, and difficulty in maintaining mental focus. California’s AB 57 codifies the firefighter exemption. CA AB57 (2015) Legiscan Text of Bill. ” Section 65964.1. (f) Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities. “ Proposed streamlining of cell towers senate bill SB649 also had an exemption for fire fighter stations. SB 649 California (2017) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities – 65964.2. “(a) A small cell shall be a permitted use subject only to a permitting process adopted by a city or county pursuant to subdivision (b) if it satisfies the following requirements: ….(3) The small cell is not located on a fire department facility.” Adverse Biological Effects Are Also Seen in Plants, Trees and Wildlife This study shows damage to trees over time. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Waldmann-Selsam C. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Dec 1;572:554- 569 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552133. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 12 This study looks at harm to ecosystems. Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem—A review. Sivani Saravanamuttu. January 9. 2013. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258521207_Impacts_of_radio_fr equency_electromagnetic_field_RF- EMF_from_cell_phone_towers_and_wireless_devices_on_biosystem_and _ecosystem-A_review This study looks at bird migration. Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Engels, S. Nature. Jan 2014. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7500/abs/nature13290 .html This study addresses effects on bees. Electromagnetism one of the causes of the CCD? A work plan for testing this hypothesis. Marie-Claire Cammaerts. Journal of Behavior. 2 (1): 1006. March 28, 2017. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/Behavior/behavior-2-1006.php This is one of many studies on plant effects. Plant Responses to High Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. A Vian. BioMed Research International. Volume 2016 (2016) https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2016/18302 62/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 13 Current FCC Guidelines Are Obsolete FCC guidelines are based on heating of tissue, basically a cooking standard. They do not consider biological effects seen at much lower non-thermal levels than the safety limits. The FCC guidelines are based on 30 minutes of exposure not chronic exposure from cell towers or smart meters or other wireless devices that are on 24/7. The FCC guidelines also do not take into consideration a host of other toxic exposures we are simultaneously exposed to causing an enhanced synergistic toxic effect. The American Academy of Pediatrics has written to the FCC to ask for reevaluation of safety standards. Over 200 scientists have asked the World Health Organization to update their standards as well. https://emfscientist.org Products We Used to Think Were Safe What products did we think were safe but turned out to be a long term public health problem after many decades of research and illness? Tobacco, asbestos, radiation from X-Rays, bisphenol A (BPA plastic ) in baby bottles, flame retardants in our couches, lead in paints and more. We have much more scientific information now about how radio frequency can cause harm, highlighting the need for precaution. Irreversible transformation of utility poles into “eligible facilities structure” When one antenna is placed on a pole it becomes an eligible facility according to the FCC and this allows more antennas and equipment to be placed on the pole with no recourse for cities. Whose liability Is It and Who Has the Insurance? There is increasing concern from insurance companies that radiofrequency emissions from their telecommunication equipment could be hazardous to humans and the environment and that if litigation were to be successful in the U.S. there could be significant financial losses to the company, let City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 19 Carnahan, David From:Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 7:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Overturn the Decision to Allow Verizon Installation Dear Mayor Kniss and the Honorable Members of the City Council: Over the last 10 months, I have added my voice to the many opposed to the Verizon Cell Tower Installation that will litter our neighborhoods with aesthetically ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment. I wish to remind you again about my stance. In particular, please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install equipment steps away from our doors. I make this plea on the following grounds: 1. Verizon's installations do not comply with Palo Alto's aesthetics, noise, and other ordinances. Let's keep Palo Alto beautiful! 2. Verizon has been making the argument that the company cannot place the equipment underground. This argument is simply false. It has been done elsewhere and can be done here. Verizon seems to not want to do this simply because it is more expensive for the company. We need to keep our neighborhoods in lovely Palo Alto style. We are known for an excellent quality of life. Verizon must contribute its fair share to keep our neighborhoods it this way. 3. If approval is granted to install its towers, Verizon should only be allowed if all equipment except the antenna is underground, and the vaults are flush-to-the ground with no protuberances. Furthermore, none of the Verizon equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto's ordinances. Thank you for your consideration. Please keep Palo Alto a wonderful place to live! Yours truly, Annette Evans Fazzino 663 Lowell Ave City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 20 Carnahan, David From:Bryan Chan <chan_bk@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 11:01 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Cc:Henderson, Todd Subject:Stop the Verizon small cell tower installation Dear Members of the City Council, ARB and Planning Commission, I am a resident in midtown Palo Alto live 600 feet from one of the proposed cell tower installation that was approved by the ARB. First of all, I would like to voice my opposition to this decision which was flawed. How does the Architectural Review Board have the power to decide on the installation of hundreds of pounds of electrical equipment around the city? Shouldn't this be a decision made by the Planning Commission? This isn't really and architectural issue in the first place and thus it make no sense that the final decision should fall under the Architectural Review Board. They make decisions based on aesthetics on a case-by-case basis, which is fine for buildings or homes, but not for citywide deployment of industrial equipment. If this were a decision on installing a nuclear disposal waste site, would it make sense for the ARB to have the final decision on this? Of course not! In addition, on a technical note, Verizon's recently resubmitted plans appears to be incomplete compared with their prior application -- they failed to include detailed specifications of their "new equipment" (weight, size, etc...) and they failed to submit third party structural modelling of the "new equipment" and its impact on the structural integrity of the telephone poles (bending moment, load testing, etc...). Despite this, the ARB still approved the project with their decision based largely on aesthetics rather than true need and this is yet another reason to overturn their decision. In most major cities, the installation of industrial equipment, especially hundreds of cell phone towers, falls under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. According to the Planning Commissions' webpage, their main mission is: "Preparing and making recommendations to the City Council on the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding development, public facilities and transportation in Palo Alto". I believe that the City of Palo Alto Planning Commission needs to have one or more public hearings about small cell tower installations and that this is where the decisions should be made. Specifically, I ask that the City Council overturn this decision by the ARB and then work closely with the Planning Commission to draw up a concrete and comprehensive plan regarding wireless technology deployment in the City. Please remember that this set of initial Verizon small cell towers will be the first of hundreds of such cell towers. We need the comprehensive plan to address if, how and when these towers get installed. Thank you, Bryan City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 21 Carnahan, David From:Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 12:22 PM To:Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City; Architectural Review Board Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Minor, Beth; susan downs; Paul McGavin; Carnahan, David; Atkinson, Rebecca; Cervantes, Yolanda; French, Amy; Clerk, City; Stump, Molly Subject:Re: Need Due Process Respected for Presentation and Rebuttal Time for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 Appeal Hi Mayor Kniss, We have been trying to contact you for the past one week and still waiting for a response from you. Could you please call back and/or email us with your response to our request below. We would really appreciate if you could let us know by the end of the day today so we can prepare our presentations accordingly for our appeal hearing on Monday. May 21st. Thanks, Amrutha From: Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> To: Liz Kniss <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org>; Paul McGavin <paul.mcgavin@scientists4wiredtech.com> Cc: Jonathan Lait <jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ms. Beth Minor <beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org>; susan downs <susanrdowns@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 5:31 PM Subject: Re: Need Due Process Respected for Presentation and Rebuttal Time for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 Appeal Dear All, I just looked at the Agenda and minutes for the upcoming city council meeting on May 21st, Monday. Under HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW, It is stated that "Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken." Does this mean that my co-appellant (Dr. Susan Downs) and I get 26 minutes altogether to present our arguments? A few subject matter experts might also be presenting on our behalf. Could you please confirm this ASAP so that we can prepare accordingly. Thanks, Amrutha On Thursday, May 17, 2018, 10:23:17 AM PDT, Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> wrote: Hello Mayor Kniss, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 22 I am also still trying to schedule an appointment to speak with you about this one-on-one or over the phone, even though I got to request the council for my entitled minutes during oral communications at the City Council meeting that happened on May 14th, Monday. I, therefore kindly request a letter from you stating that you will grant the time to which me (Amrutha Kattamuri) and my co-appellant Dr. Susan Downs are entitled: " twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal", as stated in the current Palo Alto City Council Policy and Procedures. This is an excellent opportunity for building awareness and thoroughly presenting all the data, legalities (Guidance for the city council to oppose this application without any (negative) legal implications) and several other strong arguments on this extremely important topic, which would be beneficial for all of us, as this is a serious public health issue. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank You! Best Regards, Amrutha On Wednesday, May 16, 2018, 4:52:45 PM PDT, Paul McGavin <paul.mcgavin@scientists4wiredtech.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Kniss: I just heard from Jonathon Lait. This decision, apparently, is up to you, Mayor Kniss. City Clerk Minor and Assistant Planning Director Lait said they did not have the authority to make this decision, yet they made the initial erroneous determination to limit these seven independent, separate appeals for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN- 00169 to five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. Mayor Kniss, we are respectfully asking for you to correct this mistake and to provide a rationale for whatever determination you make by close of business on Thu 5/17/18. It is reasonable to have the decision tomorrow because the appellants will need the remaining five days to prepare for either 8 minutes or 26 minutes, which represents quite a difference. Mr. Lait was unwilling to provide a single reason why the City of Palo Alto, which has already accepted seven independent, separate payments of $280 for seven independent, separate appeals would apply paragraph B, below, to Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs' joint appeal and not Paragraph A. Paragraph A: In the case of a quasi-judicial/planned community hearing for which there are two or more appellants, the time allowed for presentation and rebuttal shall be divided among all appellants, and the total time allowed for all appellants City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 23 shall be a total of twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed; Paragraph B: However, under no circumstances shall an individual appellant be given less than five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. This is is simply a matter of reading Palo Alto City Council procedures and applying logic. The payments establish that each appeal is separate. Mr. Lait and the City clerk acknowledge this fact. Once that fact has been established, then it is illogical to apply paragraph B and not apply paragraph A to Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs' joint appeal because there is only one appeal attached to Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs' payment of $280 and that appeal is AP-18-8. If the City is applying paragraph B and not apply paragraph A to Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs' joint appeal then the City is extorting $240 of each $280 appeal fee collected  Treating the 7 separate independent appeals as one appeal means that the one appeal fee should $280 should have been collected (not 7 x $280, which the evidence shows was collected)  $280/7 = $40 the portion shared by each of the seven appeals, if they are treated as one appeal  $280 paid - $40 = $240 refund due per appeal If the City of Palo Alto keeps the $280 fee and subsequently forces appellants of independent, separate appeals to accept only five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal, then due process has been violated. This logic is both clear and unassailable. Mayor Kniss, will you please respond with the granting of " twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed" to Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs' joint appeal (AP-18-8) on the City Council date City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 24 of your choice by specifying the date and responding to this email? Thank you. >>> On 5/16/18, Paul McGavin wrote to Jonathon Lait: May 16, 2018 Hi, Jonathon, I will look forward to speaking with you after you return from your budget meeting later today. You can reach me at 415-382-4040. This is the list of seven separate, independent appeals to the City of Palo Alto regarding Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 as evidenced by seven separate, independent payments collected by the City of Palo Alto (see the images, below). These appeals are currently scheduled for the 5/21/18 City Council meeting. 1. Appeal — Ap-18-2: Herc Kwan, 2490 Louis Rd. (27 pages) -- single signer, appealed one pole, Node #129 2. Appeal — Ap-18-3: Francesca Kautz, 3324 South Court (8 pages) -- single signer, appealed one pole, Node #143 3. Appeal — AP-18-4: Christopher Lynn, 2802 Louis Rd. (5 pages) -- single signer, appealed one pole, Node #130 4. Appeal — AP-18-5: Jeanne Fleming, 2070 Webster St. (20 pages) -- single signer, appealed 11 poles 5. Appeal — AP-18-6: RK Partharathy, 3409 Kenneth Dr. (12 pages) -- single signer, appealed one pole, Node #134 6. Appeal — AP-18-7: Russell Targ, 1010 Harriett St. (46 pages) -- dual signer (Russell Targ & Patricia Targ) appealed 11 poles 7. Appeal — AP-18-8: Amrutha Kattamuri, 3189 Berryessa St. (126 pages) -- dual signer (Amrutha Kattamuri & Susan Downs) appealed 11 poles In Appeal AP-18-8, dually-signing appellants, Amrutha Katamuria and Susan Downs, deserve to have their due process respected by the City of City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 25 Palo Alto by scheduling their separate, independent appeal on a date that can accommodate the full presentation and rebuttal time they are due per the Palo Alto City Council procedures: "twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed" Will you please confirm today in writing that the City of Palo Alto will grant dually-signing appellants, Amrutha Katamuria and Susan Downs "twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed" for the date you so choose? They are open to being assigned to a City Council meeting date other than 5/21/18, in recognition that each City Council meeting must be managed by the mayor to limit its overall duration. Francesca Kautz, we understand, would also benefit from scheduling on another date because she will be out of town on 5/21/18. You can check directly with her. As Russell and Patricia Targ are also dual signers on their appeal (AP-18-7), they may be in the same position Amrutha and Susan Downs are in -- being the appeals requiring the longest presentation times and being appeals scheduled at the end of the list -- making it more likely that the time for these appeals could be cut short by the Mayor, in order to manage overall meeting duration. Please check directly with the Targs about this. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS HANDBOOK https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8258 D. Specific Requirements and Time Limits (emphases in red were added) 2) Other Agenda Items Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker unless additional time is granted by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to less than two minutes if necessary to accommodate a larger number of speakers. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 26 3) Spokesperson for a Group When any group of people wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, the presiding officer will request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council. Spokespersons who are representing a group of five or more people who are present in the Council chambers will be allowed ten minutes and will to the extent practical be called upon ahead of individual speakers. 4) Quasi-Judicial/ Planned Community Hearings In the case of a quasi-judicial/planned community hearing, single applicants and appellants shall be given ten minutes for their opening presentation and three minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed. In the case of a quasi-judicial/planned community hearing for which there are two or more appellants, the time allowed for presentation and rebuttal shall be divided among all appellants, and the total time allowed for all appellants shall be a total of twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed; However, under no circumstances shall an individual appellant be given less than five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. In the event a request is made and the need for additional time is clearly established, the presiding officer shall independently, or may upon advice of the city attorney, grant sufficient additional time to allow an adequate presentation by the applicant or appellant in a hearing required by law. This is the evidence which should secure proper due process for Amurtha's and Susan's dually-signed appeal: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 34 value if the City forces these cell towers into our neighborhood. That is why I need my due process to be protected so that I will have sufficient time to defend my rights and my property from this attack. Specifically, I need the time specified by the PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS HANDBOOK: Section D(4) "In the case of a quasi-judicial/planned community hearing for which there are two or more appellants, [myself and fellow Palo Alto resident, Dr. Susan Downs] the time allowed for presentation and rebuttal shall be divided among the appellants, and the total time allowed for the appellants shall be a total of twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed;" This is clearly in this City Council's procedures. The problem is that the City Clerk and/or the City Council are cutting corners on due process. They are attempting to group our separate, independent appeal with six other separate and independent appeals and then cut our time back to five minutes with a three-minute rebuttal. This is not enough time to adequately defend my home. My home that we bought six years ago. Our major life's investment. The solution is simple: 1. List each separate, independent appeal as a separate agendized item 2. Schedule no more than three of these separate, independent appeals in any one City Council meeting in order to balance the due process rights of the appellants and the needs for the City Council to run meetings of reasonable length. That is my reasonable request tonight. I love America for its democracy. I am standing up for my rights. The City of Palo Alto has established through transactions in the public record that Palo Alto collected seven separate, independent $280 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 35 fees for these seven separate, independent appeals. There is no basis to list them as one agendized item, solely to limit our time. Due process truly matters when the City of Palo Alto is attempting to . . .  Significantly damage Palo Alto residents' property values  Force the City of Palo Alto and its residents to take on unnecessary liabilities  Violate Federal ADA and other laws by creating permanent access barriers to residents' own homes and communities  Violate Palo Alto's residents inalienable rights to privacy and safety . . . all of which would occur if this Verizon Wireless application is approved, as-is -- as clearly explained in the substantial evidence that is already in the Palo Alto public record. I will need your help tomorrow to correct this error in the agenda and make sure that Palo Alto is not the place where Democracy goes to die and cell towers metastasize." I will look forward to your call later today. -- Regards, Paul McGavin -- Regards, Paul McGavin City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 36 Scientists For Wired Technology work: 415-382-4040 text: 707-939-5549 skype: paulmcgavin City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 37 Carnahan, David From:Carnahan, David Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 2:25 PM To:Council, City Cc:Amrutha Kattamuri; susan downs; Lait, Jonathan; Atkinson, Rebecca; Paul McGavin; Kniss, Liz (internal) Subject:RE: 5/21/18 Independent Appeals of the Independent Cell Tower Applications in Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 Good afternoon Council Members,    Find correspondence below relating to Agenda Item Number 6 on Monday’s Council Agenda.    This correspondence is part of the public record for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN‐00169 and will also be retained with  Public Letters to Council.    Thank you,    David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA  O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org      From: Paul McGavin [mailto:paul.mcgavin@scientists4wiredtech.com]   Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 1:32 PM  To: Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com>; susan downs <susanrdowns@hotmail.com>; Lait, Jonathan  <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: 5/21/18 Independent Appeals of the Independent Cell Tower Applications in Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN‐ 00169  Dear Mr. Carnahan and Mayor Kniss. Will you please ensure that this email gets into the public record for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169? We will will bring our PowerPoint presentation loaded onto a USB stick and onto a MacBook Pro laptop, equipped with a mini-display port . We must prepare 20-minute, 10-minute and 5-minute versions of our presentation, since we have still not heard from Mayor Liz Kniss about whether or not she will respect Amrutha Kattamuri's and Susan Down's due process for the Appeal AP- 18-8 at the 5/21/18 City Council hearing. We would appreciate hearing from her by 5:00 pm today, May 18, 2018. It would save us some work over the weekend. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 38 Earlier today, we left Mayor Kniss another voicemail message on her cell phone: 650- 888-8671, asking her to please respond. We also left another message for Jonathon Lait at 650-329-2679. We have heard back from neither. Mayor Kniss, will you please respond by email or return our call by 5:00 pm today? You can reach Amrutha Kattamuri at 408-226-8821 or Paul McGavin at 415-382-4040. From the Palo Alto City Council Procedures Paragraph A: In the case of a quasi-judicial/planned community hearing for which there are two or more appellants, the time allowed for presentation and rebuttal shall be divided among all appellants, and the total time allowed for all appellants shall be a total of twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed; Paragraph B: However, under no circumstances shall an individual appellant be given less than five minutes for presentation and three minutes for rebuttal. >>> On 5/17/18 @ 4520pm, Paul McGavin wrote to Mayor Kniss: It is illogical to apply paragraph B and not apply paragraph A to Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs' joint appeal because there is only one appeal attached to Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs' payment of $280 and that appeal is AP-18-8. Mayor Kniss, will you please respond by granting of "twenty minutes for the opening presentation and six minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed" to Amrutha Kattamuri and Susan Downs' joint appeal (AP-18-8) on the City Council date of your choice by specifying the date and responding to this email? Jonathon Lait made an error by grouping into one agendized item on the 5/21/18 City Council agenda -- seven separate, independent appeals (for which the City of Palo Alto collected seven separate, independent appeal fees from the appellants) regarding 11 separate, independent cell tower applications (for which the applicants paid the City of Palo Alto 11 separate, independent application fees).All of this substantial evidence is in the public record. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 39 By mistakenly grouping these separate, independent business transactions into a single agenda item, the City of Palo Alto is violating the due process rights of the appellants. We are asking the City of Palo Alto to correct this mistake by listing each of the seven separate, independent appeals as seven separate, independent agenda items. Problem solved. In doing so, the City has the ability to scheduled these independent appeals on different dates, ensuring there is no undue time pressures for any one City Council meeting. We are asking for immediate relief from this mistake in the agenda and a solution from Mayor Kniss based on the substantial evidence is in the public record which must take priority over the mistake made by Jonathon Lait when he drafted the agenda. The City Clerk's office just accepting this mistake without any critical thinking or analysis is very disappointing. The stonewalling that we have experienced this week at the hands of City of Palo Alto employees is both discouraging and damaging. We will not allow bureaucratic inertia to steal our rights. We are defending our rights in the appeal process of these unnecessary intrusive, ugly, noisy and hazardous so-called "Small Cell" Cell towers planned for our residential neighborhood. Thank you. >>> On 5/18/18, David Carnahan wrote: Amrutha, See below, please let me know if you have follow‐up questions, David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org From: Amrutha Kattamuri [mailto:vkattamuri@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 12:30 PM To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Paul McGavin <paul.mcgavin@scientists4wiredtech.com> Subject: Mechanics for bringing our presentation slides Hi David, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 40 Please confirm the following ASAP: We are planning to bring our presentation deck for the appeals hearing on Monday, May 21st. Option 1. We can email you our presentation over the weekend. Carnahan: Please email both david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org and beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org, before 3pm on Monday. The presentation would be loaded on the City computer in the Chambers (part of Option 2). Option 2: We can use the city laptop to download and show our presentation at the hearing - before the meeting. How do we secure city laptop? Is there a procedure? Carnahan: The City computer is connected to the Internet and could be used to download the presentation. Alternately, the presentation could be loaded on the City computer via a USB stick or from an email to Beth and myself. With this option, we would appreciate receiving the email by 3pm or a USB stick at the beginning of the meeting. The computer is protected by the City’s internal network security protocols, however, I am not familiar with these details. Option 3: Bring our own laptop with the presentation a. Make sure to bring the presentation saved on a USB stick Carnahan: Thank you, backups are important in case any difficulties arise connecting your laptop. b. We have to make sure to bring a VGA cable Carnahan: No need to bring the cable. The Chambers has a VGA cable that can be connected to the VGA port on your laptop. We have a few adapters, such as a mini-display port to VGA for Apple laptops. Thanks, Amrutha City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 41 -- Regards, Paul McGavin Scientists For Wired Technology work: 415-382-4040 text: 707-939-5549 skype: paulmcgavin City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 42 Carnahan, David From:Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 3:51 PM To:Council, City; Carnahan, David; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City Cc:susan downs; Lait, Jonathan; Atkinson, Rebecca; Paul McGavin; Kniss, Liz (internal) Subject:Studies to be placed into the public record for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 -- Part 1 Hello All, Could you please place this email with the links below into the public record for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169? 1. This recent expose on wireless industry attempts to halt information on health impacts linked to cell phones in The Nation. Mark Dowie is somewhat local - Marin - and I am sure would speak to you if you wanted to ask him about this: https://www.thenation.com/arti cle/how-big-wireless-made-us- think-that-cell-phones-are-saf e-a-special-investigation/ 2. Two major studies have been released in the past few months demonstrating clear links cancer from wireless radiation. One is the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) research demonstrating "clear evidence" of cancer from their study on cell phone radiation, and a study by a respected research institute in Italy - the Ramazzini Institute - replicating cell tower base radiation and finding the same brain and heart tumors as the NTP study - both on rats and mice engineered to be similar to human biology. https://www.scientifi camerican.com/article/new- studies-link-cell-phone- radiation-with-cancer/ 3. Last year, the California Department of Public Health was forced to release guidelines its own scientists had created - but that had been suppressed for seven City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 43 years. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Progr ams/OPA/Pages/NR17- 086.aspx Thanks, Amrutha City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:41 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Debbie Mytels <dmytels@batnet.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 8:51 AM To:Council, City Cc:Kniss, Liz (external); Scharff, Greg; Cory Wolbach; Tom Dubois; Filseth, Eric (external); Greg Tanaka; Holman, Karen (external); Lydia Kou; Adrian Fine; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Christopher Linn Subject:Oppose Cell Phone Transmitters Re: Appeal of Verizon proposed permit for cell equipment at 2802 Louis Road’ Dear Councilmembers, I live at 2824 Louis Road, and one of the proposed Verizon transmitters would be placed outside my bedroom window. However, this issue is not just about individual homes in South Palo Alto. This issue affects our whole community — and we appreciate the Council taking time to hear these appeals. Others have made significant comments about how these transmitters are ugly mechanical intrusions into our green neighborhoods, as well as the potential for injuries and broken roofs if an earthquake were to send this top-heavy equipment collapsing onto our homes. One of the other important concerns — that affects our whole community — is that using our City’s network of utility poles to hold these transmitters will likely preclude further work in undergrounding our utility lines. These ugly and decrepit wires strung across our streets are vulnerable to being knocked down by tree branches in a windstorm, knocking out our electricity and causing fires. While part of the town now has these wires underground, putting the Verizon transmitters atop poles will make it all the more expensive to make improvements that will benefit the whole community. As a multi-billion dollar company, Verizon certainly has the resources to do the right thing by Palo Alto and install its equipment underground, as it has done in other communities. We should not let them get away with treating Palo Alto on the cheap. Moreover, as usual, what happens in Palo Alto can set the standard for other communities. The Council can require that Verizon create a quiet and aesthetically desirable alternative to noisy and ugly pole-topped transmitters. Requiring innovation in their design would ultimately benefit other communities — and Palo Alto (and Verizon) would be seen as leaders. Our neighborhoods do not need to be destroyed in order for Verizon to improve its 5G capacity so that its customers can watch video movies on their cell phones. Not only does Verizon have plans to install over 150 such transmitters throughout Palo Alto — but other cell phone companies will want to follow suit so that they too will have the capacity for their subscribers to watch 5G quality movies on their cell phones while driving around. Verizon should also make sure that its batteries and fans do not exceed noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s noise ordinances. Once these transmitters are installed, the company can increase their size and capacity, just as long as they don’t exceed Federal standards. Increasing the battery size, for example, can increase noise levels. Who wants to live next to a noisy transmitter? Noise, along with the unsightliness, will adversely affect City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:41 AM 2 property values of adjacent homes — will the City Council allow the value of our homes be “taken” by a decision to install this commercial equipment? In short, I join with the appelants, including my next door neighbors, Christopher Linn and Tricia Kellison, in asking you to deny the Verizon permit for 2802 Louis Road, and all the other 11 sites in South Palo Alto. Thank you for your attention to this important concern. Sincerely, Debbie Mytels Debbie Mytels 2824 Louis Road. Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 856-7580 dmytels@batnet.com "Remembering the Future in our Actions Every Day" City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:41 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> on behalf of Barbara Kelly <barbara.kelly@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 12:46 AM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Overturn Decision to Allow Verizon Use of Telephone Polls City Council Members:    Three reasons Verizon should not be allowed access to Palo Alto telephone polls:  Verizon's on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto's aesthetics, noise, and other ordinances.  Verizon's claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible.  Verizon should locate its equipment underground, in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no protuberances, and none of its equipment should exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto's ordinances. Please do not allow Verizon to install ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous equipment on poles within a few yards of our homes. This would be a betrayal of our residential community. My husband and I will not be voting for anyone who betrays this trust. Council members must listen to their constituents. Sincerely, Barbara and Geroge Kelly City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:41 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Paul McGavin <paul.mcgavin@scientists4wiredtech.com> Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 5:36 PM To:Kniss, Liz (internal); Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Minor, Beth Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Carnahan, David; Atkinson, Rebecca; Amrutha Kattamuri; Susan Downs Subject:Substantial Evidence That Proves No Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-0016 May 18, 2018 Mayor Liz Kniss <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org> Ms. Beth Minor <beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org> City Clerk, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2379 Also addressed to: Vice Mayor Eric Filseth <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Tom DuBois <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Adrian Fine <adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Karen Holman <karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Lydia Kou <lydia.kou@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Gregory Scharff <greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Greg Tanaka <greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org> Council Member Cory Wolbach <cory.wolbach@cityofpaloalto.org> cc: Jonathan Lait <jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org> David Carnahan <david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org> Rebecca Atkinson <rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org> Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> Susan Downs <susanrdowns@hotmail.com> Dear Mayor Kniss and other City Council members, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:41 AM 5 Re: Substantial Evidence That Proves No Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-0016 Will you please ensure that this email and the video, 2018-0422 No Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage in Palo Alto, CA: Cluster One (https://youtu.be/DWSz-LLLJwI) gets placed into the public record for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169? On 4/22/18, the residents of Palo Alto visited all 11 locations targeted by Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169, measured the pulsed, data-modulated, peak Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation at each location and completed a call at each location using an iPhone on the Verizon network. In completing this work, the residents of Palo Alto proved there is no Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage per the definition of Significant Gap in Coverage adopted by the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1406360.html) METROPCS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and The Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.Nos. 03-16759, 03- 16760. Decided: March 07, 2005 In addition, we have found no substantial evidence in the public record for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 that proves that a Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage exists anywhere in the mid-Town Palo Alto neighborhood near the 11 locations listed below -- which is the burden of proof needed to be provided by the applicant. Without proof of a significant gap in Verizon coverage, there is no basis for preemption of local authority over the placement, construction and modification of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Accordingly, Palo Alto can and should make the finding that the substantial evidence in the public record for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN- 00169 proves that there is no Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage in the any of the 11 locations targeted by Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169, and therefore all 11 cell towers should be denied. Further, if a Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage had been proven by substantial evidence in the public record provided by the applicant, which it has not, then placing these unnecessary intrusive, ugly and hazardous so-called "Small Cell" Cell towers planned for our residential neighborhood is not the least intrusive means to close City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:41 AM 6 any alleged Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage. These are strong findings that the City of Palo Alto can and should make to deny all 11 applications for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-0016. Substantial Evidence That Proves No Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage . . . In Palo Alto Cluster One: 11 Nodes Proposed for Verizon Wireless Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 (View the video at https://youtu.be/DWSz-LLLJwI ) 1. Node #129 CPAU Pole# 3121 (Near 2490 Louis Road, APN 127- 30-062): 44 µW/m² pulsed, data-modulated, peak Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Video @ 03:10 — Q: "Can you hear us?" A: "As clear as a clear blue sky." 2. Node #130: CPAU Pole #2461 (Near 2802 Louis Road, APN 127- 28-046): 612 µW/m² pulsed, data-modulated, peak Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Video @ 02:14 Q: "Can you hear us?" A: "I have one word for you — phenomenal." 3. Node #131: CPAU Pole #3315 (Near 891 Elbridge Way, APN 127- 26-067): 1,304 µW/m² pulsed, data-modulated, peak Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Video @ 1:05 — Q: "Can you hear us?" A: "I can hear you great." 4. Node #133E: CPAU Pole #2856 (Near 949 Loma Verde, APN 127- 24-020) 6 µW/m² pulsed, data-modulated, peak Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Video @ 5:02 — Q: "Can you hear us?" A: "Yeah, that's super clear." 5. Node #134: CPAU Pole #2964 (Near 3409 Kenneth Dr ., APN 127- 09-028): 250 µW/m² pulsed, data-modulated, peak Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Video @ 09:30 — Q: "Can you hear us?" A: "Yes, you are very clear." 6. Node #135: CPAU Pole # 3610 (Near 795 Stone Ln., APN 127- 47-001): 15 µW/m² pulsed, data-modulated, peak Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Video @ 11:16 — Q: "Can you hear us?" A: "Yeah, this sounds great.." 7. Node #137: CPAU Pole #3351 (Near 3090 Ross Rd., APN 127- 52- 031): 9 µW/m² pulsed, data-modulated, peak Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Video @ 10:26 — Q: "Can you hear us?" A: "Yeah, sounds great." 8. Node #138: CPAU Pole #2479 (Near 836 Colorado Ave., APN 127- 27-063): 13 µW/m² pulsed, data-modulated, peak Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Video @ 04:10 — Q: "Can you hear us?" A: "Cannot be clearer than that.." City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:41 AM 7 9. Node #143: CPAU Pole #3867 (Near 419 El Verano Av e., APN 132 - 15 - 017): 111 µW/m² pulsed, data-modulated, peak Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Video @ 12:16 — Q: "Can you hear us?" A: "Yes it sounds great, again." 10. Node #144: CPAU Pole #1506 (Near 201 Loma Verde Ave., APN 132 - 48 - 015): 190 µW/m² pulsed, data-modulated, peak Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Video @ 08:40 — Q: "Can you hear us?" A: "As beautiful as sunny California." 11. Node #145: CPAU Pole #3288 (Near 737 Loma Verde Ave., APN 127 - 64 - 039): 888 µW/m² pulsed, data-modulated, peak Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation Video @ 07:55 — Q: "Can you hear us?" A: "Has never been this clear. Unbelievable." -- Regards, Paul McGavin Scientists For Wired Technology work: 415-382-4040 text: 707-939-5549 skype: paulmcgavin City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:41 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:33 AM To:Council, City; Carnahan, David; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City Cc:susan downs; Lait, Jonathan; Atkinson, Rebecca; Paul McGavin; Kniss, Liz (internal) Subject:Studies to be placed into the public record for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 -- Part 2 Attachments:BROWN - HONORABLE EDMUND G (1).pdf; Golomb Beatrice Sept 2017 FINAL.pdf; EHS Treatment Guidelines 2016 (1).docx; Pacemaker and defib studies_1.docx; Pacemaker and defib studies_2.docx Hello All, List of studies/videos/articles/data/ attachment of letters and Studies to be placed into the public record for Verizon Wireless Project 17PLN-00169 -- Part2 1. No significant gap in coverage videos – sent to ARB, City Council, City Clerk and Planning Dept on April 30 th 2018 a. 2018-0422 No Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage in Palo Alto, CA: Cluster One https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWSz-LLLJwI&feature=youtu.be b. 2018-0422 No Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage in Palo Alto, CA: Cluster Two https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FN5bV_do3Q&feature=youtu.be 2 . Articles/Videos Sent on March 13th 2018 a. Senator Blumenthal, Representative Eshoo Urge FCC to Enforce Exposure Limits for Those Who Work Near Wireless Towers Senator Blumenthal, Representative Eshoo Urge FCC to Enforce Exposure Limits for Those Who Work Near Wireless Towers Senator Blumenthal, Representative Eshoo Urge FCC to Enforce Exposure Li... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:41 AM 2 Senator Blumenthal, Representative Eshoo Urge FCC to Enforce Exposure Li... b. This is the link to the new and latest study on cell towers (Los Angeles was the study site in the United States) Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor to Environmental Radiofrequency Radiation Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor to Environmental Radiofrequenc... Study finds cell towers are largest contributor to environmental radiofrequency radiation exposure. Cell Phone Towers are Largest Contributor to Environmental Radiofrequenc... Study finds cell towers are largest contributor to environmental radiofrequency radiation exposure. c. CA Dept of Health issues warnings on Cell Phone usage City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:41 AM 3 California health officials release guidelines on cellphone radiation California health officials release guidelines on cellphone radiation State health officials aren't saying that cellphones pose health risks, but "the science is evolving" d. Julie Watts report on cell towers ConsumerWatch: 5G Cellphone Towers Signal Renewed Concerns Over Impacts on Health e. View four speakers from 1:46:38 through 2:01:15 using this slide presentation.View from 2:01:15 through 2:18:00 for Santa Rosa City Council members’ comments. City of Santa Rosa Council Meeting March 6, 2018 City of Santa Rosa Council Meeting March 6, 2018 City meeting agendas, packets, archives, and live stream are always available at https://santa-rosa.legistar.com 3. Intereference with medical devices such as Pace makers, defibrillators studies and Treatment of Electrosensitivity due to City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:41 AM 4 wireless/microwave radiation exposures from cell towers, smart meters, WiFi routers etc. 4. Letters written by a few scientists and Medical Doctors to Governor Brown to Veto SB 649 (to oppose cell towers in residential neighborhoods). Dr. Beatrice Golomb (UC San Diego and other doctors) Right-click download help protecOutlook prautomatic dthi s pi ctu reIn ternet.ConsumerWatch: 5G Cellphone Towers Signal Renewed Concerns Over Impacts ... Wireless carriers are installing millions of towers across the country to enable the new, faster 5G cellphone te... Thanks, Amrutha TO THE HONORABLE EDMUND G. BROWN, JR. FROM EXPERTS WORLDWIDE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 649 September 19, 2017 Dear Gov. Brown: SB 649 is on your desk awaiting your decision, and we respectfully urge a veto. This bill denies citizens and local governments the right to a voice as to where 50,000 or more new cell towers, spaced every two to ten homes, will soon be placed. Telecom will be erecting towers in the rights-of-way, and placing them on utility poles and lampposts in front of our homes, schools, places of worship and businesses. There will be no escaping the cell towers or the radiation emitted from them. SB 649 fails to mandate monitoring of radiation levels from these cell towers at a time when the FCC is closing their regional monitoring offices. A failure to monitor is a failure to regulate. SB 649 has passed through the Senate and Assembly despite opposition from the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose as well as 297 other cities, the Teamsters, AARP, Environmental Working Group, Environmental Health Trust, Communications Workers of America, the League of Cities, California Brain Tumor Association, a host of environmental and justice groups, and leaders of 47 out of 58 California counties. There is a substantial body of evidence that this technology is harmful to humans and the environment. The 5G millimeter wave is known to heat the eyes, skin and testes, and the ubiquitous placement of these towers will expose California’s population 24/7. Of particular concern are the most vulnerable among us -- the unborn, children, the infirm, the elderly and the disabled. It is also expected that populations of bees and birds will drastically decline. Ironically, the strongest among us, the firefighters, received an exemption from SB 649. After years of their stations being targeted for cell tower placement, SPECT brain scan testing among a group of California firefighters revealed abnormalities that included cognitive impairment. This translated to firefighters occasionally getting lost while driving their emergency equipment through the streets in the same town they grew up in. Infertility and miscarriages plagued the department. Perhaps most shocking of all, the cell tower near the station was measured at 1/1000th of the allowed limit set by the FCC. We support the fire station exemption of SB 649. If the firefighters are impaired, we are all at risk. Yet this exemption protects the strongest of the strong and forces the most vulnerable among us to live with the greatest exposure. We find that unacceptable. We also find the health risks both real and deeply concerning. 2 In May 2016 the National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, released partial results of a $25,000,000 study on laboratory animals which showed a link between the RF (wireless) radiation and two types of cancer, prompting the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer to note that the results “mark a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk.’’ The NTP study also found DNA breakage in brain cells, confirming multiple studies dating back to 1994. The NTP study follows the 2011 classification by IARC, the World Health Organization's cancer committee, of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields -- including cell tower radiation -- as possibly carcinogenic to humans. This puts RF radiation in the same category as DDT. Our children are not just our progeny but the future of our state and our country. Keeping them safe must be a priority. Our homes must remain our sanctuaries. We currently have the option to turn wireless off at night, or to not use it at all. With SB 649 there is no "off" switch. Not only will SB 649 tie our hands as parents and private citizens, but this bill usurps ALL local control. In a time that begs for strong compassionate leaders, we are turning to you to reject this bill, and work with independent health and technology experts from around the world to devise a safer solution so that we can stay connected yet protected. Respectfully, Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD Senior Consultant Department of Oncology University Hospital Orebro, Sweden Frank Clegg CEO, Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST), Oakville, Canada Former President, Microsoft Canada Cindy Sage Sage Associates Co-Editor, BioInitiative Reports Montecito, California Martin Blank, PhD Department of Physiology (Ret) Columbia University New York City, New York Anthony B. Miller, MD Professor Emeritus Dalla Lana School of Public Health University of Toronto Canada City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Kelly Germa <kelly.germa@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 1:27 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Cell Phone Tower Special Meeting Hi Council members,    We elected you to protect our interests.  We do not want unsightly and noisy cell phone equipment in Palo Alto.  We  have long‐standing ordinances against this.  Verizon has the money to underground it and they should.  If you have ever  driven around Scottsdale, AZ, there are no wires and it is refreshingly starkly beautiful there.  You can walk and drive  happily through the town and appreciate the flowers, trees, and sky.      You need to promote the same well‐being in Palo Alto.  There is no reason for you to allow these cell phone towers in  our beautiful town.  Verizon is being stopped in NY and other places and you too should stop their aggressive tactics for  their own profit at the expense of your constituents.    Be reasonable and fair to the people who elected you!  You can allow the equipment, but just require it be underground  and not violate the current noise, aesthetics, and other ordinances.  All but the antenna can be put underground and  Verizon has the money to pay for it.      We have owned our house in Midtown on David Avenue for almost 20 years.  We bought it specifically because we think  it is the quietest place in Palo Alto, just far enough from Oregon Expressway and Middlefield to not hear the traffic  noise.  Now you are contemplating allowing ugly pole equipment to be very very close to our house making noise all the  time!  This will drop the value of our house by millions to us and may even force us to move.    Please do not be pushed around by cell phone companies who do not care about quiet enjoyment for residents.  Our  lives are so busy and noisy and stressed that we need our Council to just please protect the peace.  You do not have to  say yes to this and shouldn’t.  Thank you very much.    Kelly and Eric Germa  650‐544‐5711    Sent from my iPad    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Leora Tanjuatco <leora.tanjuatco@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 10:00 AM To:Council, City; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Wireless antennas Hello Palo Alto city council, I'm writing to support the proposed wireless cell antennas throughout Palo Alto. I use my phone for everything, from streaming sports to work emails and conference calls. We can't actually be the center of innovation if our calls keep dropping, right? I've heard that some people want to put the cell antennas underground, which would be more expensive and would probably mean a lot of construction in our neighborhoods. I don't think it's a good idea. Also, what if we have floods? Then our underground cell antennas would mean that we can't stream sports from our phones when we're stuck inside because it's raining! Anyways, please build more cell antennas in Palo Alto. We need them. Thank you for your consideration, Leora Tanjuatco Ross 215 El Verano City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:cell phone towers Council Members:  PLEASE overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install their cell tower equipment throughout Palo Alto’s residential  neighborhoods.    I used to be skeptical of warnings about cell phones. I thought they were spread by luddites and conspiracy  theorists. Then I read this detailed article:    https://www.thenation.com/article/how‐big‐wireless‐made‐us‐think‐that‐cell‐phones‐are‐safe‐a‐special‐investigation/  The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout.  EXCERPT: Like their tobacco and fossil‐fuel brethren, wireless executives have chosen not to publicize what their own  scientists have said about the risks of their products. On the contrary, the industry—in America, Europe, and Asia—has  spent untold millions of dollars in the past 25 years proclaiming that science is on its side, that the critics are quacks, and  that consumers have nothing to fear.   So, what about the cell phone towers?     http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/01/25/consumerwatch‐5g‐cellphone‐towers‐signal‐renewed‐concerns‐over‐ impacts‐on‐health/   EXCERPT: Dr. Gunnar Heuser conducted a study on these firefighters and saw that their brain scans showed cell damage  even from low‐level RF. “We found abnormal brain function in all of the firefighters we examined,” Heuser said.  A California bill put fire stations exempt from cell towers, not because of health concerns, but because firefighters have  a strong lobby!   Don’t residents deserve the same protection?                   Pat Marriott   Palo Alto property owner  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 2:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Verizon Dear City Council,  Why would you even consider allowing Verizon to add more unnecessary infrastructure to our already existing above‐ ground infrastructure messes? You are responsible to protect public health and safety, thus you need to establish and  execute a plan to underground infrastructure everywhere in the city. We need our systems to be running in case of  disaster. Fires, storms, and earthquakes take down poles.     If the appeals about this this offers you an opportunity to re‐establish a plan to underground, please start that process  up again. Everyone deserves a “wireless” environment free from the visual and physical debris of poles and overhead  wires. Without undergrounding, as the city densifies, the demand for more electricity and connectivity will cause our city  to become like Berkeley. Do you find that attractive?    Sincerely,  Cheryl Lilienstein        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 2:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support cellphone towers on street poles in my neighborhood Dear City Council,    I support the installation of additional cellphone equipment atop the existing telephone poles in my neighborhood, and  specifically the one on Loma Verde closest to my home.  Perhaps my cellphone will start to receive calls while I am  indoors!    The proposed design looks good to me.    Did the street poles, with those wooden cross beams and their big electrical transformers ever go through a review by  the ARB?  They are ugly as heck.   The telephone wires from the street pole in my backyard are a visual blight, and don't  get me started on the droopy cable TV infrastructure.  But electrical, telephone, cell phone, and even cable TV  infrastructure are a cost of civilization as we know it, and I can embrace all of these.    Please permit this new, beneficial infrastructure on the tops of our utility poles.    Thank you for your service to the city of Palo Alto, and I hope this item does not go on too long in your meeting.    Robert Neff  Emerson Street (near Loma Verde)  robert@neffs.net      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 6 Carnahan, David From:Lily Huang Liao <lilyhuangliao@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 2:46 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Cell towers in Palo Alto residential neighborhood area Dear Council members, How are you? I am writing to you asking your votes to overturn the Director’s decision of allowing cell towers in residential area. 1. Verizon’s on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances; 2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible; and 3. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the conditions that: a) the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground, in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no protuberances; and b) none of its equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances. Your favourite actions will be greatly appreciated! Best Regards, Lily Huang City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 7 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Beach <stephaniebeach@mac.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 3:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cell Towers in Residential neighborhoods Dear City Council, Please register my full support of installing cell towers and/or equipment in our neighborhoods. For a community that has been the birthplace of Silicon Valley we are woefully behind in digital connectivity and this is a step in the right direction. Thank you. Stephanie Beach Stephanie Beach stephaniebeach@mac.com 854 Clara Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-856-0278 (h) 650-387-9507 (c) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 8 Carnahan, David From:Chris Holt <chholt@att.net> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 3:20 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Verizon   This type of equipment should not be placed in residential streets.  Find more suitable places closer to business districts  and strip shopping centers. Build a sell tower where the Audi dealership is they have dreadful cell reception.  Some  neighborhoods have enough high voltage wires, cable wires which btw the cable companies never remove old cables  when a house is placing their service.    C. Holt  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 9 Carnahan, David From:Ann Bowers <asbowers@noycefdn.org> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 4:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board Subject:over turn the directors decision to allow Verizon to install equipment in residential areas. please overturn the directors decision to allow Version to install equipment in residential areas!!  I live right next to one of those poles . And am not at all happy that you would allow Verizon to install this equipment.  They will gain from putting in more equipment but the residents will not!!      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 10 Carnahan, David From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 5:05 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:please overturn Verizon decision Dear City Council, I’m writing to ask you to overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install small cell towers in Palo Alto neighborhoods. As a resident, I see no added benefit of these towers. Cell coverage is already great and people mostly use wifi (not 4G) in their homes. In addition these towers create problems with aesthetics and noise, not to mention decreasing property values for the homes located near these new antennas (due to public awareness of health effects from cell tower electromagnetic fields). Verizon is claiming that they are unable to put their equipment underground - but this is doable, they just don’t want to spend the money! Verizon’s claims that these additional small towers are necessary are also hard to believe, and the rent they would pay to the city is unreasonably tiny (why?). These proposed towers will have a big negative impact on the quality of life in Palo Alto. I urge you to over turn the decision and to not allow Verizon to proceed with its plans. In addition, I urge the City Council to put in place strong city ordinances to prevent this and similar future proposals from being allowed without long-term planning and safety studies. Other cities have achieved this and we can too. Sincerely, Tina Chow City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 11 Carnahan, David From:Alice Holmes <AHolmes@renault-handley.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 7:53 PM To:Council, City Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Verizon Dear City Council members:    I have written you several times before about the Verizon installation of cell towers in residential neighborhoods.  This is  one last plea to you to overturn the decision made by the FORMER Planning Director to allow Verizon to install their  equipment on utility poles in residential neighborhoods.  Please do not let this decision stand.  We will have to live in the  neighborhoods cluttered with this ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous equipment for a long time…and the person who  made the decision is no longer part of the Palo Alto decision making community.      Act in haste, repent in leisure.  Please spend more time to consider the alternatives and at the very least, to require  Verizon to spend their money to underground the cell equipment to save the visual and auditory serenity of our  neighborhoods.    Please reconsider this Verizon decision.  And let’s go back to the long term plan to underground our utilities to beautify  our neighborhoods…not make them unsightly with this above ground equipment mess started by AT&T and continued  by Verizon.    I hope to attend the meeting tomorrow to show my support for the United Neighbor’s appeal of the decision and to  show you that many citizens of Palo Alto do not support the decision made by the FORMER Planning Director.    Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.    With thanks,    Alice Holmes  Resident of Palo Alto since 1986  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 12 Carnahan, David From:Anne Lum <annelum@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:20 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Vote NO on Verizon Cell Towers Dear City Council, Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous equipment on poles within a few yards of Palo Alto homes. 1. Verizon’s on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances; 2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible; and 3. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the conditions that: a) the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground, in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no protuberances; and b) none of its equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances. Please listen to your constituents and DO NOT allow installations of these intrusive cell towers in our neighborhoods. Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 13 Carnahan, David From:Will Reister <willreister@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:41 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Vote NO on Verizon Cell Towers Dear City Council, Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous equipment on poles within a few yards of Palo Alto homes. 1. Verizon’s on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances; 2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible; and 3. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the conditions that: a) the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground, in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no protuberances; and b) none of its equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances. Please listen to your constituents and DO NOT allow installations of these intrusive cell towers in our neighborhoods. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 14 Carnahan, David From:Evan Lum <evansfacetime@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 10:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vote NO on Verizon Cell Towers Dear City Council, Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous equipment on poles within a few yards of Palo Alto homes. 1. Verizon’s on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances; 2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible; and 3. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the conditions that: a) the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground, in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no protuberances; and b) none of its equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances. Please listen to your constituents and DO NOT allow installations of these intrusive cell towers in our neighborhoods. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 15 Carnahan, David From:Yair Sterental <ysterental@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 10:11 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Vote NO on Verizon Cell Towers Dear City Council, Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous equipment on poles within a few yards of Palo Alto homes. 1. Verizon’s on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances; 2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible; and 3. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the conditions that: a) the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground, in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no protuberances; and b) none of its equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances. Please listen to your constituents and DO NOT allow installations of these intrusive cell towers in our neighborhoods. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 16 Carnahan, David From:Grant Lum <glgrantlum@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 10:34 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Vote NO on Verizon Cell Towers Dear City Council, Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous equipment on poles within a few yards of Palo Alto homes. 1. Verizon’s on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise, and other ordinances; 2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible; and 3. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the conditions that: a) the company locates all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground, in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no protuberances; and b) none of its equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances. Please listen to your constituents and DO NOT allow installations of these intrusive cell towers in our neighborhoods. Sincerely, Grant Lum City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:48 AM 17 Carnahan, David From:Kaitlyn Nakamura <kaitlyn.nakamura.42@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:13 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Vote NO on Verizon Cell Towers Dear City Council, Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous equipment on poles within a few yards of Palo Alto homes. 1. Verizon’s on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances; 2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible; and 3. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the conditions that: a) the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground, in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no protuberances; and b) none of its equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances. Please listen to your constituents and DO NOT allow installations of these intrusive cell towers in our neighborhoods. -- Kaitlyn Nakamura kaitlyn.nakamura.42@gmail.com (650)- 739- 5286 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:49 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Daniel Lacy <daniellacy861@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 10:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Civilian Request Dear City Council, Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous equipment on poles within a few yards of Palo Alto homes. 1. Verizon’s on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances; 2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible; and 3. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the conditions that: a) the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground, in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no protuberances; and b) none of its equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances. Please listen to your constituents and DO NOT allow installations of these intrusive cell towers in our neighborhoods. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:50 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Dan Adams <dan_adams@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 12:39 AM To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City Subject:Fwd: pole-top cell equipment: would you accept one on the corner of your lot? Dear City Council, ARB members, and City Clerk, I understand the former Planning Director's decision regarding Verizon and pole-mounted communications equipment will be discussed again in response to the appeal from United Neighbors. I encourage you to require the communication companies to provide better solutions for our neighborhoods even if the costs are higher to these companies. In particular, the noise from what I presume are the cooling fans in the current installations in our neighborhood disturb the peace and quiet for those who come within 30 or 40 feet of these installations. While the noise is not loud, it is very noticeable, and is particularly annoying during the quiet morning and evening times. Zero-noise systems must be possible and should be required. It wouldn't hurt to eliminate the eye-sore aspects of the pole-mounted systems as well. Regards, Dan Adams 3550 Whitsell Ave Palo Alto ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan Adams <dan_adams@alumni.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:48 PM Subject: pole-top cell equipment: would you accept one on the corner of your lot? To: arb@cityofpaloalto.org, city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Hello members of the ARB and City Council, I understand there is now a proposal to remove the Architectural Review Board from the process of approving the deployment of pole-top cell equipment in Palo Alto neighborhoods. If this is true, it is imperative to add to the approval process some other reviewing body which can represent the interests of those who would have to live, on a daily basis, with the noise, eye-soreness (made-up word, but seemingly appropriate for this issue), and unknown effects of EM radiation from the pole-top equipment. If one of these units was to be deployed on a pole which was on the edge of your lot, would you willingly accept this? Would you be happy to have a new source of white noise always audible on your property, to enjoy when you are sitting out in your yard on a quiet spring day? Instead of accepting more of these things into our neighborhoods, please push the utilities to come up with a solution which is appropriate for use in residential areas. I wrote the following last year and am including this text again, for reference. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:50 AM 2 To the ARP and City Council on Dec 3, 2017: I believe there must be a better way to handle cell reception problems rather than putting noisy, ugly equipment teetering above people's houses and sidewalks. We should push the telecoms to use other means which don't intrude on the neighborhoods. In many of Palo Alto's neighborhoods, the rare moments of wonderful quiet (already rare and sandwiched between traffic noise, airplane noise and other noises) pull us back to a feeling of calm and provides a little break from the energy and bustle of daily routines. The pole-top cell equipment cooling fans seem to run constantly, from what I can tell from the units I run by in our neighborhood. From what I have experienced, the sound is noticeably audible from a distance of about 25 feet. The white noise is certainly audible when walking by, and must also be audible in the yards. It seems likely the noise can be heard in the homes of the properties where the equipment is located, at least if the windows are open. While the sound level probably meets the city noise ordinances in terms of measured dB above ambient, the quality of the sound is very different from quiet ambient noise and so is certainly noise pollution which should be kept out of residential neighborhoods. If you are considering allowing Verizon and others mount these devices on poles, please do this on condition they find a way to use passive cooling rather than fans. Even better, please find other solutions which support cell reception but don't degrade the neighborhood environments. These devices in our neighborhood also look terrible - like a ridiculous, top-heavy, off-balance-and-leaning, patched-up, add-on, ill-considered solution. With our property values and taxes, we should pass some of the cost to the companies and challenge them aggressively to come up with a solution which looks and sound good, not terrible. We in Palo Alto seem to think good products and good design are important. So why not hold the telecom providers to high standards? Regards, Dan Adams and Star Teachout 3550 Whitsell Ave Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:50 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Robert Lum <outrageouslums@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 12:00 AM Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Vote NO on Verizon Cell Towers Dear City Council, Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous equipment on poles within a few yards of Palo Alto homes. 1. Verizon’s on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances; 2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible; and 3. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the conditions that: a) the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground, in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no protuberances; and b) none of its equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances. Please listen to your constituents and DO NOT allow installations of these intrusive cell towers in our neighborhoods. Robert Lum City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 8:51 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Nicholas Forlenza <forlenza1@me.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 8:38 AM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Verizon Cell Towers Dear All,    As tonight’s City Council meeting draws near, I feel compelled to email you, again, regarding the possible installment of  ugly, noisy, and potentially hazardous cell tower equipment in our residential neighborhoods. I am asking you to  overturn this decision based on the following. First of all, these on‐the‐pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto's  aesthetics and ordinances. Second, Verizon’s claims that the equipment cannot be installed underground are simply not  credible. They have successfully vaulted their equipment in other cities and Palo Alto has undergrounded electrical  utilities under the same conditions. Any approval of installation should be granted only if the company locates its  equipment underground, with flush to the ground vaults, and no protuberances except for the antenna. Also, all  equipment should comply with Palo Alto’s  noise ordinances.      Please consider this decision thoughtfully. Any installation of ugly, noisy, and possibly unsafe cell tower equipment on  utility poles, could potentially ruin our beautiful, quiet, and safe city. Thanks for listening.    Sharon Forlenza  2030 Webster Street  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:52 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 2:00 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Cell Towers Greetings Palo Alto City Council, I urge you to put the health of our community before Verizon's cell towers. There are many health issues, with which I hope you all have educated yourselves. I will send some links, one of which is Palo Alto and the decline of property values near these towers. Also if we, the city, is serious about putting the electric wires underground, as we did on Orme St. years ago, will be made impossible when Verizon adds all the other equipment to the poles. Property Values Declining Near Cell Towers Property Values Declining Near Cell Towers When it comes to cell phone towers, there is increasingly the perception that a family does not want to live nex... Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous equipment on poles within a few yards of our homes. 1. Verizon’s on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances; 2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible; and 3. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the conditions that: a) the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground, in flush-to-the- ground vaults with no protuberances; and b) none of its equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances. Verizon's complaint about it being too expensive to put the equipment underground is bogus for a multi million dollar company. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:52 PM 2 "First Do No Harm" Thank You, Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:52 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:rwen1234@gmail.com Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 2:40 PM To:Council, City Cc:City.Cleark@cityofpaloaloto.org; Architectural Review Board Subject:Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install the wireless facility on utility poles Dear Councils;    We are living at 2796 Louis Road, Palo Alto closed to the utility pole #2461 (Node #130) where Verizon planed to install  wireless communication facility. We strongly ask Palo Alto Councils overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install the  equipment on utility poles within Mid‐Town.    1. We strongly oppose to install the wireless equipment in residential area. The hundreds of pounds equipment on  utility pole are potentially safety hazard in emergency cases, for example earthqueak. The fallen higher pole  with antenna can damage the property and hurt residents living in the house. The ugly equipment also makes  noise that damages our green envienment.  2. Palo Alto is gradually undergrounding utility wires. It is our goal for Palo Alto green environment. Verizon’s  claims that it can not underground its equipment are not credible and violate Palo Alto’s ordinances and  goal.  No space around the pole and the pole in flooding zone can not be the reasons to violate and exempt from  Palo Alto’s ordinances. Verizon must comply with Palo Alto’s ordinances to look for other solutions for their  business purposes. If the 11 equipment are allowed to install then hundreds even thousands equipment from  Verizon and other wireless providers will be installed based on various reasons not following Palo Alto’s  ordinances. The Palo Alto’s ordinances becomes no meaning.   3. We ae living in Palo Alto for more than 30 years. We are using Wi‐Fi and cell phone for many years and we do  not have signal problem inside and outside of our house. An AT&T small wireless facility has been installed in the  neighbor block just in 400 feet. We do not understand why Verizon claims the signal issue and install new  equipment again. We do not like to see that our Palo Alto becomes ugly antenna forest if all wireless providers  install their own facilities.    Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install the 11 wireless communication facility within Mid‐town.    Thanks for your consideration.    Regards,    Rushan Wen & Qizhang Chao      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:52 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:Kathleen Martin <kvmartin@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 2:48 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:I oppose the placing of cell towers in residential neighborhoods. To the City Council of the City of Palo Alto, California, and to the City Clerk of the City of Palo Alto, and to the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto, California: I am writing to express to you my opposition to the construction of cell towers in residential neighborhoods, especially in the City of Palo Alto where I live. Thank you, Kathleen Martin City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:36 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Dennis Wilkinson <dennis.m.wilkinson@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 12:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Arastradero street work concern - best use of funds? Dear Councilmembers: I have a 5th, 7th and 9th grader in PAUSD who attend or will attend Terman and Gunn. My middle and high school kids bike to school most every morning on Arastradero Rd. I saw that the city will be installing traffic calming measures along Arastradero at the cost of some $5 to 10 million ($20M is the total for work on Charleston as well, but I do not know the breakout for the Arastradero section alone). Bike and pedestrian safety is an important issue that we should all support. I am sure that 5-10 (or even 20) million dollars could really make a difference. The data below, however, suggest that the currently proposed work is not a good use of these funds to improve safety. Statistics on accidents involving bikes and pedestrians near schools are available publicly at https://tims.berkeley.edu going back to 2007. This includes the stretch of Arastradero between Foothill and El Camino. These are incidents involving "visible injury" or "complaint of pain". Accidents involving bikes/peds along Arastradero between Foothill and El Camino, by year: 2007: 2 total, none severe (or fatal) 2008: 1 total, none severe 2009: 3 total, none severe 2010: 1 total, none severe 2011: 1 total, none severe 2012: 1 total, none severe 2013: 5 total, none severe 2014: 5 total, 1 severe 2015: 3 total, none severe 2016: 2 total, none severe 2017: 3 total, none severe The number of accidents should be compared to the number of car, bike and pedestrian trips along Arastradero, which I estimate conservatively at 3 to 5 million trips per year (that is, 500-900 trips on average per hour for 16 hours per day). The true figure is likely higher than this, as CPA data on road use shows peak usage of ~3700 trips per hour. To summarize: according to UC Berkeley TIMS data, we have had one severe injury accident in the past 10 years involving bikes or pedestrians, and have one to five minor injury accidents per year, out of 3+ million trips per year on Arastradero Rd between Foothill and El Camino. These data suggest that: (1) Arastradero between Gunn and El Camino was always a safe road, especially for a busy arterial; and City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:36 AM 2 (2) Previous traffic calming measures, which reduced the number of lanes, did not reduce the number of bike and pedestrian injury accidents. If anything, there have been more incidents since the roadway was constricted. Personally, I have no concern that my children's safety is particularly at risk along Arastradero between Foothill and El Camino (beyond their normal risk of being on a bike at all). It is concerning, however, that $5-10M is about to be spent when it is dubious, at best, whether it will truly improve conditions in a meaningful way. What of vehicle traffic on Arastradero, which comprises the huge majority of use? (CPA data I saw shows, for example, 3742 trips by car but only 64 by bike and 10 on foot, along Arastradero at Coulombe during peak hour). Concrete medians and bulb-outs will slow vehicles down, but also take them in closer contact with bikes and pedestrians, with less room to maneuver. It will be particularly difficult for trucks and other large vehicles. Frustrated drivers are dangerous drivers, and resort to unconventional ways around bottlenecks. How about, instead of further constricting traffic, we leave more room but better enforce the speed limit? This would cost so much less and, I believe, result in greater safety and efficiency for everyone involved on Arastradero and surrounding neighborhood streets. Please consider postponing the construction in order to study the situation and the best use of funds. Surely, there are places and projects where safety could be more meaningfully improved with this money. Thank you, Dennis City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Art Liberman <art_liberman@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 3:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Prioritize infrastructure projects and do NOT vote to approve Charleston-Arastradero repaving - I would like the Council, at its meeting on May 21st, to not authorize the millions of dollars for the repaving of the Charleston-Arastradero roadway. I am not saying this project is unworthy of taxpayer funding. But this project is one of several major projects that you and previous Council's have voted to approve but for which money was never allocated. And it is now clear that the City of Palo Alto DOES NOT have the funds to pay for all these projects and it is also clear that Palo Alto taxpayers are unwilling to increase their taxes to pay for all of them. Because of the escalation in construction costs, the City has not nearly enough funds to pay for all these projects and move them all forward now. What is sorely needed - and what has not happened - is an open and frank discussion by the Council with citizens to prioritize all these projects [the two parking garages, the public safety building, the bike/pedestrian bridge over the freeway, the continuation of the bicycle infrastructure/traffic calming projects and this roadway reconstruction], given the funds that are available by the City (including grant moneys), understanding that there is a significant funding shortfall. Some people would say this project has been in the works for 15 years - but the arguments for going ahead are not strong. The roadway has been re-striped to reduce traffic lanes and include bicycle lanes, and the pavement is in good condition. Furthermore, the reconstruction will not (according to City reports) reduce the congestion at all. And then there is the rail crossing on Charleston to come (...how are we going to pay for that?), which would involve ripping up up some of Charleston. It makes no sense to approve one project in isolation without viewing it as just one of a collection of projects approved years ago but for which there isn't sufficient funds for all of them now. Maybe Charleston-Arastradero should be done in 3 years or 5 years or when the rail crossing is done. Maybe the Cal Ave garage should be downsized or eliminated. In my opinion, what must be done is to review the entire list of projects, given their costs and the total amount of funds the City has available to pay for them, and prioritize them. Arthur Liberman 751 Chimalus Drive City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Becky Epstein <becky@beckyepstein.com> Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 3:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Charleston-Arastradero Project (May 21 Meeting - Item 7) Dear City Council, I’ve lived in Charleston Meadows for over 20 years. I’m on the corridor about half the time in a car and the other half by bike or on foot. I’m writing to encourage you to approve staff's recommendations for the Charleston-Arastradero project. The remaining safety and road operations improvements are of critical importance to the corridor. Completing the project is more important than ever given anticipated grade separation on top of all the additional housing and commercial space that has been added to the area since 2003 (when Council first directed staff to prepare the corridor plan). For 15 years, the corridor has been the subject of countless meetings and extremely thorough analysis, including paint trials. It’s time to bring closure by approving the required construction contracts. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Respectfully submitted, Becky Epstein City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Lynnie Melena <lynniemelena@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 3:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Approve Charleston-Arastradero Construction Contracts I urge you to approve the construction contracts and final budget adjustments for the Charleston- Arastradero improvement project at your meeting on Monday night. I have been observing this project closely since 2007 (11 of the 15 years it has been in development!). It has been thoroughly vetted, refined, tested and approved by the City Council several times. It is time to take the final step The current configuration makes travel safer for everyone. I am especially impressed by the increase in school commute bicycling since the 1990s when my kids were at Gunn. This project is a showcase for what we mean by "complete streets." As stated in the staff report the advancement of this project is consistent with City policies and previous Council direction and implements one of Council’s Infrastructure Plan projects. Please keep the momentum going and move this project to construction. Thank you. Lynnie Melena City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:William Robinson <williamrobinson@goldenworld.com> Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 2:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Crossing Guard pleads to approve Charleston-Arastradero project I am employed as a School Crossing Guard at Charleston-Alma. Being a Crossing Guard attests to the need to make traffic Calmer. Cycling and walking students need improved pavement and striping to further their safety. Landscaping will improve the beauty of the roadway experience for all modes of transportation furthering the CALM we all deserve. Please vote YES on approving construction to improve Charleston-Arastradero. William’Rob’ Robinson, member PABAC (Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee), Palo Alto  since 2005    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 5 Carnahan, David From:Christy Moision <cmoision@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 11:07 AM To:Council, City Cc:Gaines, Chantal Subject:Support for the Charleston-Arastradero Project Dear City Council Members, I am writing in support of the Charleston-Arastradero project. I hope that you will approve the construction contract and get this long-awaited project finalized. As a major school commute route for students in south Palo Alto, the project’s important safety and roadway benefits must be implemented. Even with the striping trials that have greatly improved safety and comfort for people on bikes, there is still much to do. I try to ride my bike for as many local tasks as possible, and still I avoid the Charleston/El Camino intersection where the bike lane disappears. I’m a fairly confident adult cyclist and this intersection is uncomfortable for me. I can only imagine how the students who travel through it on a daily basis feel. With the finalization of the plan, the areas that will have off-street paths and buffered bike lanes will be a great benefit to students who are now forced to ride on the wrong side of the road in the “land-locked” neighborhoods. It’s clear that giving bikes and cars their own space is a worthwhile safety improvement. As an example, I’m attaching a picture of the Terman/Fletcher bike box in use. The students now have a safe place to wait to cross Arastradero. (And, thank you for this approving this awesome facility!) I know there are concerns from drivers that the finalization of the plan will slow down traffic, but to the contrary, the new adaptive signal system and additional space for cars at some intersections will help move everyone along more smoothly. Additionally, this corridor is crucial for the coming grade separation at the rail crossing. I urge you to approve the construction contract. Thank you, Christy Moision Louis Road Resident Fairmeadow Safe Routes to School Champion City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 6 -- Christy Moision 626-390-0343 (cell) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 7 Carnahan, David From:Todd Sachs <todd.sachs@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 11:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:writing in support of the charleston/arastradero project Hello, I understand there will be a meeting on the 21st to approve the construction contract. I won't be able to attend the meeting, but I wanted to lend my voice in support of the project. I have been a participant in many of the planning meetings and public hearings over the past 15 years. I live on Charleston and obviously have a vested interest in this project. The people working on it for the city have been responsive over this time, and several times have incorporated my feedback into the designs. I would say that the trial has been a big success, and now it is certainly time to construct the permanent solution as it was envisioned. My kids bike down the corridor to school every day, and I look forward to a time when they will have protected bike lanes the whole way. I also look forward to a time when crossing the street at louis does not involve putting your life at risk. I'm a big supporter of this project and the people who have worked on it, and I urge you to take this last step of approving the construction contract! Thanks Todd (787 East Charleston Road) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 8 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Krop <nancy@kroplaw.com> Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 11:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:Approve the Charleston-Arastradero Contract Dear Palo Alto City Council, Please approve the Charleston-Arastradeo construction contract at your Monday May 21 City Council meeting (agenda item 7). The concept plan for this project was approved in 2003, and has gone through multiple phases of study. It’s time to complete the project. Approve the contract to place the safety of our children first. Charleston-Arastradero serves eleven public and private K-12 schools. As a parent of a school-age child biking in this area, I urge you to approve this contract to improve the safety of our children biking and walking to school in this area. I drive that road near daily. Drivers still race down it at 35 mph, and are furious at drivers like me (driving within the speed limit). With all the children biking along the Charleston-Arastradero corridor, anything YOU can do to slow the traffic and make it a safer road for our young students is fantastic. I also see middle school students biking down the wrong-side of Arastradero towards Terman in the morning because there’s no safe way for them to cross to the correct side. Seeing children biking in a bike lane, straight at cars driving 35 mph towards them, is truly a terrifying sight. I encourage any of you to go out there and see it. You would immediately vote to approve this contract. Unfortunately, I will probably miss the May 21 meeting (and so not be there to address you in-person) because my child is performing in a school performance that night. Many thanks for considering my input and voting to approve the Charleston-Arastradero contract. Nancy Krop Barron Park neighborhood, Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 9 Carnahan, David From:Edith Miller <miller1505@aol.com> Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 9:42 AM To:Council, City Subject:Arastradero Road Please DO NOT build anything solid in the middle of Arastradero Road. I walk there every morning and afternoon and I very ofter see emergency vehicles hurrying to save someone. Auto and bike traffic (heavy at times) always moves to the right as required which means that the only passable space is the center of the road. This must be kept open or lives will be lost. Thank you Edith Miller 4226 McKellarLane Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 10 Carnahan, David From:Ronald Pyszka <ron.pyszka@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston-Arastradero Final Contract I would like to thank the current and past City Councils for supporting the safety improvements to the Charleston‐ Arastradero corridor.    My wife and I have lived on East Charleston for more than 40 years.  When Charleston was a four‐lane road, speeding  was a major problem.  I can remember cars traveling in excess of 50 or 60 miles an hour.  I can only imagine how bad the  situation would be today if Charleston were still a four‐lane road.    Many years of planning and community input have gone into this project.  I personally have attended almost all of the   city council meetings and community input meetings associated with the project.      As home owners on East Charleston, we are completely happy with the current plans even though they do involve some  inconvenience for us.     As a former bicyclist, I know how much this project will enhance bicycle safety along the Charleston‐Arastraderoschool  corridor.      Please approve the paving contract.  This project has been a long time coming.  Let’s get on with it.    Thank you very much.    Ronald H. Pyszka  284 East Charleston Road    650‐796‐2659  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:13 PM 11 Carnahan, David From:Gloria Pyszka <gpyszka@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston Arastadero Corridor Agenda May 21 My husband and I have lived on East Charleston for many years. The reduction to two lanes has improved bike safety and reduced speeding. When Charleston was a 4-lane street, we witnessed excessive speeding and fewer bikes. Today, increasing numbers of students use bikes. Charleston/Arastadero are residential streets with additional complexities - 7 or 8 schools, plus increasing numbers of cars using Charleston/Arastadero as a cross-over between 280 and 101. It gets worse by the day. Bicyclists and increasing traffic do not mix. Two lane implementation makes the most sense. A dedicated left turn lane is absolutely needed at the Fabian/Charleston intersection. We have supported this project for many years. We are happy with the final plans and urge the City Council to move ahead and award the construction contract as currently outlined. Gloria Pyszka Esat Charleston City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:39 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Gloria Pyszka <gpyszka@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, May 19, 2018 4:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Monday"s (5/21) City Council Meeting on Arastadero/Charleston Corridor I am writing in advance of Monday's meeting on the A/C Corridor. We have lived at 284 East Charleston for 44 years and have watched the huge traffic increases. 1. We all have to make concessions over the corridor issue. For example, we cannot turn left out of our driveway toward Alma becaise of double yellow lines. Instead, we have to drive down to Carlson, then make a u-turn. If we approach our house from Middlefield going toward Alma, we must turn left onto Mumford, make a u-turn and then access our driveway. Are we complaining? No, because we understand that the project's success has many more pluses than minuses 2. There are more bikes on the road than ever before. While some of them are the spandex riders making longer commutes, the majority are students biking to several of the 11 schools, K-12 in this corridor. 3. Speeding traffic has to be reduced. Cars can drive at speeds up to 50 mph on East Charleston between Alma and the light on Carlson. You don't have to see them because you can hear the motors accelerate. This is especially bad during non-peak hours. 4. Railway/road separation - cross town traffic will not level off. It probably will even double once the railroad is no longer a distraction. The Alma/Charleston intersection is congested. A stop light is required. 5. Finally, Charleston must not become another Oregon Expressway-type thoroughfare, despite the fact that residents and non- residents alike, want another quick route across town. Thank you for giving this agenda item the serious consideration that it deserves. Gloria Pyszka East Charleston Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:39 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Maximilian Goetz <max.wz.goetz@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 19, 2018 7:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:Betty Lum Subject:Please Approve the Arastradero Road Improvements Honorable Members of City Council, My name is Maximilian Goetz and I am a 10th grader at Henry M. Gunn High School. You may have heard of me through my internship with Councilman Tanaka and my work on the Palo Alto Youth Council. But today, I am writing as a citizen of Palo Alto, one who will be voting in 2020. I encourage you to approve the Arastradero Road Improvements this Monday. I bike on Arastradero Road every day on my way to school. I find that is significantly safer than Maybell Avenue, which is far too narrow for cars to drive alongside bikes. While I am glad that the route has improved over the past years, there is still a lot of room for additional safety measures. The road the main thoroughfare for students attending Gunn High School, Terman Middle School, Bowman School, and Hoover Elementary. Students from JLS Middle School, Farimeadow Elementary School, and Juana Briones Elementary School also routinely use this route. Many of the cyclists who bike this route on a regular basis are young and inexperienced bikers. We must prioritize the safety of these bikers. I see the following problems with the current arrangement on Arastradero, all of which will be solved by the new improvements. 1. Speeding cars. When looking at the roadside speedometer on eastbound Arastradero, I consistently see cars drive 35 miles per hour. This is extremely unsafe, given that these automobiles are driving directly alongside bikers, many of which bike at speeds of under ten miles per hour. In addition, inexperienced cyclists often make unpredictable moves, which can force drivers to brake suddenly (I have witnessed it myself). The chance of survival for bikers increases exponentially for slower-moving cars. Adding permanent barriers in the center of the street will subconsciously make these drivers drive slower, therefore making the road safer for all. 2. There is no bike lane on Arastradero when crossing El Camino Real. This forces bikers to either bike on the sidewalk, or bike in the car lane. While the latter is what is legal by law, most bikers feel uncomfortable merging into a lane of cars moving at 25+ miles per hour. Biking on the sidewalk is unsafe as well, and illegal by law, but it is what many bikers are forced into doing. As a part of the new improvements, there will be a bike lane across El Camino, dramatically increasing the safety for bikers. Many constituents will cite the following arguments as reasons against the project. I have the following responses to their arguments. 1. The project is a waste of money. While I understand that the city is in debt, the safety of students must be a priority. Other spending can be cut, such as the recently passed $2 million council chambers renovations project. Student safety should be more important than the beautification of council chambers. Additionally, many people who complain about the costs live in Los Altos Hills, so why should they care about cost? 2. More accidents happened after Arastradero was narrowed to two lanes. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:39 AM 3 This data fails to consider that there were also more bikers on the road after the road got narrowed. Additionally, many of the bikers that now ride on the road are younger, less experienced bikers, who are statistically proven to be more prone to incidents. 3. There is already enough congestion on Arastradero. My commute is steadily getting longer and longer. The improvements will only make it worse. There are many other roads where cars can drive on, such as Page Mill Road and San Antonio Road. Those roads do not directly have schools on them. Student safety should be more important than someone saving a couple minutes off of their commute. In conclusion, the safety of bikers ought to be considered as the top impact in this issue. By voting for this proposal, you are voting for a safer commute for the many bikers on this road, and the pedestrians who routinely walk this route. As someone who uses the road everyday, and has seen many close misses, I can assure you that the new improvements are a step in the right direction. There are many Los Altos Hills residents against this project, but the opinions of Palo Altans must come first. Thank you very much for your consideration. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to let me know. I appreciate your dedication to making the City of Palo Alto a better place for all residents. Best Regards, Maximilian Goetz (Max) Palo Alto Orchards City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:39 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Sonya Bradski <sonyangary@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 19, 2018 9:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Request Approval of the Charleston/Arastradero Contract on Monday Dear Palo Alto City Council, Please approve the Charleston/Arastradero contract to install the hardscape safety and operations improvements. I currently have two children in PAUSD. My daughters bike to Gunn everyday. After Arastradero was re stripped, the highest speeds reduced somewhat, but the final safety improvements are still needed. We are a big bicycle family. My husband bikes to work eastbound on Charleston from Greenmeadow toward Mountain View. The planned signal and hard scape changes, especially at Middlefield and at Fabian, will help make his commute safer. My daughters will like the new cycle tracks. The median and signal improvements at Nelson will help everyone in our neighborhood enter and exit more safely and efficiently when walking bicycling or driving. We really need bike lines through the El Camino intersection. That intersection is VERY challenging, even for skilled bike riders. This road connects our neighborhood to the rest of the city. The final project with the new signals and built turning pockets will make traffic flow better (and more safely) for everybody who drives, walks and bikes. Please approve the construction contracts on Monday. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sonya Bradski 4082 Nelson Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:40 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Eric Nordman <eric.nordman12@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 8:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please complete Charleston Arastradero improvements Attachments:20180520_Charleston Arastradero letter.docx May 20, 2018 Dear Palo Alto Council Members I am writing to urge the Council to approve the Charleston/Arastradero Construction. This project has been in the works for over a decade. On March 19, 2015 I attended community meeting #4 on the Charleston/Arastradero corridor. I was also present when the plan lines were presented to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) on February 3, 2015. In February, some PABAC members, including myself, had some concerns about a few of the details of the plan. In the March meeting I found that most of the issues raised by PABAC members had been addressed. The train tracks crossing is still a difficulty but I didn’t have a better solution. The community meeting was well attended but many if not most of the verbal questions/comments were about growth in Palo Alto rather than the merits of the proposed changes. Others were from people concerned about some loss of convenience. When I read the comments people had written on the plan lines I was struck by a contrast. There were lots of comments like this improvement would make it safer for my kids to cross safely to school. The city staff and consultants have done an excellent job with a very challenging corridor. Charleston/Arastradero is a critical east/west corridor with many schools, parks and community centers. The 2012 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan showed a high concentration of bicycle and pedestrian collisions. The safety improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians are significant and I strongly support completing the improvements as soon as possible. Eric Nordman 2018 PABAC chair May 20, 2018 Dear Palo Alto Council Members I am writing to urge the Council to approve the Charleston/Arastradero Construction. This project has been in the works for over a decade. On March 19, 2015 I attended community meeting #4 on the Charleston/Arastradero corridor. I was also present when the plan lines were presented to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) on February 3, 2015. In February, some PABAC members, including myself, had some concerns about a few of the details of the plan. In the March meeting I found that most of the issues raised by PABAC members had been addressed. The train tracks crossing is still a difficulty but I didn’t have a better solution. The community meeting was well attended but many if not most of the verbal questions/comments were about growth in Palo Alto rather than the merits of the proposed changes. Others were from people concerned about some loss of convenience. When I read the comments people had written on the plan lines I was struck by a contrast. There were lots of comments like this improvement would make it safer for my kids to cross safely to school. The city staff and consultants have done an excellent job with a very challenging corridor. Charleston/Arastradero is a critical east/west corridor with many schools, parks and community centers. The 2012 Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan showed a high concentration of bicycle and pedestrian collisions. The safety improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians are significant and I strongly support implementing the improvements as soon as possible. Eric Nordman 2018 PABAC chair City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:40 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stella <stellahearn@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Saturday, May 19, 2018 9:04 AM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston/Arastradero Project To: Honorable Mayor, Liz Kniss, and members of the City Council    Please approve the funds for the Charleston/Arastradero Projects.  This well‐designed project is long overdue for  completion!  Thank you,  Stella Hearn  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:51 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Richard Sachs <richard.sachs@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston/Arastradero Construction Contract Attachments:PastedGraphic-3.tiff Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council, Please approve the Charleston/Arastradero construction contract. I am 20-year Palo Alto home owner. I am making an effort to minimize my car usage in the city. My wife and I bike wherever we can in the city for errands, business meetings and recreation. Implementation of the Charleston/Arastradero plan will help us expand our range and support our decisions to choose bike over car whenever possible. Regards, Richard Sachs Greenmeadow home owner Richard Sachs 520 El Capitan Place Palo Alto, CA 94306 650.269.6353 skype: sachsrichard City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:51 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Tamara Abrams <tabrams@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 11:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please approve the contract for Charleston-Arastradero Improvements Dear City Council, I am writing to ask you to support the plans to continue improvements to Charleston-Arastradero that make this important corridor safe for people using all modes of transportation. As someone who bikes around town regularly, and whose husband commutes daily via bicycle, it is very important to me that we keep traffic slow and add safety measures. Also, my children bike daily to JLS and Gunn. As you know the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor is an important school commute route. I am especially interested in the El Camino intersection including making the bike lane continual there. I have biked through here several times and it is very scary, as it is now. It is currently not clear where to ride to share the road safely with cars. This is also difficult to navigate as a driver when there are bikes crossing as well. My son currently avoids this by biking down Meadow. I recently volunteered at an event at JLS to help the 8th grade students plan their bike routes to Gunn. I was surprised at how many of the students I spoke with that live to the south of Charleston, making Meadow a less viable alternative. For those students, Charleston-Arastradero is key in their school route and I am really concerned about students biking through there. There are many other improvements in the plan that will be such a benefit to our community. Let's complete this project and enjoy the entire vision for the corridor Thank you so much Tamara Abrams City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:51 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:James Pflasterer <jimpf@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 12:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Encouraging City Council to Approve Charleston-Arastradero Contracts Dear City Council, I am writing to recommend approval of the Charleston Aratradero contracts for moving forward with the permanent enhancement for this corridor to provide a safe and effective artery for travel in south Palo Alto for hundreds of school children and adults that use it as bicyclists and pedestrians every day. The trial with markings-only has yielded slower traffic and better safety with less students involved in accidents, the primary goal for this area which contains 11 schools and preschools as well as a library and community center. My children have attended and still attend schools in the Arastradero portion of the corridor and bike to school regularly knowing the layout on Arastradero enables them to get to school confidently using effective bike lanes and crossings. Drivers in this area during peak school commute times are now cognizant of the student traffic and yielding where and when needed to allow their safe passage. Thank your for your consideration, James Pflasterer City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:51 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Goetz, Werner <werner.goetz@lumileds.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 12:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston/Arastradero corridor Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,  I am writing to express my strong support for completion and making permanent the lane reduction project on the  Charleston/Arastradero corridor. I congratulate you to your foresight to initiate this project. It has brought much needed  reduction of vehicle speed, safe turning lanes, and wider, safer bicycle lanes. As a resident along the corridor, it is  fantastic to see students on their bikes in large numbers riding to school in the morning. Both my children have been  riding their bike to either Terman or Gunn. Their safety and the safety of other students is of utmost priority to me.  Please conclude this project and provide the funds necessary so that the construction can become permanent. Please  also consider adding additional measures that make the El Camino crossing safer for bicycle riders.  Sincerely,  Werner Goetz  4205 Suzanne Drive    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:51 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:Markus Fromherz <markus@fromherz.us> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 12:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Charleston/Arastradero construction contract Honored City Council Members, I am a Barron Park resident, live on Amaranta Ave., used to work in the research park above Foothill Expressway, and used to drive or bike daily to work, at various times, including 7:30-8:30am and 4-6pm. I again would like to express my very strong support for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan, which is ready for final construction. We have been working on this for many years. This project will provide signalization and hardscape improvements that will provide better safety and operational efficiency for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users. It also will create new bike lanes where there currently is a dangerous gap in the existing bike lanes at the El Camino Real intersection. I would like to re-iterate what I have written before. After several years, I find the restriping to be a huge improvement without introducing any downsides: 1. The road is more structured, with clear turn-offs along the way where cars used to block the left lane when turning. Compare that to a four-lane highway before, where cars dominated the road. Overall I feel we have achieved the compromise we need between local traffic for schools and parks, much of it bikes and pedestrians, and commute traffic, much of it cars. 2. The restriping provided a number of improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians, including more room for bicyclists, better turn protection for bicyclists, better crossings for pedestrians, and lower car speeds. I have heard this confirmed from other bicyclists. The final treatment will further improve and fine-tune these changes. 3. As a car driver, I find traffic from Coulombe to Gunn acceptable, given the constraints of the environment, such as several large schools and substantial commuter through-traffic. There always was a traffic jam around school start time. Traffic in the morning has further markedly improved since the bell changes at Gunn and Bowman. In any case, traffic is acceptable most of the day, but fortunately it has slowed down noticeably from the previous highway speeds. 4. Traffic on Amaranta seems to be about the same as before. Related to that, on Coulombe in the morning there are never more than three cars waiting to enter Arastradero, which tells me that at least from that side we are not overloaded. Overall, I feel this road has been vastly improved, and I look forward to the final treatment. Please prioritize safety for all road users on our local roads! Sincerely, Markus Fromherz City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:51 AM 6 Carnahan, David From:nodiamonds@gmail.com on behalf of philippe@nodiamonds.com Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 12:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please approve the Charleston/Arastradero contract Dear Palo Alto City Council, Please approve the Charleston/Arastradero contract to install the hardscape safety and operations improvements. I have two children who bike to Gunn everyday. My daughter was hit by a car at the El Camino crossing a few months ago. That crossing is still unsafe today for bikers, and children are at risk every day this project is delayed. Please approve the construction contracts on Monday. Thank you for your time and consideration, Sincerely, Philippe Alexis 349 Diablo Court CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:51 AM 7 Carnahan, David From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 1:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support funding Charleston/Arastradero May 20, 2018 Dear Palo Alto City Council, I write in support of funding the next phase of improvements on the Charleston/Arastradero corridor. I have been using the Charleston/Arastradero corridor for the past 25 years. I use the section West of Alma on my commute, and I use Charleston East of Alma to get to my church, and to get to shopping in Mountain View. Most of my travel is by bicycle. When the current configuration on Charleston was implemented more than 10 years ago, the section West of El Camino become more usable and less intimidating. Traffic slowed, with far fewer cars above 40 mph, and the dedicated left turn lane made it much less stressful to turn left. It is still a street that moves a lot of auto traffic, so the sections without bicycle lanes, at El Camino Real, and between Fabian and San Antonio are very discouraging to most potential bicyclists. Newer bicycle plans look at the entire streets network for connectivity of low-stress cycling streets, and indicate where we can improve utility by creating a better connected network. The existing conditions at El Camino, and near San Antonio are barriers that discourage many potential bicycle trips. For example, most South Palo Alto residents would not consider bicycling to get to the OSH hardware store, because of the poor conditions on just one block of Charleston from Fabian to San Antonio. Both of these street sections are addressed in the current Charleston/Arastradero plan, as part of Phase 3 of construction. Phases 1 and 2, which you are asked to fund on May 21, include many other improvements to the corridor, including wider sidewalks, Palo Alto’s first buffered bike lanes and a parking-separated bike lane, additional queueing space for cars at Alma street, and a new traffic signal coordination system. These will improve mobility for all modes, and the new median plantings will further calm traffic, and beautify the corridor. Please vote to fund these improvements, and continue to support the overall Charleston/Arastradero plan. Robert Neff Emerson near Loma Verde Palo Alto -- -- Robert Neff robert@neffs.net City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:51 AM 8 Carnahan, David From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 2:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please approve the Charleston-Arastradero Plan Construction Contracts Dear Council Members,     I urge you to approve the Charleston‐Arastradero construction contracts so that we can finally begin roll‐out of the  planned improvements to a major road in the south of our city.     I often bicycle and drive along this route and appreciate the calm, safety and convenience of using this road by car and  bike. It is a key route for South Palo Alto folk to access the schools and shops on this street and the western hills/Foothill  park. I like the convenience and safety of the 3 lane configuration with dedicated center lane for left turns. This  eliminates the problem of drivers darting over to the right lane when confronted by someone blocking the left lane  while waiting to turn left. It also allows more space for bicycling on the right. I look forward to more of this type of bike  and drive friendly configuration extending through the El Camino (which is very difficult to navigate safely by bike today)  and other intersections along the route.     Thank you for making our city a better place to live by approving this important project.     Bret Andersen, Palo Verde Neighborhood  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:51 AM 9 Carnahan, David From:Henry Lum <hblum@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 3:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston/Arastradero Construction Contract Funding Honorable Council Members, Both my wife and I strongly recommend that the Council approve the funding for the initiation of Charleston-Arastradero construction in June 2018. We have lived at the corner of Suzanne and Arastradero since 1965 and have noticed a significant improvement in our quality of life resulting from the traffic calming measures implemented in the Corridor. Prior to the lane reduction, my wife's Buick was rear-ended by another driver who did not notice that she was waiting to make a left-turn into our neighborhood even though her left turn signals were fully operational. The addition of the dedicated turn-pockets into and out of our neighborhood (Palo Alto Orchards), the lane reduction, and the addition of the Clemo-Arastradero crosswalk have improved the safety of our children, grandparents walking their grandchildren to Juana Briones Elementary School, and the cyclists. Traffic congestion is about the same with the lane reduction vs. the original 4-lane configuration since drivers now making a left or right turn off Arastraderointo their respective neighborhoods can now use the dedicated turn-pockets and not impede traffic in the other lane. Prior to the Corridor improvements, anyone making a left or right turn into opposing traffic to enter their neighborhoods would block traffic in one lane making the two lanes into one lane. When schools along the corridor are not in session and during off-peak hours, there is hardly any traffic congestion. Implementation of the Traffic Adaptive Signal System will also facilitate the flow the traffic along the Corridor. The implementation of the landscaped median islands will prevent impatient drivers from using the turn-pocket lanes as passing zones to get ahead of the traffic in front of them. This is a common occurrence from the intersections of Coulombe/Arastradero to Clemo/Arastradero. About a month ago, a student walking in the Clemo/Arastradero crosswalk was almost hit by a driver doing this illegal maneuver. The student was alert enough to recognize what was happening and jumped back to the median island. In concluding, we implore you to approve the funding for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor to ensure our quality of life and the safety and well being of our neighborhood residents along the Corridor. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:51 AM 10 Thank you for your consideration and your dedication and effort towards this project. It has been greatly appreciated!! Regards, Henry and Betty Lum 4202 Suzanne Drive Palo Alto 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:51 AM 11 Carnahan, David From:Meri Gruber <meri.gruber@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 6:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please approve the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Final Contract Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a resident of Greenmeadow, I fully support the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor project. It has greatly improved traffic flow and safety. Please approve the final contract of this important project. Thank you. Best regards, Meri Gruber Briarwood Way Palo Alto , CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:51 AM 12 Carnahan, David From:Claire Kirner <kirnerclaire@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 10:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please approve the contract for the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Project Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, Our family lives in the Greenmeadow neighborhood, very near the intersection of Nelson Drive and Charleston. On most days, our three kids ride their bikes or walk to Fairmeadow and JLS. Next fall, our oldest son will be commuting to Gunn High School. A few weeks ago, I happened to by driving down Charleston during the morning school commute. I observed a car speeding down Charleston, and pulling a wide u-turn not far from the Stevenson House and Hoover School. This u-turn was wide enough that the car ended up in the bike lane, coming within inches of hitting our neighbor’s 14 year old son who was riding to school. I expected the car to slow down after nearly hitting a child. It did not. Instead, it accelerated down Charleston. I’d like to say that this incident was rare and that near misses rarely happen on Charleston. Unfortunately that is not the case. Along the Charleston-Arastradero corridor, there are eleven public and private K-12 schools, five city parks, Mitchell Park Library, and several community centers and playing fields. It is also a route used by recreational and commuter bicyclists wanting to access destinations in the hills and baylands. Numerous office parks and buildings bring high volumes of automobile traffic to the area as well. Since the approval of it’s concept plan in 2003, the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Project has undergone several phases of study and striping trials in order to make this road safer for all. The data from these trials yielded favorable results, but many safety and some operation improvements have yet to be installed. I am writing today to urge you to approve the contract in order to move forward with these improvements. Our citizens rely too heavily on this South Palo Alto route to not make every possible effort to enhance safety and reduce the risks of collisions. Your approval of this next phase in an important step in keeping these important commute routes safe. Sincerely, Claire Kirner 3934 Nelson Drive City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:52 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 10:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:SUPPORT Charleston-Arastradero plan Honorable Mayor and City Council,    I support proceeding with construction of the Charleston‐Arastradero plan. This plan has been widely reviewed by the  community including earlier this year. There is dedicated funding for this plan that cannot be used for another purpose.  Any shortfall in funding is largely due to delays in implementation causing increased construction costs.     The Charleston‐Arastradero plan does not have components that have been controversial in some other bicycle  boulevard designs. There are no speed bumps, no bulb outs in the middle of blocks. There are dedicated separate  bicycle lanes along the side of the road, allowing cars to safely pass them.     This plan is much safer than the four‐lane speedway that preceded it. Bicycle commuting is increasing to schools and  companies in Palo Alto, including along the corridor.     This plan deserves your support now, so the cost does not go up even more.     Best regards,  Arthur Keller  (Not in any official capacity)        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:52 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Kevin Chen <kevinychen@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 10:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:stop changing the bike lanes on Ross and Amarillo Dear Council members, I am writing this to voice my concern about the danger of the Ross Road work and upcoming work on Amarillo Ave. We have seen no evidence that the new projects are safe or effective, and see obvious risks to bikers with the current design that stupidly pinch bike lanes. We are endangering our children. please revert these changes and fire the architecture company who came up with this stupid idea of pinching the lanes and having the ridiculously designed roundabout at Ross and Meadow. This is a key issue that will motivate voting in the next city city council election. best regards Yong (kevin ) Chen a Ross Resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:52 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Keri Wagner <keriwagner@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 1:44 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Keri Wagner Subject:Please approve Charleston/Arastradero Construction Dear City Council Members -- Please vote to approve the construction for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project at the council meeting tonight. I live in CharlestonMeadows and my only access out of the neighborhood is onto Charleston Road. I cannot attend the meeting to tell you in person, but this plan is essential for many reasons: 1. Improved safety -- the calmer traffic patterns mean my kids can walk and bike to Gunn safely. Our entire family can easily walk or bike to the new Mitchell Park Library. The bike path improvements along the entire corridor benefit our community and others who come into Palo Alto for work or fun. The multi-use bike path is a terrific idea. The pedestrian improvements at all the intersections and the enhanced crossings at Clemo, Ruthelma, Wright, and Louis make this fairly busy street much easier and safer to cross. I also drive this road a lot, and the slower speeds and turn lanes keep traffic moving well throughout the day. 2. Improved access -- access into and out of my neighborhood and many other land-locked neighborhoods is safer for car drivers because of the improvements at Fabian, Louis, Park, Wilkie, Suzanne, Los Palos, Pomona, Donald/Terman, and Gunn High School. 3. Improved aesthetics -- this is harder to quantify, but the planted medians and the bulb-outs at the intersections will look so nice and make the road calmer and safer. I've driven this road for years, and remember well when Charleston/Arastradero was four lanes with no turn lane. The road was a speedway at night and completely blocked with traffic during the day. You made the road safer just by using paint, imagine how much the construction will enhance everyone's commute. Let's get this done. Thank you. Keri Wagner Edlee Ave Palo Alto Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of thi s pi ctu re from the In ternet. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:52 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:TOM CRYSTAL <tlcrystal@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 2:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:In support of the Charleston-Arastradero construction In support of the Charleston-Arastradero construction contract, for 21 May 2018 Council consideration and vote. It has been years in coming; meaningful construction, based on the substantial inputs from experts and affected neighborhoods may finally be here. The need for the many improvements proposed is in my experience greater than when we started this project, decades(!) ago. A lot of my neighbors have spoken of their approval of the soft-scaping mods (simple striping), and their desire for the hard-scaping to go forward -- typically they are parents looking for increased safety for the kids. I hope you will act positively on this project Monday evening. The long wait has been long enough. Tom Crystal. 3815 Mumford Pl. This is in the Walnut Grove neighborhood which has its northern edge along Charleston, from Alma to Nelson, a substantial stretch that is seriously impacted by this plan. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:52 PM 5 Carnahan, David From:Mila Zelkha <mila.zelkha@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 3:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston-Arastradero construction contract Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am writing today to ask you to approve the contract to complete the installation of long-awaited improvements to the Charleston Arastradero corridor. I grew up riding my bike along this corridor and have wished to see its use be a safe path for both bicyclists and motorists to share. Today, our family members are regular users of this corridor, going to various destinations along it on a daily basis including various schools, parks, the library and playing fields and yet it is not as safe as a corridor so widely used should be. During the recent multi-phased striping trial to study how the road diet might affect road operations, many safety and some operations improvements could not be installed because they involved more than just paint. The concept plan for this project was approved in 2003 and after going through multiple phases of careful study, now is the final stretch - it is time to make the final improvements. Some of these that are of particular interest are:  New off road, multi-use paths in sections where students currently are forced to ride wrong-way on the street from landlocked neighborhoods.  New buffered bike lanes and protected cycle tracks at some locations where right-of-way allows and need exists.  New VTA bus stop duckout at Terman to prevent stopped buses from obstructing bike lanes and through auto traffic.  Close the last remaining gap in the continuous bike lane at the dangerous El Camino intersection.  Additional lane space for motor vehicles at some intersection approaches. Community input has been lengthy and thoughtful. Now is the time to implement what the community has asked for and professionals have studied. Please don't conflate critique community members have about other transportation infrastructure improvements with what has been a safety improvement project 15 years in the making. Please approve the Charleston-Arastradero construction contract so that work can begin in June as scheduled. Thank you for your consideration. Mila Zelkha Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:52 PM 6 Carnahan, David From:Kirsten Flynn <kir@declan.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 3:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Arastradero Road traffic improvements. Honorable City Council, Please vote to approve the Charleston Arastradero Construction project. This project has been well thought out, extensively tested and makes our children safer, while allowing multiple transportation modalities to flow on this route. During the test period, this project has: - Reduced the number of high speed vehicles (those traveling greater than 37mph) during the off-peak hours by approximately 50 percent. A pedestrian is nearly twice as likely to be killed by a vehicle moving 35mph than a vehicle moving 28 mph. - Decreased the number of injury bike/ped accidents on this school commute route while the number and percentage of students bicycling to corridor schools rose. The permanent improvement will build on these wonderful statistics while: - Creating signaling that will respond to traffic to increase auto through-put. - Get bikes off the roadway in areas where children are forced to wrong-way ride, to get out of their street, and onto Arastradero. - close the gap in the bike lane at El Camino Real, this will get bike off the sidewalk and out of the lane of traffic. - Creates additional auto lane space at some intersection approaches. Any time you make it SAFE for a kid to bike to school, you are taking a car, and it’s GHG emissions, out of the commute traffic. This is important to our Palo Alto's goal of cutting carbon emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2030. You are also introducing the idea of the bicycle as a form of transportation to that kid and that parent. I have been working with the Safe Routes to School program since I was the Co-PTA president at the newly re-opened Barron Park School, in 1997. We worked to make it safe for our kids to be able to ride to all of the schools in the city, especially the 6 schools located along the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor. This project has taken a challenging area, and created a solution that improves bicycle and pedestrian commute safety, while accommodating car commuters. Please continue to support the completion of this work. Best Regards, Kirsten A. Flynn 471 Matadero Avenue. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 4:16 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 4:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston-Arastradero Contracts Honorable City Council Members, I am writing to encourage you to approve the Charleston-Arastradero (C-A) contracts that you will discuss tonight. I want to thank you and staff for this forward-thinking project. It is a truly multi-modal project that I am proud our city has undertaken. I thank you for that important work. The staff report does an excellent job outlining the importance of this road as a school commute corridor and multimodal residential arterial. Safe, efficient operations for every mode of transportation on Charleston-Arastradero is very important to everyone who uses it, especially for thousands of households south of the corridor—for whom it provides access to the rest of the city. C-A Plan Is Not A “Bike Project”: A Little History The very first significant change the original project team made to Arastradero was an auto capacity increase at Gunn. Before the city did anything else on the Arastradero section of the corridor, they added a new, fifth, dedicated right turn lane on Arastradero into Gunn High School driveway. They also eliminated a bottleneck at the throat of the driveway and improved internal campus circulation to relieve auto congestion. The combined effect of these changes was to eliminate congestion that would spill back onto Arastradero and create westbound gridlock during the morning peak hour that extended past Terman. This was before the Arastradero striping trial. The city added this capacity to study the effect of the change and to understand how much surplus auto capacity they could take to improve the road for all modes. At the same time, they implemented the four-way signal at Terman/Donald intersection because the city knew we needed that to accommodate high volumes of foot-powered students at that crossing. The effects of these changes were studied and built into a model that also incorporated anticipated changes from planned development at the time that included projected growth in the research park. That model was used to inform engineering of the Arastradero striping plan. I worried before we added that additional capacity that drivers would get used to the freer traffic flow and be unwilling to give any of it up. Staff assured me that they’d move the process expediently so that would not occur. A decade later, people have forgotten this important work. The designed road now carries many more trips of all modes, so it has been successful accommodating growth through mode shift while maintaining point-to-point travel times, but the striping trial could not deliver many safety and operational improvements that we badly need. The paint trial tested whether or not we could do the road diet and maintain point-to-point travel times. It did not implement many safety and operational improvements that will only be possible with the hardscape installation. Among these are:  New Traffic Adaptive signal system to reduce auto delays and congestion along the corridor  New, improved signalization to facilitate convenient, safe turns at some intersections where needed  Additional lane space for motor vehicles at some intersection approaches  Preparation of the road for planned grade separation of rail  New VTA bus stop duckout at Terman to prevent stopped buses from obstructing bike lanes and through auto traffic  Close the last remaining gap in the continuous bike lane at the dangerous El Camino intersection City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 4:16 PM 2  New landscaped median islands (to be built within the existing double yellow lined areas) will provide: o Pedestrian refuge areas o Natural beauty and reduced “heat island” effects of the current wide expanse of asphalt o Smoother and better controlled turning movements and merges and moderation of the highest speeds during off-peak periods o Protection from collisions for turning cars and bicycles  New off road, multi-use paths in sections where students currently are forced to ride wrong-way on the street from landlocked neighborhoods  New buffered bike lanes and protected cycle tracks at some locations where right-of-way allows and need exists.  Safer connections linking neighborhood communities south of the C-A corridor to the rest of the city’s bicycle– pedestrian network. Policy Basis & Public Process A residential arterial treatment like the Charleston-Arastradero Plan was specifically called for in the city’s last Comprehensive Plan (Program T-41) and the recently Updated Comp Plan (Goal T-1, Goal T-2, Goal T-3, Goal T-4 including espciellay Policy T-4.4, Goal T-6, Goal T-7), and is also supported by multiple other policies and goals in the Comp Plan-- as the staff report documents very well. The project is recommended, ranking high for its anticipated contribution to safety and connectivity, in the city’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (page 7-9, BK1). The project has been vetted through more than 15 study sessions and public hearings (all unanimous votes in favor) and countless community meetings since 2003. The striping trial was unanimously approved in 2012. Concept Plan Lines were unanimously approved in 2015. Next Steps The finished project will provide a continuous bike lane the entire length of the corridor—including through the problematic El Camino Real intersection where there presently is a gap in the bike lane. Landscaped median islands will beautify the corridor, but more importantly the new medians will provide significant additional safety for all road users. For people who drive, dedicated turn lanes will control turning movements and lane changing and protect left-turning vehicles from rear-end and broad-side collisions. The current paint striping provides no pedestrian refuge, little traffic smoothing effect, no bulb-out benefits, no physical separation of vehicles between each other and people who are walking and bicycling at potential conflict points. The planned hardscape will provide these important safety benefits. The C-A Plan, though controversial, has received repeated unanimous approval in all of its various phases. Though it is not perfect, this plan is the best solution to accommodate increasing auto traffic volumes while creating safer conditions for the people who must drive, walk and bike on this street, especially large numbers of school bound children. It will prepare the road to mitigate the potential for induced traffic impacts when train preemption is eliminated by grade separation. Please approve the Charleston-Arastradero Concept construction contracts and move the project toward implementation of the final hardscape phase after more than a decade of study to improve safety and operations. Prepare Charleston-Arastradero with this project for future grade separation. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Penny Ellson City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 4:16 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Seena Huang <seena.huang@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 4:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston-Arastradero Project To whom it may concern, I am unavailable to speak at tonight's meeting, but I wanted to voice my support for to approve the contract to move forward. As a former Gunn student who rode my bike to school regularly, I was hit by a car which resulted in a broken wrist. Regards, Seena Huang 504 El Capitan Pl, Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 4:16 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:rosa huang <rosapaca@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 4:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston project I would like to inform you that I have had three near-death accident on this road. Two I have escaped. third I got hit by a car while riding my bike from volunteering at Gunn High school. I was injured. My teenage son was hit by a car on Aresteradero and his arm was in a cast for over a month. We need this project to be completed to avoid fatality and injury to people. Thank you. Rosa Huang 504 El Capitan place Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:53 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Young, Edwin <eyoung@honolulu.gov> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 12:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page To the Members of the Palo Alto City Council:    I was chagrined to read about the proposed cuts to the Office of the City Auditor. Please allow me to express my  personal opinions.    When I worked as a performance auditor at the City of Palo Alto. Sharon Erickson was recognized for her integrity,  candor, and professionalism as the City Auditor.  The newspapers labeled her as the “Most Trusted Individual in City  Government”.  The title resulted from her leadership, guidance, and productivity in producing audits that were value  added, impactful, and significantly improved the city operations.  Under her leadership, the Office of the City Auditor  won a plethora of national awards and set many national precedents for the auditing profession.       Although the Palo Alto city manager tried to defund and eliminate the Office of the City Auditor,  her successors were  successful in protecting the office and its independent and objective audit work.  Unfortunately, the current leadership  has not maintained the momentum, vitality, and productivity generated under Sharon Ericksons’ leadership.  The  importance of the City Auditor function in Palo Alto is demonstrated by this example.  After the Palo Alto Chief  Information Officer (CIO) assured the auditors all corrective actions were taken to protect the city’s personnel, e‐ commerce, and other sensitive databases, the city’s performance auditors were able to penetrate the city’s SAP ERM  (enterprise resource management) system by using default passwords.  The auditors were able to access and change  personnel records, personal data, and other important data on city executives.  The embarrassing audit results were  suppressed and the final report watered down to avoid disclosing the full significance of the performance audit  results.  The current City Auditor’s acquiescence to outsource the city’s performance audits is therefore a major  disappointment, and, in my opinion, reflects badly on her ability to provide the leadership and professionalism set by  Sharon Erickson.     Based on my experiences as the City Auditor for the City and County of Honolulu and based on my past experiences in  the Bay Area, companies that perform outsourced performance audits are costly.  Their charges often exceed the cost of  retaining city employees, and some have criticized the companies for not complying with US Comptroller auditing  standards, not being independent or objective, and producing reports that promote political agendas.    The outsourced  reports are often critical of government operations, but not value added.  Many reports produce mixed results.     The difference between outsourced performance audits and in‐house audits can be illustrated by a recent example.  Our  external IT auditors repeatedly advised our city’s information technology department to strengthen its information  security practices. The IT department refused to implement the recommendations and the outsourced performance  auditors had no leverage to ensure the recommendations were implemented.   Our in‐house performance auditors  performed follow up cybersecurity audits and reaffirmed the importance of the recommendations.  Through the  persistence and perseverance of the city auditors, the IT department reluctantly implemented the  recommendations.  As a result of the city auditors’ efforts, the city was not vulnerable to the recent wave of  ransomware attacks, did not pay any ransoms, and did not have lose any databases.     If the City of Palo Alto auditor’s office (a nationally recognized audit office) is dismantled, the voters will lose an  independent and objective resource needed to ensure the city operations are effective and efficient, and voters will lose  the assurance the city resources are not being wasted or subject to fraud and abuse.  Outsourcing the performance  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:53 PM 2 audits should not be pursued without seriously considering the consequences, as rebuilding the lost expertise can have  serious and costly consequences to the city.      Sincerely,      Edwin Young , City Auditor  City and County of Honolulu    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:20 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Minor, Beth Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 12:45 PM To:Carnahan, David Subject:FW: Downtown Garage Utilization, Valet Services and City Budgets Attachments:Cowper Webster Bryant Garage Under Utilization Feb Mar Apr May 2018.xlsx; ATT00001.htm From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Date: May 22, 2018 at 11:08:19 AM PDT To: Greg Tanaka <gltanaka@gmail.com>, Everarado Lalo Perez <lalo.perez@cityofpaloalto.org>, Eric Filseth <efilseth@gmail.com>, Lydia Kou <lydiakou@gmail.com>, Greg Scharff <gregscharff@aol.com>, Robert De Geus <robert.degeus@cityofpaloalto.org>, Mark Hur <mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org>, Joshuah Mello <joshuah.mello@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed Lauung <evlauing@yahoo.com>, Judy Klienberg <judy@paloaltochamber.com>, James Keene <james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com>, Gabrielle Layton <strop@redjuice.com>, Simon Cintz <cintzprops@gmail.com>, Benjamin Cintz <bcintz@gmail.com>, "Norman H. Beamer" <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>, John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com>, Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>, "chopkeenan@yahoo.com" <chopkeenan@yahoo.com>, Joe Baldwin <zbrcp1@comcast.net>, Reza Riahi <reza@rezariahidds.com>, Melvin Matsumoto <mmatsumoto@channinghouse.org>, Mary Gallagher <marygallagher88@gmail.com>, KJ and Fred Kohler <fkohler@sbcglobal.net>, Pat Burt Gmail <patburt11@gmail.com>, Pat Devaney <devaney@stanford.edu>, Malcolm Beasley <beasley@stanford.edu>, Sally-Ann Rudd <sallyann_r@yahoo.com>, Marion Odell <marionodell7@gmail.com>, Susie and Gary Hornbeek <smillerhornbeek@yahoo.com>, Lauren Burton <lauren@thinkgardens.net>, Irv Brenner <irvb@pacbell.net>, Janine Bisharat <janine@karunaadvisors.com>, Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net>, Annette Glanckopf <annette_g@att.net>, Allen Akin <akin@arden.org>, Ted Davids <tdavids@sonic.net>, Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com>, Steve Levy <slevy@ccsce.com>, Steve Raney <steve_raney@cities21.org>, Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>, City Clerk <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>, Dave Price <price@padailypost.com> Subject: Downtown Garage Utilization, Valet Services and City Budgets I am concerned that the Council's Finance Committee may not have adequate data to allocate resources and staff to the various programs balancing neighborhood RPPs and commercial core parking capacity. I am concerned that city policy and staff continue to place unnecessarily high non-resident vehicle loads on the 10 residential zones in the Downtown RPP. Downtown residents and I have been involved with downtown parking patterns for over 6 years. My neighbors have worked very hard to make informed decisions and recommendations based on objective data. We have a history of generating reliable data far greater than city staff and consultants. We have strength in numbers, modest technical skills and an advantage of having eyes and feet on the ground on a daily basis. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:20 PM 2 Finally we are concerned that the Finance Committee may not have a complete picture of how High, Bryant and Cowper/Webster garages are utilized. Attached is a survey of garage utilization midday at various dates since February. Our data collection is focused on Wed/Thur data collections since those days tend to have the greatest demand for permit (all day) parking. We do not survey short-term 2-3 hour parking utilization, but we observe wide ranges of vacant spaces during the day. We do not survey weekends and holidays. We hope the attached worksheet is self-explanatory. It is a record of dozens of midday surveys since Feb 2018. Call me if you have questions. CONCLUSIONS Evaluation of 3 "promised" valet parking services 1. High St. garage is extremely successful and demonstrates its promised potential. 2. Bryant St. garage is operational only occasionally and fails to park vehicles in aisles most days. The root problem is that too few all-day permits are being sold. 3. Cowper/Webster garage has no valet service and significant vacant spaces exist every working day. In fact, top level 6 of this garage may have never been utilized since it was built. Too few all-day permits are being sold and there are questions about management of wait lists. 4. Philip Kamhi, before he resigned from city staff, outlined very creative program to improve "valet services" and to adapt to fluctuating workloads. Maximization of garage potential 1. At least 50 more permits could be sold for Bryant garage without any deterioration is service level. 2. At least 100 more permits could be sold for Cowper/Webster garage without any deterioration is service level. Improvement for residential neighborhoods 1. Permits sales should be increased slowly and methodically to fill unused capacity in downtown city garages and surface lots. 2. Downtown non-resident RPP permits should cease until city staff and Council can demonstrate higher levels of stewardship for downtown parking capacity and residential neighborhoods. 3. Better utilization of city garages could relieve some of the hardships experienced by neighborhoods serving business such as Channing House and local dentists. IMPACT ON FY19-23 BUDGETS 1. Full valet services should be cost effective. Discussions at the Finance Committee have not been clear to me and other stakeholders. Is the cost per City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:20 PM 3 valet program about $110,000 per garage? If so, this is competitive with building any new garage space. 2. What are contingency plans if there are inflationary cost runups on important capital improvements. Many capital projects and programs are more important and less urgent than $28M for Hamilton/Waverley garage. Putting 3 valet parking programs into operation next year is a strong hedge on capital cost escalations in the Capital Improvement Plan(CIP) Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A B C D E FG H I J K L M N Cowper/Webster and Bryant Garage Survey Source: N. Buchanan cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 650 537-9611 photographs are available for Bryant and Cowper/Webster daily surveys time window plus/minus 10 min Cowper/ Webster Level 6 Cowper/ Webster Level 5 Bryant St Level 5 Untapped otential from staffed Valet Parking** Untapped potential from staffed Valet Parking*** Total Vacant Spaces Potential for additional permit sales @ 120% Built In Safety Cushion for Peak Demand Days Notes have not been consistently posted. Wed, Feb 14 1122am 68 17 no survey 20 26 131 157 46 Wed, Feb 14 142pm 61 12 no survey 20 26 119 143 46 Thur, Feb 15 1207pm 70 13 13 20 26 142 170 46 Thur, Feb 15 205pm 58 13 2 20 26 119 143 46 Fri, Feb 16 1205pm 70 17 13 20 26 146 175 46 Holiday Fri, Feb 16 159pm 75 33 21 20 26 175 210 46 Holiday Wed, Feb 21 1155am 72 21 4 20 26 143 172 46 Wed, Feb 21 250pm 73 16 5 20 26 140 168 46 Thur, Feb 22 1150am 76 32 21 20 26 175 210 46 Thur, Feb 22 239pm 75 37 2 20 26 160 192 46 Fri, Feb 23 1159am 75 31 17 20 26 169 203 46 Fri, Feb 23 250pm 74 33 23 20 26 176 211 46 Tues, Feb 27 1201pm 64 15 5 20 26 130 156 46 Wed, Feb 28 1148am 67 17 0 20 26 130 156 46 Wed, Feb 28 154pm 59 15 1 20 26 121 145 46 Available Capacity 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 A B C D E FG H I J K L M N Thur, Mar 1 145pm 69 25 1 20 26 141 169 46 Fri, Mar 2 1201pm 69 0 Mon, Mar 5 1150am 38 5 Mon, Mar 5 200pm 32 5 0 20 26 83 100 46 Tues, Mar 6 1159am 51 5 5 20 26 107 128 46 Tues, Mar 6 215pm 5 2 Wed, Mar 7 1124am 58 10 7 20 26 121 145 46 Thurs, Mar 8 240pm 52 27 5 20 26 130 156 46 Frid, Mar 9 212pm 71 23 7 20 26 147 176 46 Mon, Mar12 121pm 29 0 0 20 26 75 90 46 Tues, Mar 13 116pm 46 3 0 20 26 95 114 46 Wed, Mar 14 1213pm 36 0 2 20 26 84 101 46 Thur, Mar 15 120pm 68 9 0 20 26 123 148 46 Wed, Mar28 1230pm 69 9 5 20 26 129 155 46 Thur, Mar 29 1230pm 76 48 5 20 26 175 210 Holiday Frid, Mar 30 1230pm no survey holiday Holiday Mon, Apr 2 68 12 5 20 26 131 157 46 Wed, Apr 18 1201pm 64 19 19 20 26 148 178 46 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 A B C D E FG H I J K L M N Thur, Apr 19 1220pm 62 21 12 20 26 141 169 46 Wed, Apr 25 1202pm 70 17 11 20 26 144 173 46 Wed, May 2 1245pm 56 8 3 20 26 113 136 46 Note: Valet at Bryant, enforcement giving tickets, city staff actively monitoring. No valet at Cowper/Web ster. Based on one day survey: More permits being sold from waiting lists??? Thur, May 3 1205pm 59 15 12 20 26 132 158 46 No valet at Bryant Wed, May 9 154pm 71 7 3 20 26 127 152 Note: 3 Valet parked vehicles observed Thur, May 10 114pm 47 21 16 20 26 130 156 No valet at B Mon, May 141201pm 4 37 5 20 26 92 110 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 A B C D E FG H I J K L M N Tues, May 15 207pm 6 43 10 20 26 105 126 Fri, May 18 1236pm 22 70 29 20 26 167 200 Valet on duty, no cars in aisles Mon, May 21 1206pm 8 49 10 20 26 113 136 Valet on duty, no cars in aisles **Cowper Webster practical valet capacity is 50% of 40 possible valet parked vehicles ***Bryant practical valet capacity is 50% of 52 possible valet parked vehicles Please note that an analysis for High Street garage is not included due to lack of time. It is a role model for effective management and for leveraging 5-day a week valet parking service expanding garage capacity by approximately 25-40+ parking space. As a result City has been able to avoid unnecessary capital investment in garage structures. TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL RUMI PORTILLO, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR MAY 29, 2018 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN UPDATED SALARY SCHEDULE AND REVISED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR UNREPRESENTED LIMITED HOURLY EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2018-JUNE 30, 2021 Please note that the adoption of an updated salary schedule and revised compensation plan for the unrepresented limited hourly employees has been moved out to a future council date in order to better align with other administrative actions. s Director · Manager 1of1 7 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:32 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Kathy Durham <kfdurham@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 6:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item # 7 for Monday 5/21/18, Award of Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Construction Projects Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council: Tonight, I urge you to approve the contract for constructing the final, fully vetted plans for physical improvements that emerged from more than 15 years of engagement with a full range of the public on the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor project. This project grew out of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, and the public process dates back to at least 2003. It’s come through two Bike/Pedestrian Plans, and an extraordinary number of community outreach meetings, study sessions, thoughtful input from appointed commissions and boards, and unanimous approvals by multiple City Councils. This project is not and never has been a project pushed by some secretly powerful pro-bike forces as part of a “bikes vs. cars” agenda. From the beginning, the goal was to update the 1950s style four lane roadway designed for unsafe vehicle speeds in a residential area, but with a dual goal: maintaining through traffic travel times for drivers while also implementing key safety improvements that reduce the risks faced by pedestrians and bicyclists. As someone who served on the City/School Traffic Safety Committee when this project began to be considered in 2003, I can definitively say yes, the concerns of drivers and others opposing the project were heard. Many changes were incorporated into the tweaks to the design during the last ten years of professional evaluation and public process, including the recommended striping and signing for the "paint trial" and during the 2012 and 2014-15 public process as the project moved towards final design. It’s time to move forward now. Last but not least: consider that making it safer for more students to bike or walk to school provide alternatives to the families who are currently driving on Arastradero because they see that it's not safe. This would give more space on the road for those drivers who truly have no alternative to getting where they need to go via driving on the Charleston-Arastradero corridor. That's a benefit of investing in a real multi-modal road! Thank you. Kathy Durham City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2018 10:47 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Peter Lee <peterlee1108@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 11:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Bike blvd project directly impact my day-to-day routine Hi Palo Alto City Council, my name is Peter Lee, my family lives at 2675 Louis Rd, where the on‐going bike blvd project  runs directly through the front of my house. When we first got notified about the bike blvd project, we read the hand  out and it has only mentioned about raised bumps and shared road, and none of those seems like a serious issue to us.  However, as the project start digging our side walk and framing concrete, we came to realize that it's not as simple as  raised bumps, and shared road has different meaning then what we have expected. There has already been many safety  related concerns raised by the community already, and I agree with many of those concerns, so I won't go into those  again. But in addition to those safety issues, this project have direct impact to my family's day‐to‐day routine.      The most important impact to us is the raised curb:    1. I have a single lane drive way, the width of my drive way is narrow (11ft), and the street's car lanes are also very  narrow now (10ft each direction), the moment my car's bumper is out of the drive way it's blocking traffic. The narrow  drive way and the narrow car lane makes backing out of my drive way very challenge. I will need the clearance of both  direction traffic to back the car out no matter which direction I am backing out to, and with 8 stop signs (2 on each  direction and on each side of my house), cars are lined up impatiently trying to get over all those stop signs and very few  cars are welling to stop and let me out. I have once waited for nearly 3 minutes just to back out of the drive way (where  it used to take about 15~45 seconds before). And turning onto my drive way is also a challenge, since my driveway is  narrow and the car lane is so close to it, I need to cross my car to the opposite lane to turn into my driveway otherwise  the rear tire will hit the raised curb. In fact, I drove around in Palo Alto just trying to find an example of similar setup, but  I cannot find any, almost all the residential houses have rolled curb, some houses in downtown area have raised curb,  but they all have street parking, so they have more buffer area for turning, none of them has both raised curb and no  parking. I feel this is a safety risk to me.    2. We used to have rolled curb, where I used it as temperately parking whenever I need to switch cars out from my  tandem drive way, but now I have to drive my car half block away and come back and switch cars and drive it back if I  need to do that. And we have a 5yr old kid, meaning I need to get her in car1 seat, drive half block, unbuckle her, walk  back home, buckle her in car2, drive it half block, unbuckle her, then buckle her to car1, drive home, unbuckle her, walk  to car2 and buckle her again... If you can imagine the annoyance of this, it will now take me 10~15minute daily for  something that used to take only 1~2minutes.    3. I have no place to put the garbage/recycle bins on collection day now since the raised curb is now a planter area. Palo  Alto Green Waste company told me to just leave my bins on the side walk and they will pick it up, but what they did was  to manually push the bin to my driveway entrance and have the machine pick it up, and they just leave the empty bins at  the entrance of my drive way. Guess what I have to do when I get home at end of the day with bins blocking my drive  way? I have to drive my car to next block to park my car and walk back to move the bins and then go back to my car and  so I can drive it home.    4. Delivery truck has no where to park now, and of course they are not going to waste time park it at the next block, they  just stop right in front of my house and block the traffic while jumping down to drop off my package (I saw it through my  security camera). Of course this is not right, but seems most delivery persons don't care, and this actually would cause a  safety issue for the bike/cars behind it especially if car/bike tries to go around the truck via opposite lane.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2018 10:47 AM 2     These may sound like minor issues to some, but when we have to deal with everyday, it's not so minor. It has become a  frustration point of the day to get in and out of the drive way, there is no room for error since everything is so narrow  now.    I wish the city would consider bring back rolled curb to my block, that way the above problems would all be solved as  rolled curb can be used as a buffer zone to temperately stop my car there when I switch out cars, and can be used to  widen my turn when I back out and get in my drive way, so I won't need clearance from both lanes, and I can place my  garbage bins on it for pick up, and delivery truck also has a place to stop without block traffic.        Thank for you reading my concerns.      Peter Lee    408‐480‐3268          City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:52 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Joseph Harwood <joseph.harwood@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 20, 2018 6:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Changes to Greer Road I see the City is testing out changes to Greer Road, including putting in a roundabout. I am writing to strongly oppose these changes. Similar to what has been done to Ross Road, this will be a danger to bicyclists. Traffic will back up beyond the circle during rush hour as cars wait at the light, blocking cross traffic. The intersection containing the circle is simply too small for a traffic circle. I feel these changes are being made by the Transportation Department for their own purposes, with no regard to what residents want. All major changes like this should be voted on. The City government is unaccountable, unresponsive, and out of touch. Joseph Harwood 542 Hilbar Lane City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:35 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:NTB <aarmatt@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project To Honorable Mayor Kniss and Council Members, For those of us who have been involved with this project since the very beginning, last night was an amazing moment. It’s one we have long awaited but have never taken for granted. Thank you for making it happen! You were the final link in a chain that was started so many years ago. Once completed, Charleston-Arastradero will be a road for which we will all be proud. Once again, thank you. Sincerely, Nina Bell City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:38 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Betty Lum <bylum@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 12:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Chrleston-Arastradero Corridor Dear City Council Members, The meeting was LONG, and you were most tolerant having to listen to ALL the opinions re: Verizon Towers, and of course "the corridor"! Thank you very much for understanding the importance of this project not only for the residents along this corridor, but also for the numbers of people--pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, etc. who travel the route daily. We residents along the corridor are especially grateful, for it will make entering and exiting our neighborhoods much safer. We eagerly anticipate the start of this project knowing the resulting improvements. Many thanks again! Betty Y. Lum 4202 Suzanne Drive 650-493-6876 650-888-0377[c] City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:34 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 8:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:Democracy v. corporate behemoth and cell phone towers This is a distinct, or second letter on same topic and shows more of what my post, from a few years ago, actually looks like, and full text. Thanks, Mark Weiss candidate, for at least a few more precious minutes, for Palo Alto Human Relations commission, partial term, I think??? Downtown North but writing you at 8:48 as counsel for applicant sings his song, a not unpleasant warble Plastic Alto with Mark Weiss Musings on art, technology, culture, ornette Skip to content  Home  About “Plastic Alto” : your source for jazz, rock, art and local politics in the 650 ← Hard On the Y Syrett art at Roll Up Public Works SF → The Great Democracy Tap-out (of Palo Alto) Posted on April 5, 2011by markweiss86 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:34 PM 2 Giant robots from the future will eat all our trees! I watched our so-called leaders, both elected and appointed officials, “tap out” on Democracy, submit to their corporate overlords, sell out their constituents, one after another, gladly, gleefully, smilingly, willfully, by a margin of 12 to 2. (City Council, 8 to 1, last night; Plannning Commission, 4 to 1, on Feb. 25). The lone dissenters, who stood with their neighbors, and against corporate greed and hegemony, if in futility, were first-term council member Karen Holman, and planning commissioner Arthur Keller. The rest of them threw their neighbors under the bus. They are willing to sacrifice at least and especially two people, Michelle Kraus and Jeffrey Jones, top floor residents at 488 University Avenue, Hotel President, so as to not displease the corporate behemoth that is their master; who knows how many of the rest of us 59,000 they will sacrifice for the sake of their gadgets and consumerism, and their political ambitions (like to become the next Liz Kniss ); it’s also no coincidence that the bulk of these elected officials besides not being residentialist are also beholden to the leading local special interest; the top seven finishers in the 2009 City Council race all had close ties and ample backing from real estate interests –not to confuse the distinction between special interests and corporate creep. To “tap out” is a term from submission wrestling wherein the combatant signals his or her submission by tapping the City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:34 PM 3 mat or saying “tap.” Metaphorically speaking, I watched our leaders signal their submission to the small army of corporate mouth-pieces well before the actual votes. Tapping out is like Roberto Duran saying “no mas” rather than continuing in the ring so as not to end up like Duk Koo Kim against Ray “Boom Boom” Mancini. But in politics, I would much rather see my representatives battle on than submit so readily. Even in the face of the so-called “Federal shot clock” (if you forgive the switch to basketball metaphors, from martial arts), wherein we were told that we would be sued in Federal Court if we didn’t submit fast enough, I would rather see Palo Alto conscientiously stand up to injustice rather than cave in so spinelessly. Indeed, I think we should instruct new city attorney Molly Stump to look into the ramifications of such civil disobedience. The large telecommunications company at issue here, according to the Wall Street Journal, spent $15 million lobbying Congress in Washington, D.C. to set the stage for these local events. They’ve moved the goal posts and re- marked all the fields. In effect, they and their ilk have packed the courts, the FCC and Congress with a pro- corporate lobby that to my (admittedly provinicial, naive, jeremiad) view spells the end of democracy as, for example, it was taught at Gunn High for 20 years by Clay Leo. Do you recall the terms “of the people, for the people, by the people?” If so, you’re a dinosaur! It’s now “for the company, by the company.” In 1819, Daniel Webster argued the rights of a small private college to defy the larger bullying local government, in the Dartmouth College case; Chief Justice Marshall’s ruling set the stage for what evolved into today’s corporate contract law, that crawled out of the muck. But in the ensuing 192 years, corporations have in effect become the new City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:34 PM 4 monarchies, a new Feudalism. Webster ironically enough ended doing more to help The Queen of England than he did for upstarts, activists and educators, who were his clients. (Today’s slick pols would not know Daniel Webster from Daniel Craig). I spoke to Karen Holman and Gail Price after the previous council meeting and said I philosophically opposed the applicant’s petition on anti-trust and pro-democracy/anti- corporate grounds; they looked at me with relatively blank faces, and seemed to not know what I was talking about. (Coincidentally, the next day’s papers reported that the two leading phone companies, including our applicant had merged, triggering some anti-trust discussion). A source in the Journal, Center for Responsive Politics aka OpenSecrets dot ORG tracks the role of corporate money in policy and said that the applicant was the leading lobbyist and the leading contributor to political campaigns. I also recall learning of an entity called POCLAD which tracks the encroachment of corporate influence into the public commons. When I chatted with someone (one of the dozen or so well- paid partisans, for the industry) in the lobby of City Hall and explained my concern, a member of the their team basically taunted me, from behind. “‘Corporate power’?! Hmmph!” he said, mockingly; it reminded me of the “woofs” of playground basketball. I was half expecting an elbow to the gullet. At first the sheer arrogance of the applicants was shocking. Then it reminded me of the 1951 Sci-Fi movie “The Day the Earth Stood Still.” These guys were like robots from the future, or superior life forms from a distant planet, telling us the new order: Resistance is futile! Submit now! City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:34 PM 5 http://www.amazon.com/Day-Earth-Stood- Still/dp/B00005JKFR/ref=sr_1_4?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid= 1306513336&sr=1-4 The rhetoric toned down slightly at the City Council public hearing, but it was dismaying to see the way each council member (save Holman) submitted so easily. I felt like a Butler basketball fan watching a nightmare of really bad, unprecedented ineptitude (in Clark Kellog’s words) in shooting. Butler was 12 for 64; like I said, we were 2 for 14 in terms of sticking up for the people. Here is if not an actual transcript a poetically true version of the exchange between three-time Mayor Larry Klein and the chief outside counsel of the applicant, as I saw it at last night’s public hearing: Klein: I’m a lawyer, too (TAP!), so I want to ask you about the term “quiet enjoyment.” A civil code in our state from the 1950s says tenants have some rights. We know that you spend millions on lobbying and close to billions on commercial brainwashing, so how do you get around what seems at surface to be believable and reasonable concerns from the affected residents, our neighbors? Corporate Slickie: Indeed you have some quaint words on your side, “quiet enjoyment.” Imagine those words written in tiny plain font, in gray tones not black, on a little piece of paper. We wrap that paper in a scrumptious mix of sugar and flour, colored, baked: a fortune cookie! We then wrap the fortune cookie in plastic. We buy the cookies in bags of 50 count. There are 12 bags to a box, 40 boxes to a truck. We load the trucks into boxcars. Now picture this: I make $500 an hour, I wear nice suits, I pay $150 for my slick, not quite Jeff Bridges but not Mr. Smith from “The Matrix” either haircut, and though arrogant I am actually human: I have kids (at prep school, in Southern California). But my boss, my master, you do not, believe me, want to “F” with City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:34 PM 6 him!! (bang, bang — or air quotes). My boss, The Colossus, he eats the BOXCARS by enormous handfills, hand over fist, as much as he wants, whenever he wants, greedily, hungrily. He eats boxcars of cookies, I’ve described, cakes, dry goods, consumer devices, widgets — whatever you got — weapons, trees, I mean, lumber, packaging and all, steel containers, the entire boxcars. He then, um, poops it all out, a sea of poop bigger than a football field. Now you puny citizens and your “quiet enjoyment,” you have permission to sift silently through our soot, in search or your quaint and archaic values and principles, for now, until further notice. I may be over-stating the case, but if so I will gladly eat my words. edit to add, May 20, 2011: I posted a version of this on the website, as comments, of the Palo Alto Weekly, and a link back to here; I was reacting to the opinion piece authored by Leon Beauchman, who is the person I am referring to in paragraph 10, above, who “woofed” me in the lobby of City Hall. It turns out his is a former San Jose State basketball player! I said that El Palo Alto is beginning to look like a Christmas Tree in a Terry Gilliam or Philip K. Dick movie. Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here You can hide these ads completely by upgrading to one of our paid plans. UPGRADE NOW DISMISS MESSAGE Related Palo Alto's New Varsity and 'The Last Picture Waltz' initiativeIn "music" I. The set of all blind piano playersIn "jazz" Nancy Shepherd declares "No Yawping Zone"!In "Plato's Republic" City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:34 PM 7 About markweiss86 Mark Weiss, founder of Plastic Alto blog, is a concert promoter and artist manager in Palo Alto, as Earthwise Productions, with background as journalist, advertising copywriter, book store returns desk, college radio producer, city council and commissions candidate, high school basketball player; he also sang in local choir, and fronts an Allen Ginsberg tribute Beat Hotel Rm 32 View all posts by markweiss86 → This entry was posted in Plato's Republic, sports, words and tagged 488 university, democracy, palo alto city council, president hotel. Bookmark the permalink. Edit ← Hard On the Y Syrett art at Roll Up Public Works SF → 8 Responses to The Great Democracy Tap- out (of Palo Alto) 1. markweiss86 says: April 5, 2011 at 5:49 pm (Edit) Matt Bowling: http://www.paloaltohistory.com/hotelpresident.ht ml Reply 2. markweiss86 says: April 5, 2011 at 6:27 pm (Edit) Reply 3. Mark Weiss says: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:34 PM 8 April 5, 2011 at 6:45 pm (Edit) My source on tap out lore, especially “Fight” his book: http://www.eugenesrobinson.com/ Reply 4. Mark Weiss says: April 9, 2011 at 10:16 am (Edit) Coincidentally, or not, as all 18 topics here, “art, technology, culture, ornette” are hermetically interwoven, Terry and I this a.m. were listening to the lone Mingus cd left in her collection, an obscure live recording on Enja, of a Jaki Byard composition, in preparation for what will be a whole week’s worth of Mingusisms (Mingus Big Band at Stanford Lively Arts Wednesday, plus a lecture Sunday, a clinic I may sneak into at Gunn day of show, maybe an improptu concert at Lytton Plaza), “AT-FW-YOU” which actually stands for Art Tatum and Fats Waller. We are off to Rasputin’s to remedy, probably with Mingus Ah Um or maybe, if feeling bold Black Saint and Sinner Lady. Reply 5. Mark Weiss says: April 10, 2011 at 5:04 pm (Edit) from PBS tv “Ebert at Movies: Nell The Movie Mom”: Reply 6. markweiss86 says: April 12, 2011 at 2:37 pm (Edit) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:34 PM 9 A propos of this topic the FCC’s Julius Genachowski is speaking at Computer Museum in Mountain View on April 14, via the Commonwealth Club. http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2011- 04-14/julius-genachowski-chairman-fcc Reply 7. markweiss86 says: April 13, 2011 at 1:23 pm (Edit) Steve Coleman’s “Resistance is Futile” Reply 54 years of liberal arts education down the drain.... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:32 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 8:35 PM To:Council, City Cc:Carnahan, David; Holman, Karen (external); Arthur Keller Subject:doomed to repeat history? Phone industry v. we the palo alto Hi, I got thru a wee bit of this in one minute at council. I published this on my blog "Plastic Alto" and also, in part, in comment board of the local paper online. Thnaks for your service. "The Great Democracy Tap Out" i want to give a shout out to my freshman roommate Brian Xavier Gaul, who is Assistant General Counsel for Verizon in Washington DC, and express my condolences regarding the loss of his beloved wife Eleonora Sunshine. (Pause) There are good people on both sides of this issue…It’s a blessing we have this forum to discuss this. We are lucky. A lot of places no longer have this. (David C should plug in my lap top to Democracy Tap out wordpress) https://markweiss86.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/the-great-democracy-tap-out-of-palo-alto/ Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. (George santayana, 1906) I watched our so-called leaders, both elected and appointed officials, “tap out” on Democracy, submit to their corporate overlords, sell out their constituents, one after another, gladly, gleefully, smilingly, willfully, by a margin of 12 to 2. (City Council, 8 to 1, last night; Plannning Commission, 4 to 1, on Feb. 25). The lone dissenters, who stood with their neighbors, and against corporate greed and hegemony, if in futility, were first-term council member Karen Holman, and planning commissioner Arthur Keller. The rest of them threw their neighbors under the bus. They are willing to sacrifice at least and especially two people, Michelle Kraus and Jeffrey Jones, top floor residents at 488 University Avenue, Hotel President, so as to not displease the corporate behemoth that is their master; who knows how many of the rest of us 59,000 they will sacrifice for the sake of their gadgets and consumerism, and their political ambitions (like to become the next Liz Kniss* ); it’s also no coincidence that the bulk of these elected officials besides not being residentialist are also beholden to the leading local special interest; the top seven finishers in the 2009 City Council race all had close ties and ample backing from real estate interests –not to confuse the distinction between special interests and corporate creep. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:32 PM 2 To “tap out” is a term from submission wrestling wherein the combatant signals his or her submission by tapping the mat or saying “tap.” Metaphorically speaking, I watched our leaders signal their submission to the small army of corporate mouth-pieces well before the actual votes. Tapping out is like Roberto Duran saying “no mas” rather than continuing in the ring so as not to end up like Duk Koo Kim against Ray “Boom Boom” Mancini. But in politics, I would much rather see my representatives battle on than submit so readily. Even in the face of the so-called “Federal shot clock” (if you forgive the switch to basketball metaphors, from martial arts),wherein we were told that we would be sued in Federal Court if we didn’t submit fast enough, I would rather see Palo Alto conscientiously stand up to injustice rather than cave in so spinelessly. Indeed, I think we should instruct new city attorney Molly Stump to look into the ramifications of such civil disobedience.... (In the piece itself is a reference to the NCAA finals that year, the night before, comparing our leaders to the performance of Butler basketball, who had a really, really bad night...) Plastic alto with Mark Weiss, posted April 5, 2011, only 7 years ago. The Great Democracy Tap-out (of Palo Alto) Giant robots from the future will eat all our trees! This guy works for the applicant, one of the world's largest corporations. He is paid to write this. He was paid to speak at the various public hearings, yet for some reason he never identifies himself as an employee of that firm -- what's up with that? I wonder if his company beyond paying Leon offered Palo Alto Weekly money to run this piece. It probably more rightly should have been a full page ad labeled ADVERTISEMENT or, if it were my paper, CORPORATE PROPAGANDA. The applicant, according to Wall Street Journal is the leading contributor to political campaigns and spends the most on lobbyists. (I wonder if they lobby locally -- is that what Joint Venture is? A lobby for corporate interests? I wonder what founding executive who we knew of originally as a school board stalwart Becky Morgan thinks of what it has become..) In the lobby of City Hall one night, as I was discussing with a another attendee my position -- pro-resident and therefore suspicious of huge corporations telling us what is best for us, or worse, that we are not allowed by Federal law they paid for to resist at all, on certain grounds, or only within a "shot clock" - this is basketball now? -- Leon Beauchman, without identifying himself stood behind me and taunted -- I called it "woofing" in my blog -- "Corporate power? Harumph!!!" Beyond the health issues, beyond the intrusions, beyond the aesthetics I oppose this based on anti-trust grounds, the entities involved are "disturbing" -- that's a web 2.0 buzzword -- democracy. I don't mind the dropped calls; I am more worried about Big Brother some day deciding that dissidents, mavericks, non-comformists, cranks and loudmouths should be removed from the system, and they know where we are at every moment thanks to GPS. Look at China and Ai Weiwei. Our "extraordinary rendition" and elimination of habeus corpus is not so different. I thought the arrogance of the corporate slickies was appalling. And I was disappointed at how council and commissions caved so easily to the pressure. He probably still is a pretty good basketball player; played for SJSU. .... My main point is that we should discuss these things and not operate at the speed of the industry. "Health issues" is probably too strong a term. "Health questions" "health concerns" I am referencing the phones not the towers here. And yes, I continue to use the product. But like I said above, I would put up with a few dropped calls to preserve some aesthetics and not feel that I am on their farm. The link above is New York Times Feb. 22, 2011 "Cellphone Use Tied To Changes In Brain Activity" Puzzling evidence as David Byrne might say. ... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:32 PM 3 I actually left my smart phone home tonight it was charging, and I left a little note to my wife “at council” and I put a little smiley face but for some reason started to make the eyes of “s”s not unlike dollar signs.. I came for another item and stayed to speak out on this. also I was pleased to see Dr. Cindy Russell here tonight, who I met 25 years ago when she co-chaired Bay Area Action Earthday at Stanford,which changed my life. She hasn’t changed a bit. Mark Weiss Downtown North *I actually find her quite charming and voted for her in 2014, and told her so. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:26 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ellen Uhrbrock <ellen.uhrbrock@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2018 4:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Employee Parking Permits I've lived in Palo Alto for 50 years and I was a CAC for Comprehensive Plan 2030 - If you can't park, you can't live or work in Palo Alto. I live in Channing House and depend on 24 hour service. So do my neighbors, and I watch businesses fail for expense or lack of parking for employees. You are a non-profit if your employees have to run out and move a car - in the middle of closing a sale. Do not cut the RPP for sale to business with employees who need them. Freeze the number - RRP is working in most areas - okay to juggle - okay to freeze the number - it's not okay to cut the number of passes for low income employees. Thanks - Ellen Uhrbrock Ellen E. Uhrbrock ellen.uhrbrock@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:53 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Helyn MacLean <hmaclean@aol.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 7:28 AM To:Council, City Subject:First Baptist Church Dear City Council Members: On Monday, May 14, Rick Mixon, pastor of First Baptist Church, said to Council that he would never rent church space to an organization like the NRA. On Saturday, May 19, the Chinese Rifle Association hosted a fundraiser for a political candidate at First Baptist. The Chinese Rifle Association is a gun rights organization. (https://www.sayweee.com/article/view/h9lmg?from=previous_article). While I realize that Pastor Mixon was not testifying under oath, shouldn’t truthfulness matter? I believe this speaks to neighbors’ concerns about the motives and integrity of First Baptist Church and its staff. Sincerely, Helyn MacLean City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:39 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Carnahan, David Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 2:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Fleming/United Neighbors Comments Attachments:Fleming-United Neighbors Opening 5-21-18.doc; Fleming-United Neighbors Rebuttal 5-21-18.doc Good afternoon Council Members,    Find correspondence from Jeanne Fleming below and attached.    David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA  O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org      From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net]   Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 12:59 PM  To: Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Fleming/United Neighbors Comments    Dear David, Thank you again for your help last night. Unfortunately, I forgot to give you a copy of my comments. I am attaching a copy of them now, and I would appreciate it if you would add them to the public record. Please let me know if this is OK. Finally, I have a question: When the timer at the podium in Council chambers says “Summarize,” how many minutes are left on the timer? Again, thank you. Jeanne Jeanne Fleming JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 Fleming/United Neighbors Opening (5/21/18): On behalf of United Neighbors, I’m appealing former Director Gitelman’s decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of unsightly cell tower equipment on utility poles within yards of each of 11 homes—equipment that should be located in underground vaults. Thank you for hearing our appeal. I’ll start by briefly recapping the Architectural Review Board process that preceded the Director’s decision. A year ago, the ARB developed a thoughtful set of criteria for the siting and installation of cell towers in our residential neighborhoods. The ARB developed these criteria to ensure that Verizon and other telecom companies would abide by Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances—that is, to ensure that the character of our wonderful neighborhoods would be preserved. And just for the record: The ARB’s criteria are consistent with state and federal law, with Palo Alto’s wireless ordinance and with the Master License. Applying these criteria, the ARB decided last December that Verizon’s applications to install its ugly ancillary equipment on the utility poles in front of 11 Palo Alto homes should be rejected. In doing so, the ARB directed Verizon to return with new plans—plans that would place this equipment underground at each site. In other words, the ARB decided that, for Verizon to conform to City ordinances, vaulted equipment was required. In March, Verizon claimed it was infeasible to locate its equipment underground at any of its proposed sites. This assertion—which is, as I’ll explain, demonstrably false—led to the then-Director’s decision to allow pole-mounted equipment. What really happened is this: Verizon deliberately misled City Staff, the ARB and Ms Gitelman about the feasibility of undergrounding. Why? Because vaulted equipment is more expensive to install and maintain than pole-mounted equipment. In fact, Verizon, along with other cell providers, have vaulted their equipment—or have submitted plans to vault their equipment—in many California cities—cities such as Santa Cruz, Montecito, Rancho Palos Verdes, Piedmont and Santa Barbara. For example: Photos 1 and 2: Here are Verizon’s own photo simulations of two of eight vaulted sites it has proposed for Piedmont. You can scarcely tell there’s a cell tower at these sites, or at the other six. Photo 3: This shows a telecom vault in Rancho Palos Verdes. Photo 4: This is the plan for a vault Verizon installed in Montecito. Photo 5: Here’s a cell tower in Santa Barbara that has vaulted equipment. Photo 6: This is a Verizon vault in Santa Cruz. You can see that—just as with the vaults in all the other photos—it’s completely flush-to-the ground and there are no protruding elements. See how the stroller that’s half on and half off the vault cover is completely stable? These vaults are all ADA compliant. Photo 7: Here’s another Verizon flush-to-the-ground cell tower vault in Santa Cruz. My point is this: If the hundreds of pounds of ancillary equipment that cell towers require can be vaulted in these cities, it can be in vaulted in Palo Alto as well. Verizon, though, says it cannot, but for reasons that are completely disingenuous and self-serving. For example, Verizon says that some of the sites it’s proposed in Palo Alto are in a 100-year flood zone, hence the radios could get wet. But 100 percent waterproof radios exist, and so do 100 percent waterproof telecommunications vaults. Indeed, we would be happy to provide Verizon with contact information for the company whose vaults withstood Hurricane Harvey in Texas. Verizon also claims there are physical impediments to undergrounding at some sites—it says, for example, that one pole’s near an ADA ramp. Well, here’s a photo of a telecommunications vault that’s located in an ADA ramp. (Exhibit A) Again, we’d be glad to direct Verizon to the manufacturer. Verizon also asserts that rolled curbs make vaulting infeasible, that it doesn’t know how to engineer a rolled vault cover. Well, I spoke with a representative of Oldcastle, a company that manufactures vaults for Verizon. And when I asked if a rolled lid was feasible, he laughed and said, “Of course we could do it. Anything is possible for a big client like Verizon.” More generally, if Verizon would simply use a coaxial cable that’s longer than the 100 feet it prefers, there is virtually nothing it can’t work around. Then, there’s the issue of noise. Verizon’s fallback position in every community that has resisted hanging hundreds of pounds of ancillary equipment on poles is that vaulted equipment is unacceptably noisy. Not so. Exhibit B: For example, here’s a geothermally-cooled, ventless vault. It is completely silent. Moreover, according to experts hired by Piedmont, if the exhaust fan in a vented vault produces too much noise, simply replacing it with a quieter model solves the problem. There are other fixes too, but I don’t have time to list them. My point is, there are solutions for every so-called engineering problem Verizon raises. The only problem is that these solutions can cost more money than Verizon wants to spend. But there is absolutely no reason why Palo Alto should compromise the character of its lovely neighborhoods to save Verizon money. To be clear: We in United Neighbors like our smart phones, want good cell phone service and are intrigued by 5G. But we ask that you, City Council, require Verizon to do this right and vault the ancillary equipment at each of these eleven sites. Thank you for listening. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Fleming/United Neighbors Rebuttal (5/21/18): Thank you again for hearing United Neighbors’ appeal. So … It seems that Verizon has never met a vault it likes, including its own. Why? Because vaulted equipment is more expensive to install and maintain than pole- mounted equipment. And it’s also why Verizon has been blowing smoke about the feasibility of vaulting ever since it arrived in town. But please consider this: Even though we’re in the very early days of the ramp up to 5G, Verizon has already proposed or installed vaulted equipment in other California cities, including Santa Cruz, Montecito, Rancho Palos Verdes, Piedmont and Santa Barbara. Here in Palo Alto, six of the 11 cell tower sites that Verizon chose are in a 100- Year Flood Zone—in other words, in locations where floods could conceivably occur. But somehow no other sites will do for them. And as for using the 100 percent water-proof radios and 100 percent water-proof vaults that are available, sorry, they’re not interested. Then there are the so-called physical impediments to vaulting Verizon ticks off for the other five sites. Not one stands up to scrutiny. They cite rolled curbs. But their own supplier, Oldcastle, says they’d be happy to manufacture a rolled vault cover for Verizon. Proximity to an ADA ramp? We’d be happy to direct Verizon to a manufacturer that installs telecom vaults in ADA ramps. Proximity to things which can’t be displaced, like tree roots? All Verizon needs to do is buy longer coaxial cables, and they can work around just about anything. Finally, there’s Verizon’s ultimate fallback: Vaulted equipment is noisy. It certainly doesn’t have to be. Geo-thermally cooled vaults eliminate noise all together. And simple fixes such as fans designed to be quiet, and insulation, greatly reduce noise in conventional vaults. The bottom line is, the so-called engineering problems Verizon claims prevent it from vaulting are all bogus. They’re not problems, they’re expenses Verizon is trying to avoid. Well, there’s no reason why we in Palo Alto should sacrifice the character of our wonderful neighborhoods to save money for a company whose revenues are $250 Billion a year. We at United Neighbors ask Council to prohibit Verizon from hanging its ugly, oversized equipment on the utility poles in our residential neighborhoods—equipment that will remain here for generations to come—when locating this equipment underground is eminently feasible. Please overturn former Director Gitelman’s decision. It was based on Verizon’s misinformation. And, if you don’t do that, please modify her decision’s Condition of Approval #9 so that it reads: 9. VAULTING OF EQUIPMENT: This approval requires vaulting of equipment, except the antenna, power disconnect, and conduit, at each of the following 11 sites: I won’t read off the list, but I’m referring to the 11 sites we’ve been considering tonight. Node #129: CPAU Pole #3121; (2490 Louis Road) Node #130, CPAU Pole #2461; (2802 Louis Road) Node #131, CPAU Pole #3315; (891 Elbridge Way) Node #133E, CPAU Pole #2856; (949 Loma Verde Avenue) Node #134, CPAU Pole #2964; (3409 Kenneth Drive) Node #135, CPAU Pole # 3610; (795 Stone Lane) Node #137, CPAU Pole #3351; (3090 Ross Road) Node #138, CPAU Pole #2479;(836 Colorado Avenue) Node #143, CPAU Pole #3867; (419 El Verano Avenue) Node #144, CPAU Pole #1506; (201 Loma Verde Avenue) Node #145, CPAU Pole# 3288. (737 Loma Verde Avenue) And now continuing: It is City Council’s finding that vaulting is the least intrusive feasible means for deployment of small cell nodes at each of these 11 sites. Thank you for listening. I’d welcome any questions you have. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:52 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 12:42 AM To:dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; hennessy; huidentalsanmateo; Mayor; Mark Kreutzer; midge@thebarretts.com; info@superide1.com; francis.collins@nih.gov; Irv Weissman; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; blackstone@blastfitness.com; terry; paul.caprioglio; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Raymond Rivas; steve.hogg; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kclark; newsdesk; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; nick yovino; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu Subject:Fwd: British PM May will laud AI in early disease diagnosis. Nvidia big player. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:35 AM Subject: Re: British PM May will laud AI in early disease diagnosis. Nvidia big player. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: Sunday, May 20, 2018 To all- British PM Teresa May will praise the power of AI to detect disease early. Nvidia is a major player in this. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-44191444 I wish someone of similar rank in the U.S. government gave this development equal attention. It will save a lot of lives. As an Nvidia stockholder, I've been emailing about this for days. Maybe I'm read in Britain. Nvidia's tech can enhance the power of medical imaging to detect cancer. Lung, breast and prostate c. are better detected using Nvidia tech. Stanford proved that AI can detect skin c. as well as a dermatologist can. Nvidia's tech can work with CT scans and biopsy slides using current machines and microscopes in clinics and hospitals all over the world. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:37 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:NOC Fiber Internet Center <noc@FiberInternetCenter.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 10:55 AM To:Council, City Subject:[Fwd: RE: Palo Alto Fiber Issue] Your fiber department is not run by educated people. While they have been in place a long time they have learned  nothing from Kenny, Mark and Scott.  All of whom retired recently, now there is no one with knowledge running the crews.    Somehow sales now runs the tech side ?    Thank You  Bob Evans  CTO        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Subject: RE: Palo Alto Fiber Issue  From:    "NOC Fiber Internet Center" <noc@FiberInternetCenter.com>  Date:    Tue, May 22, 2018 10:50 am  To:      "Ward, Brian" <Brian.Ward@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc:      "bob@FiberInternetCenter.com" <bob@fiberinternetcenter.com>           "Gus Sanchez" <gus@fiberinternetcenter.com>           "noc@fiberinternetcenter.com" <noc@fiberinternetcenter.com>           "Johnson, Ryan" <ryan.johnson@cityofpaloalto.org>           "Wallace, Josh" <josh.wallace@cityofpaloalto.org>  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐      Oh my ...I cant believe this email. This email borders ‐‐‐‐ will do I have to say it ?      Thank You  Bob Evans  CTO      > Bob and Gus,  >  > From the City of Palo Alto's perspective, we have tried to evaluate   > and pinpoint where your fault maybe. However with FIC going in and out   > of so many buildings, LIKE 3333 Coyote Hill, PARC, which according to   > you is no longer a customer, it's hard to determine the fault. We   > cannot and will not go into a customer site to determine if FIC has   > fault. What we can tell you and we have told you already, with so many   > daisy chains going in and out of buildings the potential fault is   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:37 PM 2 > endless. Please tell us what you would like us to do?  >  > Kindest regards,  >  > Brian  >  >  >  > Brian Ward  > Key Account Manager  > City of Palo Alto Utilities  >  > 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  >  > D: 650.329.2251 C: 650.740.7846 |  E: brian.ward@cityofpaloalto.org  >  > Please think of the environment before printing this email ‐ Thank you!  >  >  > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  > From: Johnson, Ryan  > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 9:41 AM  > To: Wallace, Josh; Ward, Brian  > Subject: FW: Palo Alto Fiber Issue  >  >  >  > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  > From: NOC Fiber Internet Center [mailto: ]  > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 8:34 AM  > To: Johnson, Ryan  > Cc: noc@FiberInternetCenter.com  > Subject: RE: Palo Alto Fiber Issue  >  > Ryan  > FYI this has been going on for weeks. Support from the department has   > been worse than poor. To pay what we get charged per building and be   > told ‐ we dont have time for this is horrible.  >  > Thank You  > Bob Evans  > CTO  >  >  >> Phillip,  >>  >> Our crew is investigating issue between properties right now. I will   >> get back to you when we come to a conclusion.  >>  >> Thank you,  >>  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:37 PM 3 >>  >> Ryan Johnson  >> Traffic Signal/Streetlights/Fiber Optics Lead City of Palo Alto   >> Office  >> 650‐838‐2848 Cell 650‐444‐5986  >>  >>  >>  >> ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  >> From: Phillip Mueller [mailto:phillipm@FiberInternetCenter.com]  >> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 4:07 PM  >> To: Johnson, Ryan  >> Cc: noc@fiberinternetcenter.com  >> Subject: Palo Alto Fiber Issue  >>  >> We are currently experiencing issues with the fiber between our   >> routers at  >> 4005 Miranda and Palo Alto Square Building 5.  >>  >> A 1 gig SFP with a 20km range works fine between these locations. A   >> 10 gig SFP with a 20km range sees roughly 50% packet loss. A 10 gig   >> SFP with a 40km range sees roughly 1% packet loss, which is much   >> lower but still unacceptable.  >>  >> We have tried everything we can on our end. We've swapped out   >> routers, fiber, equipment; the issue is consistent.  >>  >> One possible source of the issue is that there are a number of   >> locations between these two routers where we used to have routers.  >> According to former employees of the City of Palo Alto, after leaving   >> these locations instead of being spliced out we were just looped.  >>  >> 4005 Miranda ‐ Router  >> 1891 Page Mill ‐ Looped  >> 1701 Page Mill ‐ Looped  >> 3333 Coyote Road ‐ Looped  >> Palo Alto Square Building five ‐ Router  >>  >> Since we don't have access to 1891 Page Mill, 1701 Page Mill, or 3333   >> Coyote Road there isn't anything we can do to determine if this is   >> where the fiber issues are taking place.  >>  >> Do you have any OTDR readings?  >>  >> Thank You  >> Phillip Mueller  >> Fiber NOC Tech  >> 650‐330‐0428 ext 2  >> noc@FiberInternetCenter.com  >>  >>  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2018 10:46 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 3:04 PM To:Gail Price Subject:Fwd: Reminder: Nominations for the 2018 Kiwanis Angel Award due June 1, 2018 Dear Friends, The Kiwanis Club of a Palo Alto is seeking nominations for the 7th Annual Angel Award. The nomination form Www.kiwanisangelaward.org. Please consider nominating an individual who has made significant contributions toward the well being of children and youth in our community. Thank you Gail Price Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Jim Stinger <jstinger3@comcast.net> Date: May 22, 2018 at 1:11:49 PM PDT To: Gail <gail.price3@gmail.com> Subject: Reminder: Nominations for the 2018 Kiwanis Angel Award due June 1, 2018 Reply-To: Jim Stinger <jstinger3@comcast.net> Dear Community Members, The 2018 Kiwanis 7th Annual Angel Award will take place at the Sheraton Palo Alto on Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 5:30pm. We welcome and encourage you to submit nominations regarding individuals who have had a significant and positive impact on children and youth in Palo Alto and the Mid-Peninsula. The Kiwanis Angel Award nomination form is attached. You may download the form by clicking here Thank you for considering our request and we hope you will submit a nomination by June 4, 2018. Best, 2018 Kiwanis Angel Award Committee Chair Jim Stinger City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2018 10:46 AM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2018 10:46 AM 3 Copyright © 2018 Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto Charitable Foundation, All rights reserved. Members of the Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto Our mailing address is: Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto Charitable Foundation P.O. Box 149 Palo Alto, CA 94302-0149 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:37 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 10:53 AM To:registrar@rov.sccgov.org; Benitez, Wayne Cc:Council, City; jean.anton@cob.sccgov.org; leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique; Steve Chessin; alice.smith@gmail.com Subject:Illegal Petition Circulation in front of the Mitchell Park Library, 6/15/2018, 6:15 pm Dear Office of the Registrar of Voters and Sergeant Wayne Benitez, Palo Alto Police Department: NOTE: While I serve as a Library Commissioner for the City of Cupertino, I write to you today as a Santa Clara County resident only and not as a spokesperson for the Library Commission. The views expressed here are entirely my own. At approximately 6:15 pm on Wednesday, 5/16/2018, I observed a person collecting petition signatures in front of the Mitchell Park Library. The Mitchell Park Library is a host site for an inside drop-off box for mail-in ballots. Election Law prevents petition circulation of any kind within 100 feet of a polling site, which includes drop-off boxes for mail-in ballots. Shannon Bushey, SCC ROV, clarified in her comments to the Santa Clara County Library District Joint Powers Authority Board on 4/26/2018 that the 100 foot “no campaigning” zone encircling ballot boxes located inside buildings begins at the entrance of the building where the ballot box is located (and is not measured from the ballot box itself). While I did not have my tape measure with me, I counted approximately 19 paces from the entrance to the library to the location where the petition circulator was standing. At the time, I informed 2 library staff members about the petition circulator. One staff member volunteered that petition circulation is not permitted within 100 feet of a ballot box, but was not aware that the 100 foot distance is measured from the entrance to the building where the ballot box is located. I asked the library staff members what guidance they had received from the Office of the SCC ROV regarding what to do if they observed any problems associated with the ballot box. Neither staff member was aware of any specific guidance regarding care and handling of the ballot box beyond the knowledge that someone from the Office of the SCC ROV will come twice a week to remove the collected ballots. I contacted the non-emergency number for the Palo Alto Police Dept to report the illegal petition circulation, but was unable to wait for the responding officer to arrive. I spoke with the responding officer, Sergeant Wayne Benitez by phone following his contact with the petition circulator. In our conversation, Sergeant Benitez identified two challenges for law enforcement regarding the current ballot box arrangement at Mitchell Park Library: (1) There is no signage outside the library indicating that the library is a polling site and that campaigning, including petition signature gathering of any kind, is forbidden within 100 feet of a polling site. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:37 PM 2 (2) There are no physical markings anywhere around the library to indicate where the 100 foot distance from the polling site begins or ends. Please consider how difficult it will be for law enforcement to protect the “silent” zone surrounding the ballot box at Mitchell Park Library when it is not possible to identify that the library is a polling site by looking at the building from the outside. Law enforcement is also challenged because very few people are aware that campaigning is not permitted within 100 feet of unsupervised ballot drop-off boxes nor are they aware of how the 100 foot distance is measured. HERE ARE MY QUESTIONS: (1) How will the Office of the SCC ROV support law enforcement in Palo Alto and throughout Santa Clara County in their efforts to maintain “no campaigning” zones surrounding polling sites, given the now documented deficiencies related to signage and non-existent limit line markers (100-foot radius from the polling site)? (2) How will the Office of the SCC ROV support law enforcement in Palo Alto and throughout Santa Clara County regarding training to support new and existing laws affecting polling sites, including drop-off boxes for mail-in ballots? (See Shannon Bushey’s message below identifying the relevant sections of the Elections Code addressing prohibited activities near polling sites. See also the “Electioneering” press release issued by the Office of the Secretary of State on 10/8/2014 that addresses restrictions on petition circulation near polling places: http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ccrov/pdf/2014/october/14261jl.pdf) Ms. Bushey and Sergeant Benitez, if I have misstated any actions or events involving either of you, please clarify or correct my comments in your reply, if any. + + + + + As the SCC ROV is well aware, I stand in firm opposition to the placement of ballot boxes in popular public venues, including inside libraries and near library entrances, because of the unavoidable and necessary suppression of Free Speech that accompanies those ballot boxes. The suppression of Freedom of Speech for 29 days/10 days/4 days in advance of an election in our popular public venues is too burdensome for communities to bear in what is now, unfortunately, an era of tenuous support for Democracy. All mail-in ballot materials distributed to Santa Clara County residents include an addressed and postage-paid return envelope. Every USPS mailbox is a “safe, secure, accessible” place where voters can return their ballots. It is unacceptable to silence Free Speech in our communities’ well-trafficked public venues by burdening them with ballot boxes 29 days in advance of an election. Thank you for your consideration of my questions and for recognition of my on-going request to remove polling sites from well-trafficked public venues, including inside libraries and near library entrances. Sincerely, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:37 PM 3 Liana Crabtree Cupertino resident Begin forwarded message: From: Shannon Bushey Date: May 16, 2018 at 11:47:52 AM PDT To: Liana Crabtree Cc: Others Subject: FW: Time-sensitive: question about petition signature gathering within 100 feet of drop-off ballot boxes Hello Ms. Crabtree, Thank you for your email regarding an issue at the City. I cannot answer your legal questions about this situation at the City and if it is legal to circulate petitions in city buildings. Please contact the City regarding your legal questions about this issue. I have copied Elections Code sections that may be of assistance to you. 319.5. “Electioneering” means the visible display or audible dissemination of information that advocates for or against any candidate or measure on the ballot within 100 feet of a polling place, a vote center, an elections official’s office, or a satellite location under Section 3018. Prohibited electioneering information includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: (a) A display of a candidate’s name, likeness, or logo. (b) A display of a ballot measure’s number, title, subject, or logo. (c) Buttons, hats, pencils, pens, shirts, signs, or stickers containing electioneering information. (d) Dissemination of audible electioneering information. (e) At vote by mail ballot drop boxes, loitering near or disseminating visible or audible electioneering information 18370. No person, on election day, or at any time that a voter may be casting a ballot, shall, within 100 feet of a polling place, a satellite location under Section 3018, or an elections official’s office: (a) Circulate an initiative, referendum, recall, or nomination petition or any other petition. (b) Solicit a vote or speak to a voter on the subject of marking his or her ballot. (c) Place a sign relating to voters’ qualifications or speak to a voter on the subject of his or her qualifications except as provided in Section 14240. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:37 PM 4 (d) Do any electioneering as defined by Section 319.5. As used in this section, “100 feet of a polling place, a satellite location under Section 3018, or an elections official’s office” means a distance 100 feet from the room or rooms in which voters are signing the roster and casting ballots. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. 18371. (a) No candidate or representative of a candidate, and no proponent, opponent, or representative of a proponent or opponent, of an initiative, referendum, or recall measure, or of a charter amendment, shall solicit the vote of a vote by mail voter, or do any electioneering, while in the residence or in the immediate presence of the voter, and during the time he or she knows the vote by mail voter is voting. (b) Any person who knowingly violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. (c) This section shall not be construed to conflict with any provision of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, nor to preclude electioneering by mail or telephone or in public places, except as prohibited by Section 18370, or by any other provision of law.     Shannon Bushey, CERA Registrar of Voters County of Santa Clara 1555 Berger Drive, Bldg. 2 San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 282‐3005 shannon.bushey@rov.sccgov.org   Help your community by serving as a poll worker!   NOTICE:  This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or  restricted.  It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message.   If you are NOT an  authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or  disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer.  If you  have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.   Download the free SCCVOTE mobile app for iPhone/iPad & Android: bit.ly/sccvote Follow us on @sccvote Like us on @sccvote     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:27 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:League of Women Voters of Palo Alto <publicity=lwvpaloalto.org@mail96.atl161.mcsv.net> on behalf of League of Women Voters of Palo Alto <publicity@lwvpaloalto.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2018 4:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:June/July 2018 Palo Alto VOTER View this email in your browser June/July 2018 Issue of The VOTER Your digital copy of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto's VOTER is attached below. Just click on the image to view in PDF format. You can also save it to your desktop and read at your leisure! Thank you, Sue Hermsen, VOTER Editor League of Women Voters of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:27 PM 2 Inside this issue you will find upcoming events, voter information about the upcoming June 5th primary election, LWVC's ballot recommendations and more:  Outgoing & Incoming President’s Letter  Board Meeting Highlights  Advocacy Report  Membership News  2017-18 Summary  LWVUS Award  New Voices for Youth  Voter Registration  Announcements  Calendar City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:27 PM 3 Facebook Twitter Website Copyright © 2018 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Outgoing President’s Letter p. 2 Incoming President’s Letter p. 3 Board Meeting Highlights p. 3 Advocacy Report p. 4 Membership News p. 4 2017-18 Summary pp. 5-7 LWVUS Award p. 7 New Voices for Youth p.8 Voter Registration p. 8 Announcements pp. 8-9 Calendar p. 10 The League is a broadly based organization that encourages informed and involved participation in government through voter service and influences public policy through education and advocacy. The League does not support or oppose political candidates or parties. The Palo Alto VOTER Vol. XXXIII No. X June/July, 2018 The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto www.lwvpaloalto.org Inside this issue: The facts about our criminal justice system are well known and overwhelming. Often, its many intricacies and many branches across our political and economic system can make it seem like solutions that get to the root of the problem are impossible. However, if we look outside of the walls of the judicial system, the prisons, the obvious places, we find that there is incredible potential to not only stem the harm of mass incarceration but build something entirely new. Who has the power to build a new justice system? The millions of people impacted by mass incarceration. Join Ashoka and this incredible group of social entrepreneurs to learn about the biggest, most effective solutions to our national crisis and what the intersections across their work can teach us about empathy, democracy, and power. Co-Sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. Monday, June 4, 2018 6:30-7:00 pm | Registration 7-8:30 pm | Panel and Q&A Palo Alto Art Center 1313 Newell Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Contact: aplotkin@ashoka.org For more information and to RSVP, click here: https://www.tfaforms.com/4670078 June 5 Primary Election League of Women Voters of California Recommends: YES ON PROP 68 - CALIFORNIANS FOR CLEAN WATER AND SAFE PARKS - Read More Here YES ON PROP 69 - MOTOR VEHICLE FEES AND TAXES - Read More Here VOTE NO ON PROP 70 - GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION RESERVE FUND - Read More Here YES ON PROP 71 - EFFECTIVE DATE OF INITIATIVES - Read More Here VOTE YES ON PROP 72 - PROPERTY TAXATION: NEW CONSTRUCTION: RAIN WATER CAPTURE SYSTEM- Read More Here See page 7 for more on these measures LWVPA !6 June-July, 2018 The LWVPA Education Team has had an exciting year supporting and advocating for improved education and increased funding of education in California. We launched our year with two very successful events: In October we showed the film: “The Raising of America” (Kim Kruckel of the Child Care Law Center of San Francisco served as our facilitator.) In December, we secured Dr. Deborah Stipek of Stanford as the keynote speaker for our Annual LWVPA Luncheon. Dr. Stipek presented a well-received talk, “Early Childhood Education: Why is it Essential to our Collective Future?” to a full house. Now we have joined forces with our Advocacy Committee in gathering signatures to place the California Schools and Communities Funding Act on the state November Ballot in 2020. As of this writing we have gathered over 1,200 signatures before the deadline of June 30, 2018. Our work continues. Please contact us if you would like to join our many volunteers for this last push to qualify our initiative for the 2020 CA Ballot. Diane Rolfe and Sigrid Pinsky, Co-Chairs New Voices for Youth, a unique voter education program, gives students a voice through media production to encourage civic participation. LWV of South San Mateo County is a co-sponsor of New Voices with LWV Palo Alto. This year’s program was held in the East Palo Alto Boys & Girls Club and the North Fair Oaks Siena Youth Center. Youth work with experienced directors who provide expertise in media arts and youth organizing and explore issues to encourage civic engagement. Most recently, NV4Y students have focused on housing issues that directly affect their families. Videos may be accessed on the New Voices web site: http://www.newvoicesforyouth.org. A steering committee, consisting of LWV volunteers from LWVPA and LWVSSMC, oversees the operations of New Voices for Youth. LWVPA provides an annual generous contribution of $1,000 to New Voices. Currently, representatives from LWVPA on the Steering Committee are Veronica Tincher and Betty Gerard. We welcome LWVPA members to join the Steering Committee or assist in other ways. Veronica Tincher, Co-Chair, New Voices for Youth Steering Committee Housing & Transportation Team This group has been closely following the actions of the Palo Alto City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) regarding their efforts to address the housing crisis. Over this past year, we drafted several advocacy letters for board approval on accessory dwelling units, housing impact fees, the City Council's Housing Work Plan (a detailed plan to make changes to the zoning codes to allow for more housing) and the Affordable Housing Combining District. Each of these letters was approved by the board. We read these at the public hearings on these matters at Council and the P&TC. We have had various experts and decision makers at our committee meetings to inform us about current housing and transportation issues. Bonnie Packer Collaborations and Community Outreach Team During the past year the Collaborations and Community Outreach Team worked on the following: 1. Identified and secured partners to co-sponsor a number of LWVPA events. 2. For the March event featuring UC Berkeley Law School Dean Chemerinsky speaking on "Defining the Limits of Free Speech" (organized by our programming director, Maureen O'Kicki), we reached out to local faith-based and multi-faith organizations and secured a broader cross-section of community co-sponsors. We were very pleased to have this event endorsed by the City of Palo Alto Human Relations Commission. 3. The team met to discuss-- i) guidelines for vetting partner organizations; ii) how to refine the definition of levels of LWVPA co-sponsorship of other organizations' events; and iii) how to be more inclusive of various religious, racial and ethnic communities as potential co-sponsors of our events. Karen Kalinsky & Diane Rolfe, Co-Chairs Board Development Team in its initial year has worked with Membership and Nominating; completed a survey of board recruitment, training, and mentoring practices and materials offered by neighboring Leagues and LWVUS; surveyed current board members and team chairs for team missions and personal reflections on board service; supported proposal for new board organizational structure built around mission-aligned Core Teams (Action/ Advocacy, Programming, Voter Service), Issue Teams (focus on local priorities and areas of emphasis), and Board Support Teams (Communications, Membership, Nominations, etc.) to streamline and focus activities to increase membership engagement; started work on a board-information folder to be posted on the Drive; and encouraged board members to think "succession" - to work with team members who could become leaders. Ellen Smith, Chair City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:38 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 11:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:Let's support the 'Commons' Dear Council Members, City Manager, and Staff: I look forward to seeing the city government reflect and then act. Get serious about constructing more low- income housing for the low income workers who serve this city and who now have to travel far too many miles, creating more eco-devastation. As a child in Montana, I was taught that our city government served as the ‘commons’, a place where elected and appointed public officials were ‘servants’ of the residents of the city. Whatever happened to this idea? It wasn’t a place for the city government to make a profit, but to grow a safer, more sustainable and stronger community. Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:38 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Paul Ramsbottom <pramsbottom@me.com> Sent:Saturday, May 19, 2018 1:06 PM To:Gerhardt, Jodie; Mei, Lee; Lait, Jonathan; Netto, Margaret; Schmid, Greg; Pirnejad, Peter Cc:Council, City Subject:Market research questionnaire Dear friends at City Hall, I recently received an email questionnaire. The questions were seemingly quite generic but it did raise a few concerns. I don’t want to sound paranoid but I have spent the last 30 years working directly in market research (or using the output of that discipline) and have seen how it can be used and misused. For example: This seems an obvious reference to the Caltrain crossing debate. Everyone wants safer intersections, it’s almost idiotic to ask that but that doesn’t mean I agree with any of the proposals you have promulgated for the Caltrain crossings (I do not). And when you combine that with simple questions like: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:38 AM 2 A simple cross-tab potentially tells you that you have high resident approval scores and, if used incorrectly and without context, that those same people want your proposed Caltrain improvements, which is not necessarily the case. I believe you are on the ‘Wrong Track’ when it comes to Caltrain, specially if you use the results of this survey to support your aims. Sincerely, Paul Ramsbottom 3796 Redwood Circle Palo Alto CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:39 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Carnahan, David Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Mayor Libby Schaaf Act of 2018 Good afternoon Council Members,    A member of the public called today voicing support for the “Mayor Libby Schaaf Act of 2018,” introduced by  Congressman Steven King from Iowa.            David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:37 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Betty Howell <anderwell2@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2018 8:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:More Employee Parking Permits Dear City Council, As a Channing House resident (and voter), we need employees here for our care and services, and employees in the nearby medical & dental offices and the businesses that serve us. Since RPP seems to be working, why make more draconian cuts? Thank you for spending time to understand the complete story. Betty Howell 850 Webster #937 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:26 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:KENT MATHER <kentmather@mac.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2018 3:17 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lydia Kou Subject:More Employee Parking Permits To: Palo Alto City Council From: R. Kent Mather, FAIA-E 850 Webster Street, Apt. 535 Palo Alto, CA 94301 As a long time Palo Alto resident, on and off for over 60 years and permanently from 1994 until now, I am writing you to: SUPPORT HAVING MORE EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMITS. In July, 2016 my wife and I moved from our Emerson Street home of 20 years to Channing House(CH). Why did we move to CH? Like many of our fellow residents we moved here mainly because it is located in Downtown Palo Alto! And it has been located here since 1961. An ideal location since we wanted to be able to walk to all those downtown and nearby dining, shopping, business, educational, athletic and entertainment facilities that we had enjoyed since 1994. When the time comes we can give up our car and still enjoy living in Palo Alto. However, that will require continuation of the help that CH and its wonderful staff provide for it’s residents, the majority of whom live in the “independent living” apartments. Typically our employees cannot afford to live in Palo Alto and they need, and take advantage of, the full range of transportation options from public to private, including parking permits. As a former Palo Alto home owner I applaud your efforts to work to improve on-street parking congestion in the neighborhoods with the RPP. And it appears to be working in most areas. To continue with annual across the board permit reductions will hurt CH and the nearby businesses we frequent and the RPP should not proceed in the draconian way originally planned. Please work with your staff to come up with more creative solutions to any remaining RPP issues including parking permits. Thank you, Kent Mather City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:31 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ben Pacho <ben@bikesiliconvalley.org> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 5:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto City Council, May 21 Meeting: Action Item 7, the Charleston-Arastradero Project Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council: I am writing to urge Council’s approval of the first and second phases of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project construction contract. If implemented, this Project would support the growing number of students who bike to the 11 surrounding public and private K-12 schools in the area, as well as close existing infrastructure gaps for bike commuters traveling from cities south of Palo Alto to the citywide bike network. Approved in 2003, the Charleston-Arastradero project is an important linchpin in the city’s 2012 Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan and if approved, would deliver key safety improvements for all roadway users. Since the final design was approved in 2012, current road conditions have only necessitated the pressing need for the project’s safety improvements. The inclusion of a multi-use path for students, new landscaped median islands to induce safer motor speeds, and consistent bike facilities at the El Camino Real intersection -- will help transform this residential arterial into a safe corridor for people of all ages and abilities who bike or walk. Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition thanks City Council for doing its due diligence in conducting extensive community meetings, hearings, and public review over the last fifteen years to produce a final design that prioritizes movement of all transportation modes. At a time of heightened civic engagement, we encourage Council to approve the contract and move the City’s sustainable vision of the built and natural environments forward. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ben Pacho Santa Clara County Advocate Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition 96 N. Third Street, Suite 375 PO Box 1927 San Jose, CA 95109 Office: 408-464-5195 http://bikesiliconvalley.org City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:38 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ann Pianetta <annpianetta@me.com> Sent:Saturday, May 19, 2018 1:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pollster Dear City Council:  You really need to not pay California Opinion Research any money.  Between yesterday and today, this company has  called my son twice using my phone number.  I asked them to take his name off their contact list.  The polling statistics  you receive from them will be inaccurate.  Again, a big waste of money.    Ann Pianetta  3815 La Donna Avenue  Palo Alto, CA  94306  650‐384‐5744  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:34 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Karen Harwell <karenharwell@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 6:51 AM To:Suzanne Keehn Cc:Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Re: Cell Towers Thank you for the information. On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:59 PM Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> wrote: Greetings Palo Alto City Council, I urge you to put the health of our community before Verizon's cell towers. There are many health issues, with which I hope you all have educated yourselves. I will send some links, one of which is Palo Alto and the decline of property values near these towers. Also if we, the city, is serious about putting the electric wires underground, as we did on Orme St. years ago, will be made impossible when Verizon adds all the other equipment to the poles. Property Values Declining Near Cell Towers  Property Values Declining Near Cell Towers When it comes to cell phone towers, there is increasingly the perception that a family does not want to live nex... Please overturn the decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy and potentially hazardous equipment on poles within a few yards of our homes. 1. Verizon’s on-the-pole installations do not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances; 2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible; and 3. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the conditions that: a) the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground, in flush-to-the- ground vaults with no protuberances; and b) none of its equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:34 PM 2 Verizon's complaint about it being too expensive to put the equipment underground is bogus for a multi million dollar company. "First Do No Harm" Thank You, Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:53 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 2:59 PM To:Loran Harding; Dan Richard; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; Mayor; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; midge@thebarretts.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; blackstone@blastfitness.com; terry; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; info@superide1.com; Joel Stiner; popoff; boardmembers; huidentalsanmateo; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg Subject:Re: Fresno spending $250K / year on land options for HMF until HSR picks a winner On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: Monday, May 21, 2018 Mr. Dan Richard Chairman of the Board California High Speed Rail Authority Dan- Fresno keeps handing out $250,000 per year to land owners as options to buy land for the HMF. If CHSRA does not make a decision over the subsequent year as to the location of the HMF, that money is kept by the landowners and is gone to the City forever. The Fresno CC has now voted to do this twice, so we could see $500,000 go up in smoke. That seems bad in a City that needs just everything, especially serious attention to its beat-up streets. I know that you don't want to see Fresno waste its taxpayers money. The schools are overcrowded, we don't have enough police, the roads have fallen apart since 2010 when the City risked BK and quit maintaining them, HWY 99 through Fresno would cause political rebellion if it existed in most third world countries. Can't CHSRA look out a year at a time and see if a decision on locating the HMF is likely to be made in that time-frame? It is as if City officials are dealing with a black-box. Actually, they are dealing with smart people who have a good idea as to when the decision on the HMF will be made. Everyone here would appreciate it if CHSRA could communicate the nearness of a decision to local public officials so that they could place options on land when it makes sense to do so. This is a serious drain on the City coffers, and, no doubt, other cities are doing the same thing. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:53 PM 2 Fresno is located almost exactly in the middle of the proposed HSR route between San Francisco and Los Angeles. It has the land for the HMF and a capable workforce to man it. It would make great sense to locate the HMF in Fresno. I hope you can at least give Fresno officials a hint as to when a decision will be made. You are probably waiting until more funding is secured for the entire project before you choose a site for the HMF. You could tell those who can produce that funding that a City like Fresno is repeatedly burning through scarce dollars obtaining options on land to accommodate the HMF. There is a red-neck element in Fresno who knows, knows that HSR would be bad. If the rich Republican developers who control the public officials here oppose HSR, then the ignorant red-necks adopt that line. The local TV stations have their news readers appeal to these people and slant every story about HSR as an invasion of their perfect community by outsiders. No matter how poor and ignorant people are, you can make money exploiting them. HSR through the Central Valley would start to break that system up. You just can't believe Fresno. I find adults here who have never heard the term "CPA", have never heard of Silicon Valley, Hewlett-Packard Co., the Silk Road, the Battan Death March, of Bernie Madoff, of Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson. The schools here must be horrible, with some exceptions. They run AP classes for the kids whose parents know that education matters. The Clovis schools are famous for excellence. HSR in the Central Valley would mean salvation for most of the downtrodden population here, and I have expressed that sentiment to you and others many times. We here who see all of that are deeply grateful for your untiring efforts to bring HSR to California. Most people would have resigned long ago. You are definitely not a quitter. The fact that the United States does not have one millimeter of HSR is a scandal, one of many perpetrated on the American people by their government. We supply a free military defense for all of Europe, Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan. They then spend their military money on high speed rail, affordable universities, and wonderful national health care systems. Whenever a war needs to be fought, they just call the White House. We rush thousands of young Americans over to be killed fighting the war, and the beneficiary countries then get rich treating our wounded. I'll bet they can't believe their luck. This is the very definition of "rotten government" and I believe that the American people are up to changing it and bringing their tormenters to justice. In the mean time, can you please, if possible, develop a system to let local governments know better when a decision on the HMF might be made? They are wasting precious money because of uncertainty about that. Thank you. Mr. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. http://www.cvobserver.com/fresno/will-fresno-receive-hsr-maintenance-yard-city-council-spends-another-250k/?utm_source=Morning+Roundup&utm_campaign=aa80f9ec43- EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_21&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_165ffe36b2-aa80f9ec43- 78450701&mc_cid=aa80f9ec43&mc_eid=7afa3a94f3 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:39 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 19, 2018 9:06 PM To:Yu Wen Chen Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Palo Alto Water Recycling Expansion Awesome, thanks! I’ve been very active on water recycling and we have some exciting projects under way to create even higher quality treated water. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:24 AM Yu Wen Chen <yuwenchen1996@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, I am advocating for the Palo Alto Water Recycling Expansion that you guys are doing. I did some research on your expansion plans and I feel like most of them are really well thought out and I really like what you guys are doing. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2018 10:47 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 23, 2018 7:54 AM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Re: Verizon Dear Palo Alto City Council, I was out of town and missed Monday's meeting regarding the Verizon cell towers. But I understand that it was approved. If I have this right, there was a substantially large group of citizens who actively opposed this measure -- and 20 Verizon lobbyists who wanted it to pass. And it passed??? Are you kidding me? This is a disgraceful shame. What an opportunity you had to stand up for what our united community wants, as clearly we as individuals cannot do. But instead big money won. As someone proposed, those of you who voted for this ought to offer to have the Verizon towers placed in front of your homes. Signed, A very unhappy Palo Alto resident. On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> wrote: I'm a Verizon customer, but I don't want more utility poles above ground in my neighborhood. Please ensure their equipment goes Underground: 1. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible. For one thing, Verizon has vaulted its equipment in other cities. And for another, Palo Alto has successfully undergrounded electrical utilities under exactly the same conditions Verizon says represent an insurmountable hurdle to undergrounding its equipment. 2. Approval should be granted to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the conditions that: a) the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground, in flush-to-the- ground vaults with no protuberances; and b) none of its equipment may exceed the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances. Again, this is eminently possible. It will simply cost Verizon a little more money than littering our poles with the equipment. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2018 10:46 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:jjh <jjh2000@gmail.com> on behalf of Jim Holmlund <jjhstuff@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 5:51 PM To:Representative Anna G. Eshoo; senator@feinstein.senate.gov; senator@boxer.senate.gov Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Yet another unpleasant Sunday night near Channing and Newell in Palo Alto   Ok, this time it was Monday night.  See below for about 22 flights in about 60 mins ‐ a flight every 3 minutes.  I can hear a flight about 30 secs before it gets overhead, and then another 30 secs after it leaves, ie, noise 1/3 of the  time.  As summer gets here and the windows are open, this is really bad.    It has been a long time since the Select Committee finished their work, and the only thing I have noticed is that the noise  has gotten even worse than it was!  The FAA recently moved the SERFR route so it is now about 1/2 the distance to us  than was the old SERFR.  FAA said they did it for safety reasons.  Does that mean that the SERFR2 route, in use for  3 years ,was unsafe all that time??    Our only hope is that maybe the FAA will fulfill their agreement to move the route back to where BSUR was, but that will  just move some of the traffic a bit farther away from us, so it might not be as loud as now. But the vectored traffic from  BDEGA West, Oceanic, and SERFR usually go near enough to us to be very noisy, and I have not heard of any effort to fix  that.    I doubt that our local government can do anything ‐ seems like only you federal officials have any power over the FAA.  So, please do something!  And soon, not 5 years from now or whenever.  The first thought comes into mind is to tell the FAA to send BDEGA West, Oceanic, and vectored SERFR flights  somewhere else.  This could be a very simple way to disperse flights.  The second thought is to change the FAA's madate  from Safety, and then Efficiency, to Safety, Environment and lastly Efficiency.      Below is my record for Monday night. It doesn't include several later flights, including the annoying 747 cargo plane  from LA that flies over around midnight on most days.  Hmm, didn't  the FAA agree to do something about nighttime  flights?  When will they do it?    Please let me know if there are any plans to fix this.  Thank you,    Jim Holmlund    Mon, May 21, 10:49 PM     Flight: WN1201 [SNA‐SFO] (B737; speed: 220 knots, altitude: 4983.9996376992 ft, distance: 3  KM) Mon, May 21, 10:42 PM     Flight: AS1050 [HNL‐SFO] (A320; speed: 219 knots, altitude: 4500.0610923264 ft,  distance: 2 KM) Mon, May 21, 10:41 PM Mon, May 21, 10:39 PM     Flight: AC 568 [YVR‐SFO] (A320; speed: 277 knots,  altitude: 4100.73542976 ft, distance: 3 KM) Mon, May 21, 10:37 PM     Flight: WN1585 [BUR‐SFO] (B737; speed: 226  knots, altitude: 4926.759135168 ft, distance: 2 KM) Mon, May 21, 10:34 PM     Flight: UA1288 [OGG‐SFO] (B738; speed:  225 knots, altitude: 4000 ft, distance: 2 KM) Mon, May 21, 10:32 PM     Flight: AS1812 [PDX‐SFO] (A320; speed: 229  knots, altitude: 3682.2363405589335 ft, distance: 1 KM) Mon, May 21, 10:28 PM     Flight: UA1740 [BUR‐SFO] (B738;  speed: 256 knots, altitude: 4951.334295803734 ft, distance: 2 KM) Mon, May 21, 10:20 PM     Flight: AS1939 [LAX‐SFO]  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2018 10:46 AM 2 (A320; speed: 224 knots, altitude: 3971.3120288629334 ft, distance: 1 KM) Mon, May 21, 10:16 PM     Flight: WN5370  [PHX‐SFO] (B738; speed: 225 knots, altitude: 4057.0598037024 ft, distance: 2 KM) Mon, May 21, 10:10 PM     Flight:  AS1937 [LAX‐SFO] (A320; speed: 223 knots, altitude: 5690.106318583466 ft, distance: 1 KM) Mon, May 21, 10:08  PM     Flight: UA5727 [SBA‐SFO] (CRJ2; speed: 268 knots, altitude: 4558.466451204266 ft, distance: 3 KM) Mon, May 21,  10:06 PM     Flight: DL2953 [LAX‐SFO] (B738; speed: 248 knots, altitude: 3987.0326147754668 ft, distance: 6 KM) Mon,  May 21, 09:55 PM     Flight: HA 42 [OGG‐SFO] (A332; speed: 232 knots, altitude: 5901.4839072704 ft, distance: 3 KM)  Mon, May 21, 09:52 PM     Flight: UA2400 [BOS‐SFO] (B772; speed: 194 knots, altitude: 5739.622510974933 ft, distance:  1 KM) Mon, May 21, 09:51 PM     Flight: DL2949 [LAX‐SFO] (B738; speed: 227 knots, altitude: 4420.908379282133 ft,  distance: 3 KM) Mon, May 21, 09:50 PM Mon, May 21, 09:48 PM     Flight: AS2806 [SNA‐SFO] (E75L; speed: 224 knots,  altitude: 5026.271765421867 ft, distance: 3 KM) Mon, May 21, 09:47 PM Mon, May 21, 09:46 PM Mon, May 21, 09:44  PM     Flight: AA6014 [LAX‐SFO] (E75L; speed: 223 knots, altitude: 4416.0851577834665 ft, distance: 2 KM) Mon, May 21,  09:42 PM     Flight: DL 408 [JFK‐SFO] (B763; speed: 224 knots, altitude: 4910.896195514667 ft, distance: 1 KM) Mon,  May 21, 09:40 PM     Flight: WS1776 [YVR‐SFO] (B737; speed: 227 knots, altitude: 4341.339379095467 ft, distance: 2  KM) On 7/11/2016 11:45 AM, Jim Holmlund wrote:  >  > See the many SFO inbound flights listed below. Many times there is a   > plane every two minutes or so.  >  > It wasn't anything like this before the FAA implemented the NextGen   > related changes in March 2015.  >  > This is just plain wrong.  If the traffic was like this when we bought   > our house, then so be it.  But traffic wasn't like this. At all.  This   > started in March 2015 when the FAA implemented NextGen related   > changes.  We were not informed that such changes were coming, nor did   > we have any say in them.  >  > The 'FAA Initiative' that was intended to deal with this has little or   > no relief for us, according to many people who have evaluated it.  And   > the local 'Select Committee' apparently has no power and can just   > comment on the FAA Initiative.  It seems wrong that private citizens,   > and cities such as Palo Alto have to tell the FAA how to do their job!  >  > So, it seems unless someone with authority forces the FAA to fix this,   > nothing will happen.  Please help!  >  >  > Sun, Jul 10, 10:46 PM     Flight: AA2299 [MIA‐SFO] (B738; speed: 257   > knots, altitude: 5925 ft, distance: 1 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 10:40 PM       > Flight: UA 650 [HNL‐SFO] (B739; speed: 259 knots, altitude: 5975 ft,   > distance: 2 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 10:38 PM     Flight: WN2574 [SAN‐SFO]   > (B733; speed: 250 knots, altitude: 5574 ft, distance: 5 KM) Sun, Jul   > 10, 10:29 PM     Flight: VX 947 [LAX‐SFO] (A320; speed: 212 knots,   > altitude: 4125 ft, distance: 1 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 10:27 PM     Flight:   > WN 570 [SNA‐SFO] (B737; speed: 295 knots, altitude: 5085 ft, distance:   > 3 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 10:24 PM     Flight: AS 300 [SEA‐SFO] (B738; speed:   > 244 knots, altitude: 5929 ft, distance: 8 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 10:22 PM       > Flight: AA6012 [LAX‐SFO] (E170; speed: 238 knots, altitude: 4750 ft,   > distance: 3 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 10:20 PM     Flight: AS 384 [PDX‐SFO]   > (B739; speed: 212 knots, altitude: 5100 ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun, Jul   > 10, 10:15 PM     Flight: UA2246 [LGB‐SFO] (B739; speed: 207 knots,   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2018 10:46 AM 3 > altitude: 4775 ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 10:12 PM     Flight:   > UA5107 [ONT‐SFO] (CRJ2; speed: 251 knots, altitude: 5686 ft, distance:   > 2 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 10:08 PM     Flight: AM 662 [GDL‐SFO] (B737; speed:   > 258 knots, altitude: 5449 ft, distance: 4 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 10:02 PM       > Flight: AA 400 [PHX‐SFO] (A321; speed: 181 knots, altitude: 5575 ft,   > distance: 3 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 10:00 PM     Flight: UA5727 [SBA‐SFO]   > (E170; speed: 249 knots, altitude: 4725 ft, distance: 1 KM) Sun, Jul   > 10, 09:56 PM     Flight: HA 42  [OGG‐SFO] (A332; speed: 261 knots,   > altitude: 6300 ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 09:54 PM     Flight:   > UA5059 [ONT‐SFO] (CRJ2; speed: 243 knots, altitude: 4837 ft, distance:   > 1 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 09:45 PM     Flight: VX 347 [FLL‐SFO] (A320; speed:   > 236 knots, altitude: 3900 ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 09:37 PM       > Flight: UA 731 [LAX‐SFO] (A320; speed: 250 knots, altitude: 5232 ft,   > distance: 5 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 09:34 PM     Flight: CX 872 [HKG‐SFO]   > (B77W; speed: 216 knots, altitude: 4225 ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun, Jul   > 10, 09:28 PM     Flight: UA5083 [SBP‐SFO] (CRJ2; speed: 228 knots,   > altitude: 5744 ft, distance: 6 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 09:27 PM     Flight:   > UA5631 [BOI‐SFO] (E170; speed: 194 knots, altitude: 3725 ft, distance:   > 7 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 09:22 PM     Flight: UA5873 [SNA‐SFO] (E170; speed:   > 234 knots, altitude: 4550 ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 09:21 PM        > << could not decide >> Sun, Jul 10, 09:18 PM     Flight: UA 965   > [PDX‐SFO] (B738; speed: 250 knots, altitude: 6300 ft, distance: 5 KM)   > Sun, Jul 10, 09:16 PM     Flight: UA1811 [YVR‐SFO] (A320; speed: 249   > knots, altitude: 5233 ft, distance: 4 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 09:12 PM       > Flight: VX 759 [SEA‐SFO] (A319; speed: 197 knots, altitude: 4725 ft,   > distance: 3 KM) Sun, Jul 10, 09:10 PM     Flight: UA1806 [IAH‐SFO]   > (A320; speed: 256 knots, altitude: 5000 ft, distance: 4 KM) Sun, Jul   > 10, 09:09 PM     Flight: DL2778 [LAX‐SFO] (B712; speed: 250 knots,   > altitude: 4602 ft, distance: 2 KM)      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:42 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Linda Bickham <linda.bickham@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 1:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received I have not had a reply to my email or several weeks ago requesting info about what studies and data support the  decision to do the traffic calming circles and related work.  Could someone please respond?    Linda Bickham     Sent from my iPhone    On May 1, 2018, at 4:44 PM, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all nine Council  Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council  packet.     If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call  329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting.     If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an  explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification.     We appreciate hearing from you.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:35 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ali Nasser <ali.nasser777@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 10:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Road I'm writing because my son and I were almost hit on multiple occasions while riding up Ross Road, we don't understand how the changes help riders. There is not enough space for bikes and cars to pass through the narrow parts of the road, thus making it dangerous for the kids that ride on this street. Please stop all changes to roads to "help" cyclists, we now only have one road to use up to Ohlone and see more signs for work coming in the future, this is scary for us. Can you help us understand how you're going to make sure this doesn't happen again? How are you going to fix this? Who will pay for all this? Thanks Ali 711 Maplewood Ave Palo Alto CA 94303 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:38 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Albert Moon <almoon111213@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 6:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:RPP's for employees My name is Albert Moon, I live at 850 Webster Street, Apartment 731. I am writing to oppose further reduction in the number of employee parking permits in our area. I live at Channing House, a Retirement community that provides life care for its residents. Many of the older residents here need help with their daily activities and all of us receive meals and housekeeping services that we are no longer able to provide for ourselves. It takes a lot of helpers to provide these services to us. Some of us sold our homes many years ago when the sale prices weren't as high as they are now and many of us are living a lot longer than we ever expected. As a result, we can't afford to pay all our helpers enough to live in Palo Alto. Some of our helpers are nurses and nurses aids, but we can;t pay them enough to live in Palo Alto and they can't use public transportation because some of them have to hold two jobs to get by. They need a car to get to this second job because it would take too long by the existing public transportation. We are having trouble finding helpers to fill many of the jobs we have here due to competition from companies with more resources and greater cash flow than we have. In addition, these companies are not located in downtown Palo Alto and thus are more accessible to employees, making it even harder for us to hire, and retain our staff. The first level of parking restrictions has done a great deal to reduce parking congestion in the area. further restrictions do not seem warranted as a means of providing adequate parking for residents. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:38 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:David Weiss <davidweiss25@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 11:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:RV's on El Camino I have placed calls to the city manager and to the police department regarding the homeless RV’s that have taken over  on El Camino in Palo Alto and everyone seems to pretend like I am the the first person to raise this issue.  Last year this  matter was supposedly addressed, but it is worse than ever.  I am all for using taxes to take care of those in need, but I  do no support anarchy.  Allowing El Camino to become a homeless encampment is unfair to the rest of us.  The police  department can only enforce the laws and apparently the city has failed to create rules to resolve this situation such as  simply placing signs prohibiting overnight parking.  I would guess that if I were to buy 50 RV’s and rent them to Stanford  students the city would quickly put an end to it, but yet they are allowing the chaos of this homeless village to grow and  prosper.  Please let me know what is being done to resolve this problem.  Thank you.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:39 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:John Roney <jdroney68@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 18, 2018 12:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:sb 54 Dear Palo Alto City Council We the law abiding people of California along with Attorney General of the United States Jeff Sessions would like for you to join the list of growing cities that oppose the Un Constitutional pro illegal SB 54 by signing the amicus brief https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice- department-files-preemption-lawsuit-against-state-california-stop-interference . These cities include Dana Point , Beaumont , also Orange County cities that have passed resolutions backing the lawsuit include Aliso Viejo, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Los Alamitos, Newport Beach, Orange , San Juan Capistrano and San Diego County along with Loma Linda Corona just joined last night ! and many others soon to follow Justice Department Files Preemption Lawsuit Against the ... www.justice.gov In a speech to the California Peace Officers' Association’s Legislative Day, Attorney General Jeff Sessions today announced that the Justice Department has filed a legal action against the State of California, Governor of California Jerry Brown, and Attorney General of California Xavier Becerra, seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief ...     together we can make our state great again Sincerely John D. Roney City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:31 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Anne Deierlein <mdeierlein@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 5:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:School Corridor- Please approve the Dear City Council,    I am writing in support of the contract to complete the Charleston‐Arastradero plan that we (the City of Palo Alto and  neighbors) have partnered together on for the last seventeen years (!).    From our first year in 1998 walking and biking as a family with three children to Fairneadow, then commuting to JLS  Middle School and finally to Gunn High School, we experienced being bumped by cars while walking our bicycles in the  crosswalks, we have dodged being hit by speeding cars running red lights, we have lost several of our crossing guards to  injuries, and have had a variety of mishaps caused by speeding drivers unaware of their surroundings and the fact that  they are on a major school route.     We have noticed the traffic calming improve and progress as the several phases have been implemented and have come  to fruition for our neighborhood and school commute route. As a result, we have record numbers of walkers and bikers  in our many public and private schools along this corridor as the modifications to date have proven the increase in route  safety and confidence of our community to use it.    Please complete this long planned and well developed concept for our major school artery serving south Palo Alto.  As a  former PTA Traffic Safety representative, the implementation of the school corridor enhancements is a highlight and  feature of our part of the broader Palo Alto community and of our neighborhood school commute walking and biking  culture that we have worked so hard to create, foster and maintain.      We all have devoted our due diligence for about seventeen years in every phase of this vital and long awaited final  phase. Please make it a reality.    Sincerely,  Mary Anne Deierlein  318 Parkside Drive  Palo Alto, CA 94306        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 7:53 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jason Hahndorf <jhahndorf@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 6:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:Stop being evil scumbags If you douche bags don’t stop violating everyone’s civil rights especially a specific Christian Honorable Upstanding Pastor  who you all could never even compare to in any way cause you’re all evil pieces of megalomaniacal narcissistic  materialistic worldly excrement!!!!!! You all make me want to puke!!!!!! One more thing happens to or is said about that  man and I will have the Civil Rights Division shut down the whole damn city and arrest you all!!!!!! Got that you little  fake public servant bitches!!!!!!!!!! Thank you, now get your heads out of your asses you evil scumbags!!!!!!! Don’t make  me come down to California to truly protect the people cause I will if I have to!!!!!!!    Ja(son) Adam Hahn(d)orf  1.1.1.7:7.1.1.1...  “The Hand”    Got that shit you assholes!!!!!!!!!     Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2018 4:38 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ann Pianetta <annpianetta@me.com> Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2018 5:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Survey Dear City Council:  Today I was contacted for the fourth time to take this survey about my opinion of putting different tax proposals on the  November ballot.  I  was at the Financial Committee meeting this last month when you voted for this particular company  to conduct this survey.  I am upset that you are spending MY taxpayer money on a company that can’t do their job  effectively. How can you take the information they are giving you when they are not randomly choosing people in the  City?  You could get better results with Survey Monkey and that is free!    I don’t understand City Councils that have extensive educational backgrounds and then take taxpayer money for  consultants to figure stuff out for them — stuff they could figure out or have staff figure out for them.  It is outrageous  and ridiculous.  If you all can’t use your brains that God gave you why should I vote for you in the future?    Ann Pianetta  3815 La Donna Avenue  Palo Alto, CA  94306  650‐384‐5744  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:38 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Anne Deierlein <mdeierlein@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 12:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you! Thank you all for the extensive consideration and vote on the final contract for the Charleston ‐ Arastradero school  corridor!    Mary Anne Deierlein   318 Parkside Dr.  Palo Alto, CA 95306           City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:34 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 2:00 AM To:Council, City Cc:Boyd, Holly; Eggleston, Brad; Tam, Valerie; Keene, James; Mello, Joshuah Subject:Thank you. Honorable City Council, Thank you for moving the C-A Plan forward. I am very proud of our city for doing this…and grateful to you for making it possible. I am also very grateful to staff for the hard work they did to get this project ready to go! Thank you. Penny Ellson City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:39 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Krop <nkrop@kroplaw.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 2:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Thank You Dear City Council,    I was overjoyed to learn this morning that you voted last night, by 8‐1 vote, to approve the Charleston‐Arastradeo  contract.    You just made one very courageous, giant vote, for the safety of our children, bikers and pedestrians.    Heartfelt thanks for all your time and effort on this topic.    Nancy Krop  Barron Park neighborhood  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2018 10:46 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 6:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Thanks for Making Palo Alto a Better Place with the Charleston-Arastradero Project Dear Council Members,    I commend and thank you for approving the next step for the is travel corridor. After listening to the comments for and  against last night I would like to clearly summarize all the good reasons our community worked so long and hard on this  and support it as a worthy use of City funds.     The Charleston‐Arastradero project is exemplary and the reasons below should be considered general requirements for  any significant transportation project paid from our city’s budget. This project:     ‐ Advances us toward our City and Community goals as expressed in Comp and Sustainability plans  ‐ Beautifies and calms a major roadway in South Palo Alto, increasing real estate values in the area  ‐ Reduces congestion by creating a safe and pleasant route that will induce more people to walk and bike rather  than drive  ‐ Saves life and limb by enabling safer travel using all modes  ‐ Has a reasonable price tag when weighed against the benefits that will be broadly spread over many years to the  thousands of people who will use the route around the clock, every day  ‐ Has a high probability of success given similar project histories in the city and elsewhere and the trends toward a  high portion of alternative travel mode use compared to single occupancy cars  ‐ Helps correct the historical imbalance of city spending, in this case reducing the deficit of investment in south  Palo Alto infrastructure and facilities that increase quality of life for more Palo Altans    I hope that we continue to move forward with clear winners like Charleston‐Arastradero in the future.     Kind Regards,    Bret Andersen    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:35 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:William Robinson <williamrobinson@goldenworld.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 7:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thanks for voting for Charleston-Arastradero improvements, a school crossing guard Kudos to you for deliberating till midnight to approve a construction project over 15 years in planning, nurtured by the citizens and previous councils. William’Rob’ Robinson, member PABAC (Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee), Palo Alto since 2005    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2018 10:46 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Gloria Pyszka <gpyszka@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 5:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:The Arastadero/Charleston vote last night Please accept my great appreciation for your votes that passed the Corridor issue. It was difficult, I know, and I understand that your careful questions reflected your important roles as Council members. As I said in my letter, we all have to make concessions about this issue. Ron and I feel that the right decision was made. Gloria Pyszka East Charleston City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:34 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 11:02 PM To:dcbertini@menlopark.org; Council, City; citycouncil@menlopark.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; myraw@smcba.org; acisneros@capublicrecordslaw.com; Binder, Andrew; Cullen, Charles; bos@smcgov.org; Jonsen, Robert; Lee, Craig; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; Kilpatrick, Brad; essenceoftruth@gmail.com; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; HRC; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; Kan, Michael; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; Perron, Zachary; jamespitkin777@yahoo.com; Keene, James; Zelkha, Mila; miguel.rodriguez@pdo.sccgov.org; lydiakou@gmail.com; Holman, Karen (external); council@redwoodcity.org Subject:The Mississippi Man Tried Six Times for the same crime https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/20/opinion/mississippi-curtis-flowers-trial.html Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2018 2:38 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 22, 2018 12:46 PM To:Ken Yeager; Cindy Chavez Subject:Vaccines--17x too much aluminum in babies Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, NO Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com 5-22-18 The Aluminum Autism Link 10 BY ANH-USA ON APRIL 11, 2018 VACCINE NEWS www.anh-usa.org/the-aluminum-autism-link * Vaccines for newborns have 17 times allowable aluminum based on body weight * Autistic children have 10 times more aluminum in brains that considered safe for adults * FDA and CDC need to do rigorous testing * Parents need to have right to determine number/type put in their children A new study shows newborns are injected with 17 times the allowable level of aluminum. The peer-reviewed study demonstrates that aluminum doses in vaccines are based on efficacy—that is, spurring the body’s immune response—rather than safety. This means, according to the researchers, that on their first day of life, infants receive 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if aluminum doses in vaccines were set according to a baby’s body weight. The researchers also contend that errors were made in establishing “safe” levels of aluminum exposure in humans, leading to dangerous levels of aluminum being injected into young children. Another recent study found that autistic children have up to ten times more aluminum in their brains that what is considered safe in adults. ANH-USA has been raising the alarm about aluminum in vaccines for a number of years. As the researchers note, safety testing proving aluminum adjuvants to be safe when injected into children has never been conducted. Established safety levels for aluminum exposure that are often referenced are based on ingested aluminum, of which only about 0.25% is absorbed, rather than injected aluminum, where almost all of it is absorbed over time—accumulating in various organs, including the brain. Animal studies have also demonstrated a link between repeated inoculation with aluminum-containing vaccines and severe neurobehavioral outcomes (restlessness, muscle tremors, loss of response to stimuli), the presence of aluminum in central nervous system tissue, and altered expression of certain genes in the brain. Given the mounting research showing both the dangers of aluminum exposure and concerns about the safety of injecting young children with multiple aluminum-laden vaccines, it is imperative that parents are afforded the right to choose which vaccines are appropriate for their children. It’s also time for the FDA and the CDC to stop relying on mere belief that aluminum adjuvants are safe, and to conduct rigorous safety testing on these vaccines. Action Alert! Write to the FDA, CDC, and Congress telling them of this new study and urging more study of aluminum adjuvants. This website lists some 20 References on this subject. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17300950?via%3Dihub ANH-USA. the Alliance for Natural Health, is part of an international organization dedicated to promoting natural and sustainable health—and, in particular, consumer freedom of choice in healthcare— through good science and good law. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/21/2018 3:51 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Saksiri Tanphaichitr <saksiri@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 21, 2018 9:54 AM To:Council, City Cc:Greg Tanaka Subject:Writing in support of Ross Bike Blvd Hi, I live in the neighborhood and bike around it daily, as well as to further destinations southward a couple times a week via Ross Rd. I was really excited for the changes and each change immediately makes things much safer for me and my kids. Notably: - Large sidewalk on Louis and elimination of parking on Amarillo to come, which made a huge difference as soon as it was ready to ride on -- this is currently very dangerous in the morning with hurrying parents trying to park. For example, I’ve been blocked in the street by a parent in a car, and then backed into, on my bicycle as they tried to park. - Roundabouts make it easy to see traffic coming/merging. More than a couple times a month a driver fails to see me at a four way stop. The roundabout makes this virtually impossible. It also often prevents confusion about whether a car is going to let a bicycle proceed when all are stopped and figuring out whose turn it is. - Cutouts on speed bumps that slow cars but not bicycles. With an electric bike I stay in front of cars at a steady 20 mph. - Calming bumpers and center dividers: I can see why the bumpers may make some uncomfortable. But I would have my kids go to the sidewalk for those spots. I see residents complaining that going on/off the sidewalk is dangerous, but this is nothing new in Palo Alto with the rolled curbs -- itself a great feature that makes kids/everyone more comfortable to use the roads but move off if need be. I am glad if the net effect is to make drivers more attentive and cautious, and people just have to get used to it. Finally as a resident I personally would voice my opinion that people have long used Ross as a cut-through. I would support blocking through traffic as is done on Bryant, with accompanying calming on Colorado and Loma Verde. If there’s anything I can do to help speak out or any way to get involved please let me know. This is the biggest single issue I care about as a citizen and resident of Palo Alto. Again, I am very excited to be part a step toward making Palo Alto a 'life size city.' Thank you! Saksiri Tanphaichitr Midtown/Palo Verde  TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO HONORABLE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MIKE SARTOR, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MAY 16, 2018 10 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10 -Public Works Department, Storm Drain Fund The attached memorandum is addressed to the Finance Committee from the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee. The oversight committee members have reviewed the Fiscal Year 2019 proposed budget for the Storm Drainage Fund. They found it accurately reflects capital and operating expenditures as described in the 2017 ballot measure and therefore accepted the proposed budget during their meeting held on April 18, 2018. They are forwarding their finding to the Finance Committee, as in past years. ~H MIKE SARTOR Uv 1..-Director, Public Works Department 1 of 1 • Date: To: From: • CITY OF PALO ALTO April 18, 2018 Storm Water Management Oversight Committee MEMORANDUM Honorable Finance Committee of the Palo Alto City Council Members of the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee Subject: Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2019 Storm Drainage Fund Budget As directed by the City Council, the Committee met to discuss the proposed budget on Wednesday, April 18, 2018. We have reviewed the proposed Storm Drainage (Storm Water Management) Fund budget for fiscal year 2019 and compared it with the provisions of the Storm Water Management Fee approved by Palo Alto property owners in 2017. Based on this review, we find that the proposed budget reflects the CIP projects and operating expenditures approved in the ballot measure. Prior to the meeting, Public Works staff provided informational materials about the approved 2017 ballot measure and the proposed budget for the Committee's review. During the meeting, staff presented information regarding the Storm Drainage Fund capital and operating budgets, and answered questions from the Committee members. We find that the attached spreadsheet describing the proposed budget of the Storm Drainage Fund for Fiscal Year 2019 and the document describing budget change items accurately describe the relationship between the budget and the ballot measure. Staff and the Committee concur that there will be adequate funding generated by the Storm Water Management Fee approved through the 2017 ballot measure to fund the capital improvement projects, enhanced maintenance of storm drain system, storm water quality protection programs specified for implementation in the ballot measure in Fiscal Year 2019. Attachments STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Fiscal Year 2019 Proposed Budget and Projections (Amounts in 1000s, adjusted for annual inflation) Revenue Collected Fee Revenue Interest Earnings Development Fees & Violation Fines From Fund Reserve Total Revenue Annual Expenses Base Program (Incl. Water Quality, Flood Control) Storm Drainage Maintenance Debt Service for Past Caoital Proiect Capital Improvements Program (13) Loma Verde Ave Trunk Line Improvements (#1/ SD-19000) West Bayshore Road Pump Station (#4/ SD-20000) Corporation Way System Upgrades and Pump Station (#2/ SD-21000) East Meadow Drive System Upgrades (#7/ SD-22000) Recurrino Svstem Reoair (SD-06101 l Capital Program Engineering Suooort Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) GSI -CIP Design/Construction GSI -Consulting Services GSI -Other unassigned tasks Innovative Project Innovative Project -Green Stormwater Infrastructure Innovative Project -Rebates Innovative Project -Other unassigned tasks To Fund Reserve Total Expenses 111Charleston I Arastradero CIP project GSI elements 121Contract with EOA on development of GSI Plan Adopted Budget Year 1 2018 7,178 6,927 130 121 0 7,178 6,300 2,787 1,486 947 0 400 175 380 33()111 35121 15 125 0 125 878 7,178 131Contract service to develop GSI engineering spec document 141Contract service to develop GSI maintenance and monitoring manual Estimated Proposed Projection Budget Year 1 Year2 2018 2019 7,184 7,382 6,914 7,128 150 130 120 124 0 989 7,184 8,371 6,195 8,371 2,750 2,522 1,440 1,603 947 947 0 2,200 2,200 400 412 175 182 380 380 33oJ11 33oJ11 35'21 50131 15 0 103 125 0 30141 3 95 100 989 (0) 7,178 8,371 4 - Projection Projection Projection Projection Year 3 Year4 Year s Year6 2020 2021 2022 2023 7,595 7,815 8,041 8,273 7,335 7,547 7,766 7,991 133 137 140 144 127 131 134 138 (0) 897 445 308 7,595 8,712 8,485 8,581 6,698 8,267 8,177 8,581 2,588 2,655 2,724 2,795 1,645 1,687 1,731 1,776 950 951 950 947 400 1,840 1,620 1,892 0 200 840 200 1,000 1,220 400 424 437 450 464 187 192 197 202 380 380 380 380 300 4oJ31 40 125 125 125 125 35141 90 897 445 308 0 7,595 8,712 8,485 8,581 4/18/2018 Stormwater Management Fund Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Change Requests 1. Revenue: Fee increased by 2.9% a. Based on December 2017 CPI, fee will be increased from $13.65 to $14.05 per ERU b. FY2019 Revenue estimate (based on Q2 Actuals) is $7.13M c. FY2018 Adopted budget for Fee Revenue is $6.93M d. The proposed increase is approximately $201K 2. Expense: Fiber Connection Fee Increase a. During construction, double-strand fiber was installed for the fiber optic connection between storm drain pump stations and creek monitors to ensure an outage wouldn't affect more than one camera in line. b. This is a fee paid from the Storm Water maintenance budget to the Utilities Fiber Optic fund. c. FY2019 Expense estimate for this fee is $117,500 d. FY2018 Adopted budget for this fee is $72,800 e. The proposed increase is approximately $42,500 3. Expense: Public Safety Radio Service Fee Increase a. Maintenance group acquired 6 public safety radios via Silicon Valley Regional Communications System (SVRCS). b. This is a fee paid from Storm Water maintenance budget for the access fee of $420 per year per radio through a contract. c. No fee was associated with the old radio system, so no budget was ever allocated. d. FY2019 Expense estimate for this fee and the proposed increase is $2,520 April 17, 2018 { . .. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group: U""") J..:V 'oo \ COUNCIL MEETING 5 \\J \ \'B Received e1fore Meeting Received at Meeting 1. Angela Dellaporta -Resident within greater N. Ventura neighborhood (north of Ventura Ave) 2. Kirsten Flynn -Resident within greater N. Ventura neighborhood (north of Ventura Ave) 3. Terry Holzmer -Resident within Mayfield 4. Rebecca Parker Mankey -Resident within greater Ventura neighborhood 5. Gail Price -Resident within Barron Park 6. Heather Rosen -Resident within greater Ventura neighborhood 7. Lund Smith -Property owner (not single family home) 8. Yunan Song -Resident within NVCAP 9. Tim Steele -Property owner (not single family home) 10. Carolyn Templeton -Resident within Barron Park 11. Siyi Zhang -Resident within greater Ventura neighborhood The NVCAP Working Group includes one representative from the Architectural Review Board (lih Member), one from the Parks and Recreation Commission (13th Member) and one from the Planning & Transportation Commission (14th Member). Alternates to the NVCAP Working Group: 1. Waldemar Kaczmarski -Resident within NVCAP 2. Lakiba Pittman -Resident within NVCAP and business owner or work in NVCAP or surrounding area COU~CIL City-School Liaison Committee 5 )=1 ~\?< 2018 Schedule OReceived B fore Meeting 16mecelved at Meetina MEETING Date Item February 15, 2018 • Library collaboration with PAUSD to issue students Library Cards • 2018 Council Priorities • Agenda planning for 2018 March 15, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council/PAUSD Board Meetings • 2018 Summer Programs (City) • Planned bike and pedestrian improvements to Churchill Ave -City Chief Transportation Official • Discussion of Agenda Topics for April and May April 19, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • Update Coordinated North Ventura Area Plan • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda's May 17, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Safe Routes to School -Rosie Mesterhazy, MPH, LCI #5255. Safe Routes to School Coordinator, City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division Department of Planning+ Community Environment • Cubberley Master Plan Update • Future Meetings and Agenda's June 21, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda's July 19, 2018 Cancelled due to Council and PAUSD Holiday Break August 16, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda's September 20, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda's October 18, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda's November 15, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda's December 21, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda's ' ........ . ' ...... --, . , "'' ~f,r . , ,01~ . . , / City-School Liaison Committee 2018 Schedule To be Scheduled and/or Potential Items for discussion: • Grade Separation • Traffic School Team • Middle School Athletics • Shared use of facilities • Coordination on Capital Improvement in • Teacher housing -thoughts and potential the right of way collaboration • Pension Liability • Stanford GUP • Emergency Preparedness • Ways for City and District to work together • Teacher & staff housing more effectively to accomplish shared goals I U-TV\ ~L0f) \ Table 5: SRTS Infrastructure Project Timeline lco~,cit. lMEEnNG ~ \1 \<i) ~ ] Placed Before Meeting ~ R.cGcivcd at Meeting Project School Routes Completion Date or Future to be Construction Start Improved Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bike~y, Ph~se O Palo Alto HS Cempleted April io1s - Cowper Street at Coleridge Avenue High-visibility Walter Hays Completed April 2016 Crosswalks Georgia Ave High-visibillty Crosswalk and Curb Terman MS Completed Summer 2016 Extension Gunn HS Los Robles Avenue Bikeway Enhancements Briones Completed Summer 2016 Terman MS Gunn HS Park BoulevarCI Bicycle Boulevard Early dordan MS Completed Summer 2016 Implementation (Stanford Avenue to Cambridge Palo Alto HS Avenye) ,, Middlefield Road and North California Avenue Jordan MS Completed Fall 2016 Complete Street Project Palo Alto HS Garland Drive Sflarrows Jordan MS Completed Winter 2017 ·- Overcrossing/Undercrossing Improvements Jordan MS Completed August 2017 Palo Alto HS Arastradero Road at Donald Drive Spot Safefy Terman MS Completed September 2017 Improvements Cowper Street at Coleridge Avenue Traffic Circle Walter Hays Completed September 2017 Trial Amarlllo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle El Carmelo Under construction as part of Boulevard Oh lone NTSBBl: Palo Verde Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Upgrade (Menlo Addison Under construction as part of Park City Limits to East Meadow Road) El Carmelo NTSBBl JLS MS Jordan MS Palo Alto HS Gunn HS Colorado Avenue at Sandra Place Spot Safety Oh lone Under construction as part of Improvements NTSBB1 Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Fairmeadow Under construction as part of JLS MS NTSBBl Gunn HS -Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard El Carmelo Under construction as part of Ohlone N"FSBBi Palo Verde Jordan MS Guhn HS Palo Alto HS L ?. I ' I ' Channing.Avenue and St Francis Drive Enhanced Duve neck Summer 2018 Bikeway ---Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project Phase 1 Barron Park Summer2018 and 2 Briones Hoover Fairmeadow JLS MS Terman MS Gunn HS - Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension (East Fairmeadow Fall 2018 Meadow Drive to San Antonio Road) Hoover JLS MS Gunn HS Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bikeway, Phase 1 Palo Alto HS Fall 2018 - Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Briones Summer 2019 as part of Terman MS NTSBB2 . Gunn HS Park Boulevard-Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Barron Park Summer 2019 as part of Briones NTSBB2 Terman MS Gunn HS Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Barron Park Summer 2019 as part of Briones NTSBB2 Terman MS Gunn HS Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project Phase 3 Barron Park Summer2019 Briones Hoover Fairmeadow JLS MS Terman MS Gunn HS Churchill Avenue Highway-Railroad Crossing Palo Alto HS Fall 2019 Safety Improvement Project East Meadow Drive and Fabian Way Enhanced Fairmeadow January 2020 Bikeway Hoover Palo Verde JLS MS Gunn HS Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, May 2018 PAUSD MIDDLE SCHOOL BIKE COUNTS, 1985-2017 800 -.--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 700 --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---~~~~~~~~~~ 600 --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----~----1m-----t1------l----lm----i 500 , • • - 400 1• • • • • 300 200 100 0 . spr l~~5 1 199l l 1993 l 1997 1 2000 l200l l 2002 l 2003 l 2004 l 2005l 2006l 2007 l 2008 l 2009 l 2010 l 201ll 2012 l 2013 l 2014 l 2015 l 2016 l 2017 1985 •Jordan 581 420 370 273 275 290 333 358 364 361 443 495 527 546 624 736 610 633 627 581 629 •JLS 298 537 290 320 290 191 241 185 200 271 280 319 351 463 456 490 512 533 584 581 651 617 •Terman 150 151 190 167 210 184 199 236 253 263 275 279 276 254 '¥ •Jordan •JLS •Terman -...:7...... n ,c-........ on ~ :::si!J CL_-; ,,, II.I z n l"I -n ~-2. 2. tJ:I 5-f. ~ g, ~~ ~~ m h' ~~ ~o $· ~ i:I -OQ er. Z ~ m 80% PAUSD MIDDLE SCHOOL BIKE COUNTS(%}, 1985-2017 70% +m:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--11-~~~~~~~~~~~~ 60% 50% +9-I -~~~~~-ll--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--.~~1·.--~1·.--~1·i:-~ 40% •Jordan 30% •JLS •Terman 20% 10% 0% spr 1~~15 1 1991 1 1993 1 1997 1 2000 12001 12002 12003 12004 I 2005 I 2006 I 2007 12008 12009 12010 I 2011 12012 12013 I 2014 12015 12016 12017 1985 Jordan 74% 61% 41% 25% 26% 29% 37% 41% 41% 40% 49% 53% 55% 56% 61% I 72% 60% 57% 55% 50% 56% JLS 46% 49% 33% 33% 27% 16% 23% 20% 25% 34% 32% 37% 38% 48% 45% 49% 51% 53% 53% 52% 54% 51% Terman 26% 24% 29% 25% 32% 28% 31% 36% 37% 37% 38% 37% 39% 37% I f ,; PAUSD HIGH SCHOOL BIKE COUNTS, 1985 -2017 1000 ....-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 900 -!-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 800 -1--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----1 700 -+--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 600 -!-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----~· 500 +--m-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--i 400 300 200 100 0 1985 11993 11999 12000 12001 12002 12003 12004 12005 12006 12007 12008 12009 12010 12011 12012 12013 12014 12015 12016 12017 •Gunn 284 180 230 166 240 252 308 447 478 600 633 671 679 750 836 811 830 838 830 • Paly 553 300 220 160 160 200 234 289 273 377 433 520 582 741 787 758 805 837 845 869 786 '• •Gunn •Paly PAUSD HIGH SCHOOL BIKE COUNTS(%), 1985-2017 50% 45% -'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~-:::~.-~~- 40% 35% +-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 30% +--ll-~~~~~~~.:.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~11;;;--- 25% I - 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1985 l 1993 l 1999 l 2000 l 200l l 2002 l 2003 l 2004 l 2005 l 2006 l 2007 l 2008 l 2009 l 2010 l 201l l 2012 l 2013 l 2014 l 2015 l 2016 l 2017 •Gunn 20% 11% I I 14% I 10% 14% 15% 18% 24% 25% 31% 33% 36% 36% 41% 45% 43% 44% 44% 42% • Paly 33% 25% 15% I 11% I 11% j 12% 14% 17% 16% 22% 26% 30% 32% 40% 42% 39% 42% 43% 43% 44% 38% •Gunn • Paly •' r Distinguished City Council/School Board Liaison Committee Members, On behalf of PAST Heritage congratulations on 100 years of Palo Alto High School at its El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road campus, and your centennial plaque, which was presented last Sunday, May fr• at the Lucie Stem Community Center. This is a notable achievement. Built back in 1918 at the end of World War I, at a building cost of $200,000, this Italian Renaissance Revival structure was designed by architects Allison & Allison. The Mediterranean characteristics and quality of the original structures relate directly to the architecture of Stanford University and widespread popularity of the Spanish Colonial Revival style of the period. The building is noted as a significant cultural and historic landmark, and a Category 2 resource on the City of Palo Alto, Historic Buildings Inventory. This is probably the oldest still existing historic public Palo Alto structure. Over the decades there has been considerable debate over these historic buildings, and preservation has always won. Almost 30 years ago, in 1989, the beloved Paly campanile was threatened by the Loma Prieta earthquake, and was lovingly stabilized and restored. The current size and location of this historic structure gives particular importance and prominence as a visual focal point and the front door of the more recent buildings on the Palo Alto High School campus complex. Unfortunately today the original 1918 historic Palo Alto High School building is once again in jeopardy, as the currently proposed adjacent solar carport project could detrimentally impact the historic setting and diminish the visual quality of the original century old structure. While Palo Alto Unified School District is exempt from local regulation under the Field Act, the impacts of the proposed solar carport scheme is significant enough that it merits historic review and analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This state law requires that all buildings and structures over 50 years old, and those listed on local, state, or Federal historic registers undergo a qualified Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE), and Historic Structures Report (HSR) as to the appropriateness of modifications, alterations, and adjacent construction; reviewed, evaluated, and analyzed for potential incompatibility. While the price of solar panels have become economically competitive, and represents a significant renewable energy resource in the never ending goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and battling global warming, the proposed location of the solar carports are incompatible with the historic appearance of the Renaissance Revival architecture. The location of the proposed solar carports along the frontage of both El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road would be viewed as a dominant feature; an irreconcilable blemish on the century old historic edifice. But, there are suitable alternatives to your proposed solar strategy. At the beginning of this century with deregulation of electric utilities and transmission grid access, renewable energy can now be located on any suitably oriented property, and transferred to any other site. With the exception of Stanford University, Palo Alto Unified School District represents the single largest landholder within the municipality and school district boundaries. Surely there are other suitably oriented P AUSD properties or non-historic school sites, where these solar panels could be stationed, and renewable electricity generated and transferred through the municipal electric grid to the Palo Alto High School campus. Google Project Sunroof is an online resource, available free to the public, to help analyze any property's orientation and suitability for installing solar panels. However, in this particular case renewable energy does not automatically trump historic review and evaluation. As the lead agency, if the PAUSD intends to pursue this solar carport scheme, the PAST Heritage board urges the Board of Education to immediately undertake the necessary historic review process, notice and schedule timely community public hearings, solicit citizen feedback on the solar carport proposal, and make sufficient findings required for historic review and evaluation, with an appropriate public appeal period and process. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to call on myself and PAST Heritage, as a community resource, in assisting P AUSD navigate the historic review process. Congratulations again on the Centennial Anniversary of Palo Alto High School at its present location, as we prepare to celebrate Palo Alto's Quasquicentennial in 2019. Sincerely yours, Lee I. Lippert, AIA President PAST Heritage How to Cross Middlefield and Embarcadero ~A~ Student Riders 00 0 Wait in the blcydewaltlng area when light is red. 6 Bike accross the street inthe W aossblke when light is green. "'-Student Walkers 1\-O Wait on the sidewalk when light is red. 8 Use the yell'ow orosswalk to cross the street. Submit questions or concerns through Palo Alto 311 : www.cityofpaloalto.org/311 ts:= :::ti '"O ~' ~ ~· 2. ~~' ..... 0 f i g·g OQ g· OQ Q 'ct ~ 8 • How to use the Bike Box to Terman o01-1"1.P 1)\\\-J"- ~ New Signal Patterlt Green lights on Donald and Terman will begin running separately starting early September. The new pattern will be: 1) Donald, 2) All-walk phase, 3) Terman, 4) Arastradero Cyclists: Jo Drivers: • o cycleon right side .Look over left shoulder for cars e Line up in green box during red e e II fl Proceed cautiously to multi-use path. of street, coming from behind. not on sidewalks. Sig~al left. Merge into green lane. Wait behind the bike box . Yield to cyclists in front of you. -light, as far left as OR Dismount and walk possible, or in e with crossing guard Yield to pedestrians. green lane. e during all-walk signal. Wait for green light. Turn left by bike with green arrow. .... No parking at the new red curbs on Donald Submit questions or concerns through Palo Alto 311: www.cityofpaloalto.org/311 ff • SEEN THE NEW RAISED? CROSSWALKS • A raised crosswalk is a speed hump with a crosswalk on top. Drivers slow down, so they are more likely to stop for people crossing. It is safer and easier to cross the street on a raised crosswalk. What to know about raised crosswalks ... Raised crosswalks have a speed hump marking to alert drivers and cyclists to slow down. People in a raised crosswalk are easier to see and stop for because they are higher than the rest of the roadway. It is easy to cross the street at a raised crosswalk because there are no ramps to go up or down. If yo~' re crossing ... Use a raised crosswalk like any other crosswalk. Look left, right, left again, then cross when it's safe. Make eye contact with drivers and bicyclists before stepping into the crosswalk. Make sure they've seen you and are waiting for you to cross. Pay attention to your surroundings. What's a Bicycle Boulevard? As defined in the City of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan 2030 adopted by City Council on November 13, 2017, a bicycle boulevard is "a low volume through-street where bicycles have priority over automobiles, conflicts between bicycles and automobiles are minimized, and bicycle travel time is reduced by the removal of stop signs and other impediments to bicycle travel." Palo Alto's Bicycle Network. defined in the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is made of several types of bicycle facilities, including bike lanes, multi-use paths, bike routes, and bicycle boulevards. How do I drive safely on a bike boulevard? • Expect people on bikes to be in the travel lane. • Obey the posted speed limits. • Pass people on bikes only when it is safe. California law requires three feet of space between you and the bicycle. • Do not pass a person on a bike if: o you are going through narrow areas o you would have to cross a double yellow line o there is not enough space to pass o there is oncoming traffic • Do not honk at cyclists unless you are warning of imminent danger. How do I bike safely on a bike boulevard? • Ride in a straight line in the travel lane so that you are highly visible and out of the "door zone." The large "Bike Blvd" stencils indicate where you should be positioned in the lane. • Do not ride on the sidewalk or so far to the curb that you have to swerve back into the travel lane when you encounter a parked car or a curb extension. • Obey all stop signs and signal your turns. What about the roundabouts? • Before approaching the roundabout, cyclists in a bike lane should carefully signal and merge into the car lane, making sure to look over their left shoulder for cars. Yield to traffic already in the roundabout. Enter the circle by bearing right and ride in the center of the lane. Do not let cars try to pass or share the lane with you in the roundabout. Young children. or cyclists uncomfortable merging into the car lane can use the bike exit ramps leading to the sidewalk, then dismount from their bike, and proceed as a pedestrian. • Before approaching the roundabout, Drivers should not share the approach with a bike. Slow down in advance of the approach and expect bicycles in the bike lane to merge 3 FT FOR SAFETY ACT SAFm TIPS FOR MOTORISTS • Slow down neor bicychsls • Poy ollenl on and ovoid driving d1slracl1ons • Look tor blcychsls before opening vour car door Splitter sland Right Tum ~ into the car lane before entering the roundabout approach. Yield to oncoming traffic, then proceed right and travel around the circle pictured above. Drive single file. Do not share the lane with bikes. • Pedestrians should cross in the designated crosswalks, using the splitter island as a safe space to wait if cars are approaching. II Barron Park Elementary School WALK AND ~OLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES -Suggested Route (Walking and Biking) -Bicycle Parking •••• Suggested Route (Walking Only) I Traffic Signal XX(Xl Est. Walking llme (Biking Time) • All-Way Stop ~~ Crossing Guard Location 1111111111 Marked Crosswalk @ Pedestrian and Blcycle Access CJ Attendance Area Multi-use Path Parks and Open Space -Vehicle Barrier lllill!ll School Inset For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student ~-. J ~lma ~et Park Boulevard QJ ::J c ~ -~ 0 ·'::tt.e/ ~, ~"v,' , I I I I I I I I ]II : / :E QJ &. I I ' I I I ' ' ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' ' , >-' ~ c S! c "' J: -~ Vi ~ 0 c "' J: ' ' ' 0 1/4 c:::====:::::i---• Miles 1/8 QJ ::J c ~ -1---1----1 1l E j ·~e, "'~,' "' / I I I I I ' ' I ' I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ ~ "' ::J "iij E :c u ' ... ;;; ::.1E ... ...... ___ I __ _ See Ins r =01 "' ::J "'Cl c c QI ,2~ ~ C)•---~ :~·~g JL f'I!fw QJ ::J c ~ Qj .5 :; u QJ ::J c ~ l!! ,all!!!i----' c ~ ...... ~.lllb: .. ~--...... ... ' ~ "' a1 Magndlia ~ Drive ', \ .-., ; "'.., La Donna Street ,4,r I QJ ::J c ~ c g "' al ... "' QJ ~ ::J _J Laguna Avenue \ c.. QJ , I"' c \ ~~ \ \ \ ' El Centro \ Stfeet 6 (2)1 I I ' I I I I I ,' , ... -------...... QJ ::J c ~ "' QJ :;s 0 a: "' ..9 --~--- Ellen Fletcher Middle School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES -Suggested Route (Walking and Biking) • • • • Suggested Route (Walking Only) ~XX (X) Est Walking Time (Biking Time) ~ I Bicycle Parking Pedestrian Beacon Traffic Signal All-Way Stop Marked Crosswalk t-f. Crossing Guard Location @ Pedestrian-Only Access ~ Pedestrian and Bicycle Access -Multi-use Path ............. .....--.. .. Inset Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Bike Box • lllllllftl ......,. Vehicle Barrier C:=J Attendance Area Parks and Open Space -School For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages Ellen Fletcher parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. , , , ~ < , , , .,,;/ '\ I / I / ...... 1 ....., ....... , ',A,, ...... ' '':((~ ..<:':--__" ?>qa A oo,~/'~~~f'()"ti :i-.o,.es:;."' · ~> ~ / I / ,// , , / / / , , , , , I : Clos Altos-Palo Alto Bike Path 1/4 i::::===::i---• Miles 0 1/8 ' ' A_, ' A.. / I, I I I I . 2018 PALO ALTO SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL CITY/PTA/PAUSD PARTNERSHIP FIVE-YEAR WORK PLAN* MISSION GOAL ~Placed Be ore Meeting [ Received at Meeting To grow and strengthen community-wide support through the SRTS E's mad ar safe, active, healthy, sustainable school commutes OBJECTIVES 1 Adoptand 2 institutionalize Provide, key SRTS continue and practices and enhance school 3 Expand and I enhance SRTS events and encouragement 4 Gather data to assess and 5 Engineer routes to school to develop a more policies across and community-programs and materials to communicate the value of SRTS to parents, students and the community improve SRTS safe and efficient the based SRTS Partnership education program and gather programs, outcomes best practices materials and from communications elsewhere I YEAR 1 STRATEGIES: 7 /1/17-6/30/18 -TO BE COMPLETED BY 6/30/18 Work toward PAUSD SRTS policy adoption Build out two Stanford service learning education, evaluation & enforcement projects Expand Youth for Environmental Sustainability Cont. Participation Increase Spanish and Mandarin materials Develop SRTS educational posters Develop SRTS Public Service Announcements YEAR 2 STRATEGIES: 7/1/18-6/30/19 Develop a PAUSD SRTS policy to sustain ongoing commitment from PAUSD Explore optional and compulsory SRTS high school education programs Develop a communications plan outline Develop a public list of carpooling resources l_ I I Participate in countywide SRTS data pilot Integrate Statewide Traffic System (SWITRS) data into SRTS Pilot online travel tally I Develop a PAUSD parent survey to evaluate participant demographics and identify challenges to more active transportation I network for families choosing active transportation I Complete two site assessments and update Walk and Roll Maps Complete two site assessments with updated Walk and Roll Maps for Palo Verde and Gunn H.S. I Increase awareness & engagement between City Departments and the community to advance awareness of the SRTS mission, goals & strategies I Update City Comprehensive Plan policies Create an enforcement strategy to reflect changing staffing levels by shifting traffic enforcement role to patrol officers I *Five-Year Work Plan goals and strategies depend on the Safe Routes to School Partnership's funding and capacity, and may be subject to change as demand dictates. Commit to an equitable distribution of SRTS resources to encourage broad SRTS community participation r " This goal was not developed Conduct a bike repair class with student input Promote safer routes for East Palo Alto PAUSD student bicyclists 2018 PALO ALTO SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL CITY/PTA/PAUSD PARTNERSHIP FIVE-YEAR WORK PLAN YEARS 3-5 STRATEGIES: 7/1/19-6/30/22 I I I I This strategy Explore 2019-Develop Back to Develop a PAUSD develops Develop a Develop has not yet 20 optional and School Night behavior change-a yearly CSTSC crossing plan and been compulsory presentation slide focused SRTS presentation to guard training program to SRTS M.iddle outreach to developed Ensure standard infographic assess and audiences with School SRTSlanguage transportation curriculum to special needs education included in all Develop an impacts from interactive SRTS standardize programs PAUSD websites Google map school attendance, boundary cha nges how crossing and parent and overflow guards \ handbooks perform common ONGOING STRATEGIES tasks. Goal 1: Adopt and institutionalize key SRTS practices and policies across the Partnership and gather best practices from elsewhere • Support SRTS Champions/Teams at each school site • PTA advocates for rebuilding the PAPD traffic team • PTA inspires action and educates potential leaders about public process, governance and SRTS Advocacy • Support increased uniform patrol presence to encourage and enforce compliance with existing laws • Revisit, renew and confirm the roles of the Partnership through the Five-Year Work plan • Maintain the City School Traffic Safety Committee as a forum to further the Safe Routes Partnership's mission, goals and strategies • Improve communication of the policy and policy dissemination Goal 2: Provide, expand and enhance school and community-based SRTS education programs and materials • Cultivate a community of parents and others to build a network of skilled leaders for education and advocacy • Support active transportation events during the year by setting up information tables, assisting families with route planning and responding to infrastructure concerns • Maintain K-2 in-class educational offerings and optimize the program to match student capabilities, support educational best practices and incorporate infrastructure updates • Maintain 3'd grade Bicycle Life Skills Curriculum in-class and optimize program to match student capabilities, support educational best practices and incorporate infrastructure updates • Maintain 5th grade in-class educational offerings and optimize the program to match student capabilities, support educational best practices and incorporate infrastructure updates • Maintain 61h grade in-class educational offerings and optimize programs to match student capabilities, support educational best practices and incorporate infrastructure updates • Maintain 8th grade offerings and optimize programs to match student capabilities, support educational best practices and incorporate iofrastructure updates • Align parent messages with student educational programming • Grow Youth for Environmental Sustainability Conference participation • Build out bus/shuttle resources and assist with schedules Goal 3: Expand and enhance SRTS encouragement programs and materials to communicate the value of the SRTS program to parents and across the community • Support Spring Walk & Roll Week • Support Fall Walk & Roll Week • Support Bike to Work Day • Support Bike Palo Alto • Communicate program activities and successes to the broader community 2 . _, 2018 PALO ALTO SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL CITY/PTA/PAUSD PARTNERSHIP FIVE-YEAR WORK PLAN • Use Walk and Roll Maps and "Safety Tips for Peds/Bikes/Drivers" as part of messaging • Employ purposeful incentives to support SRTS participation • Communicate the value of bicycling, walking, transit and sharing rides • Enhance website functionality and user experience. • Support parent education, including Back to School Nights, spring information nights for rising 5th, 6th and 7th graders and providing SRTS information in Back to School packets. Goal 4: Gather data to assess and improve SRTS program outcomes • Incorporate traffic and engineering data into mode split and modal share assessments • Explain the purpose of data collection to PAUSD administrators and share the data in a way that encourages and does not compare schools • Conduct yearly online travel tallies for PAUSD grades K-12 • Conduct yearly bike counts • Submit yearly travel tally data to the Santa Clara County Health Department • Manage local and administrative data requests Goal 5: Engineer routes to school to develop a more safe and efficient network for families choosing active transportation • Assist with bicycle infrastructure design review to inform the planning process. • Design and provide materials and education about new infrastructure improvements • Advocate as a Partnership for the rapid implementation of bike network, bike boulevards and arterial projects • Respond to Palo Alto 311 requests. • Conduct community site visits • Update school Walk and Roll Maps upon request • Provide crossing guard management, including assessing needs, developing contracts and replying to public feedback Goal 6: Deepen SRTS awareness and engagement across City Departments and among community representatives to advance and institutionalize awareness of the SRTS mission, goals and strategies • Support the build-out of the City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan • Provide students and families with transit system information and offer guidance on proposed transit changes • Model walking, biking, carpool and transit through daily transportation decisions • Assist with plans to develop a more efficient roadway network for families choosing active transportation. • Collaborate with local agencies, including public works, utilities, law enforcement and district officials to support motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists • Update SRTS Onboarding Manual • Promote awareness of Traffic Safety Control guidelines • Integrate SRTS into long range planning efforts • Integrate SRTS into current planning efforts Goal 7: Commit to an equitable distribution of SRTS resources to encourage broad SRTS community participation 3 • Develop Spanish and Chinese language materials • Promote a "no-guilt approach" to encourage participation via all transportation modes • Support free services, such as bike repair, helmet and bike light distribution and compulsory education to ensure that under-resourced students can access important safety resources in a way that does not stigmatize them • Ensure ongoing awareness regarding the geographic distribution of SRTS staff time and resources among Palo Alto regions and across neighborhoods • Support off-site free or low-cost alternative commute transportation services that are targeted to at-risk families Choose Health. Drink Water • ...... '{ l Placed fore Meeting . fjl. Received at Meeting The American Heart Association recommends the following limits on daily consumption of added sugar: 0 teaspoons for children under 2 6 teaspoons for children ages 2-18 and adult women 9 teaspoons for adult men The sugar in one 20 ounce soda is about equal to the sugar in ••• 20 oz soda sugar cubes 4 chocolate candy bars -- 6 glazed doughnuts -- 3 slices of pumpkin pie ·-----------------------------------------------------------------------------· Protect your health. Use these tips to help you hydrate better with water: I 30 Carry a water bottle with you Drink some water every 30minutes Eat more fruits and vegetables Drinkwater before and during meals Add tasty herbs, fruits, and veggies Santa Clara County PUBL!C HEALTH i, I I . I 1 ' i ' I, 'i h I , I I ' I j 1 I 'I i, Ii I , , Palo Alto City Council Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 9430) CIJY OF PA~O ALTO. CA Cl;fY CLERK'S. Qff'ICE 18.HAY 17 AH IQ: 15 Re: Special Meeting on Monday, May 21, 2018 Wireless Communication Facility Permits I am unable to attend the meeting. 3465 Kenneth Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 My question is: why are we charging so little to the for-profit communication companies who want to improve their commercial service by installing devices on our City's infrastructure? Why are we not charging based upon the utility that installing those devices provides to those companies? That is, why not charge based upon numbers of connections made or number of "connection-minutes" flowing through the devices? We are not charging for the value received by the communication company -i.e. increased capacity and better coverage. I believe that the City should maximize its opportunities for revenue, and this is certainly one. I feel that what we are charging is too low for the value delivered. That is my primary objection. Sincerel9,/ . / (;:;i{jvtr- CarlJone~ I l '11 I I FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING __05/23/2018__ [ ] Placed Before Meeting [X] Received at Meeting 1 Item # 1 City of Palo Alto M E M O R A N D U M TO: Finance Committee DATE: May 23, 2018 SUBJECT: FY 2019 Budget Wrap-up Memorandum Executive Summary This memorandum includes additional information pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2019 Proposed Budget, summarizes changes to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2019 Proposed Budget, brings forth recommended actions to revise the Fiscal Year 2019 Proposed Budget, and responds to questions raised by the Finance Committee during previous budget hearings. Please refer to the table of contents below for specific items. Contents 1)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 PROPOSED BUDGET ............ 2 2)CHANGES TENTATIVELY APPROVED BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ................................................. 3 3)STAFF RECOMMENDED CHANGES &FOLLOW-UP OF FINANCE COMMITTEE ‘PARKING LOT’ ITEMS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 3 Budget Process ‘Parking Lot’ Summary ................................................................................................... 4 Staff Recommended Changes to Operating Budget ................................................................................ 5 Staff Recommended Chages to the Capital Improvement Budget .......................................................... 6 FY 2019 Municipal Fee Schedule ............................................................................................................. 7 4)SUMMARY OF FINANCE COMMITTEE REVIEW OF FY 2019 PROPOSED BUDGET (ACTIONS, REFERENCE, & REFERRALS) ........................................................................................................................... 8 Finance Committee Tentative Motions & Materials Distributed (actions & reference materials) ......... 8 Future Follow-up Items (potential referrals) ........................................................................................... 8 5)LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 9 1 2 5/23/2018 1)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2019 PROPOSED BUDGET During the Finance Committee hearings, requests for additional information were made by the Committee members. This section addresses the Finance Committee’s requests in regards to the Fiscal Year 2019 Proposed Budget. General Fund Structural Reduction of $5 million (Requested 5/15/2018 by Vice Mayor Filseth) The Finance Committee unanimously approved a request for up to $5 million in structural reductions in the General Fund from the FY 2019 Proposed Budget. This request stemmed from a desire to begin looking at structurally addressing the unfunded pension obligation the City faces, especially if the CalPERS rate of returns is calculated at 6.2%. The annual General Fund cost of that difference is approximately $8.2 million. The Finance Committee requested reductions of half of that ($4 million) to begin to close that gap and added another $1 million for “flexibility” when they look at the impacts of the reductions, thus $5 million. Due to the short turn-around time, this request will be responded to directly at the Finance Committee on the May 23, 2018. Development Services Key Performance Measures (Requested 5/15/2018 by CM Scharff) The Finance Committee requested clarification on the “Average Number of Day from Issuance to Final for the construction phase of a commercial tenant improvement.” The increase from FY 2016 Actuals to FY 2017 Actuals was due in part to the City’s adoption of new Green Building & Energy Reach requirements which increased developer’s construction schedule and staff inspection timelines. The FY 2019 Proposed value was erroneously calculated by using the average of actuals from FY 2014 to FY 2017 without taking into consideration the ongoing increases from the new code requirements. Staff will recalculate this estimate to more accurately reflect current time frames, which are now running at approximately 182 days. Development In-Lieu and Impact Fees (Requested 5/16/2018 by CM Kou) The City issues a report to provide information about developer fees on an annual basis. These funds are aggregated in the budget document for reporting simplicity. However, for accounting purposes, and to comply with State law AB 1600, these funds are segregated from other funds of the City with interest on each development fee fund or account credited to that fund or account and used only for the purposes for which the fees were collected. Per State law (Government Code Section 66006) each local agency that imposes development impact fees must prepare an annual report providing specific information about those fees. Typically, this report is provided in January or February of the year following the fiscal year end close; the most recent report was approved by City Council on January 22, 2018. City Manager’s Report #8753 Annual Status Developers’ Impact Fees FY 2017 can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62814. Planning and Transportation Committee Review (at staff’s behest) On May 22, 2018, the Planning and Transportation Committee (PTC) reviewed and determined, based on staff representation, that the new projects in the FY 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Plan are consistent with the City’s current Comprehensive Plan. Attachment A is the letter and additional information the PTC wished to transmit to the Finance Committee. The transcribed minutes from the meeting are not yet available and will be referenced in the City Manager Report to transmit the final budget adoption for FY 2019 in June 2018. 2 3 5/23/2018 2)CHANGES TENTATIVELY APPROVED BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE Throughout the Finance Committee Hearings, the Committee has tentatively approved a number of components of the City Manager Proposed FY 2019 Operating and Capital Budgets. This section describes Finance Committee recommended changes made to the budget. GENERAL FUND City Auditor’s Office The Finance Committee on May 15th, 2018, approved a tentative motion to eliminate 5.0 full-time positions (2.0 Senior Performance Auditor, 2.0 Performance Auditor II, and 1.0 Performance Auditor I) in the Office of the City Auditor and adds 80% in contract services funding for outside auditing services leaving only 1.0 position remaining, the City Auditor. The addition of $500,000 in contract services funding offsets this reduction in staffing resulting in a reduction in appropriated funds of approximately $230,000 in the General Fund, and $340,000 in all funds. City Manager’s Office of Sustainability The Finance Committee on May 15th, 2018, approved a tentative motion to shift 0.75 Management Analyst, funding for contracts and support, and allocated charges from the Office of Sustainability to the City Manager’s Office. This action would support continued work on the City of Palo Alto’s sustainability initiatives and recommends the elimination of 1.0 Chief Sustainability Officer position and other remaining funding in the Office of Sustainability. This is intended to reflect the matriculation of Sustainability Implementation Plans into routine business processes and various City initiatives throughout the organization. This would result in a reduction in appropriated funds of approximately $200,000 in the General Fund. The City Manager had recommended (essentially) this action but effectively de-funding the Chief Sustainability Officer on Dec 31, 2018. SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS University Avenue Parking District Fund – Valet Services The Finance Committee on May 16th, 2018, approved a tentative motion to add funding of $290,000 in FY 2019 for the extension of valet parking services to align with the anticipated opening of the new University Avenue parking garage. This funding would maintain the ability to accommodate up to 135 additional spaces per day and is intended to mitigate parking supply constraints in the downtown parking district area. Sufficient fund balance is available to support this action in Fiscal Year 2019. 3)STAFF RECOMMENDED CHANGES & FOLLOW-UP OF FINANCE COMMITTEE ‘PARKING LOT’ ITEMS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION This section outlines staff-recommended changes to the proposed budget and those items that were approved by the Finance Committee to be placed in the ‘Parking Lot’ for further discussion and additional information. The intent of the Finance Committee was to revisit items placed in the ‘Parking Lot’ as part of the final budget wrap-up meeting prior to returning to the City Council for the FY 2019 budget adoption. 3 4 5/23/2018 Budget Process ‘Parking Lot’ Summary During the budget hearings, the Finance Committee moved items to the ‘Parking Lot’ for further discussion at a future meeting. This section outlines those items and provides additional information requested by the Finance Committee and/or provided at staff’s behest in regards to the items in the parking lot. Staff hopes that this additional information will facilitate the Committee’s review, discussion, and approval of these items. GENERAL FUND Library Department As directed by the Finance Committee on May 16, 2018, a verbal update will provided to address the Finance Committee’s questions and comments. Questions included discussion over additional hours at certain locations, the relative circulation and spend rates for electronic content versus print materials. Public Works Department – Urban Forest Master Plan Funding Request The Finance Committee on May 16th, 2018, approved a tentative motion to place the Public Works Department General Fund budget in the 'parking lot' pending a recommended offset to the addition of ongoing funding for the implementation of the Urban Forest Master Plan on an ongoing basis. Staff has assessed the progress of the tree trimming cycle and determined it has been completed more efficiently than initially anticipated. (Effectively achieving a better than 7-year cycle). Therefore, staff recommends reducing the funding allocated for the tree trimming contract by $150,000 while maintaining the 7 year trimming cycle and reallocate this funding on an ongoing basis to fund the Urban Forest Master Plan. OTHER FUNDS Vehicle Maintenance & Replacement Fund – electric vehicles & vehicle inventory The Finance Committee on May 16th, 2018, approved a tentative motion to place the Vehicle Fund budget in the ‘parking lot’ pending additional information on the current list of vehicles up for replacement and a cost comparison of electric vehicles (EV) to conventional vehicles. Staff has determined that there is not yet sufficient information on the total cost of operating and owning EVs to provide a comprehensive comparison within the City’s replacement policies. The City’s vehicle replacement policy specifies that electric vehicles are provided whenever possible as replacements occur. Fully supported and warrantied electric vehicles are now available in the passenger sedan vehicle class. Non-police sedans and sport utility vehicles make up 60 of the fleet’s approximately 370 vehicles (the total for vehicles and equipment is 558). Approximately 16 passenger sedan vehicle replacements are planned over the proposed five-year plan. Staff anticipates striving to replace all of these with electric vehicles including the potential leasing of vehicles as a consideration too. Fleet staff have not identified fully supported electric options for compact or heavier duty trucks, which make up about 180 fleet vehicles. However, as an additional step towards comprehensively evaluating the use of electric vehicles, a pilot for electric compact pickup trucks is anticipated to be conducted in FY 2019. Lastly, attached is the vehicle replacement list that outlines the tentative plan for the five-year capital improvement plan for replacement activities (Attachment B). 4 5 5/23/2018 Staff Recommended Changes to Operating Budget GENERAL FUND Federal Transit Administration Grant This action recognizes anticipated grant funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of $780,000 and a corresponding increase in the appropriation expense in the City Manager’s Office in the General Fund. This grant provides funding for a research project to evaluate approaches to reducing single occupancy vehicle trips. This funding provides the budgetary authority for this grant project, which includes significant collaboration with local partners including Prospect Silicon Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning & Urban Research Association (SPUR), and technological innovators in the commuter management sphere. More information on this grant, including the individual contract agreements, will be brought forward to City Council as the grant progresses. The first contractual agreements are anticipated to be ready for City Council review and approval before the end of FY 2018; necessary appropriation actions for FY 2018 will be brought forward at that time as appropriate. Planning Division Staffing Reorganization This action recommends the reorganization of the Planning Division of the Planning & Community Environment Department. This division of approximately 15.0 full-time positions has historically struggled in recruiting and retaining staff as well as providing succession planning. The following net- zero realignment is recommended after a study was completed with the Human Resources Department: - Delete 1.0 Planning Manager and add 1.0 Planning Division Manager - Delete 1.0 Senior Planner and add 1.0 Principal Planner - Delete 2.0 Senior Planner and add 2.0 Associate Planner - Change the title of Chief Planning Official to Planning Division Manager in the Management & Professionals Compensation Plan Ultimately, the objective of this reorganization is to 1) enable recruitment of a high level planning division manager to fill a long-vacant position on the department’s leadership team, and 2) create a structure that allows new managers to develop their skills as Principal planners before rising higher in the leadership team. Below looks at the current and proposed staffing levels: Planning Division Staffing Reorganization Current Authorized Staffing Proposed Staffing Change Planning Division Manager1 1.00 2.00 1.00 Planning Manager/Principal Planner2 2.00 2.00 0.00 Senior Planner 7.00 4.00 (3.00) Planner 4.00 4.00 0.00 Associate Planner 1.00 3.00 2.00 Total 15.00 15.00 0.00 1 Current classification/title is “Chief Planning Official.” Recommended to be retitled to “Planning Division Manager.” 2 Eventually the intent is that all “Planning Manager” positions be reallocated to “Principal Planner” classifications through attrition. 5 6 5/23/2018 VARIOUS FUNDS Utilities Department – Fiscal Impact of the Electric and Water Rate Changes Subsequent to the development of the FY 2019 Proposed Operating Budget, revised rate adjustments to the Finance Committee for Water on April 17th, 2018 and for Electric on May 15th, 2018 were approved. For more information on these proposed rate changes from FY 2018 to FY 2019, see City Manager Report #9158 reviewing the Electric rates and City Manager Report #9143 reviewing the Water rates. The fiscal impact of these changes in FY 2019 was discussed with the Finance Committee on May 15th, 2018 and is summarized below. Staff evaluated both the implications on the enterprise funds as a customer of the utility services. No adjustment to Utility User Tax revenue estimates and estimated costs for electric and water services are recommended at this time, however, will be monitored during the year and adjustments brought forward as necessary. City Manager Report #9158: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64921 City Manager Report #9143: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64557 •Electric Fund: Revenue estimates included in the FY 2019 Proposed Operating Budget for the Electric Fund were based on 8% rate increase from FY 2018 to 2019. Subsequent to the production of the Proposed Budget, Utilities staff indicated that an increase of 6% is more appropriate. This lower increase is due mainly to revisions and reductions in estimates for ongoing operations costs. Primary factors for the recommended increase from FY 2018 to FY 2019 include rising transmission access charges, the cost of new renewable electricity purchases, and capital improvement project costs. With this lower increase, the overall revenue is expected to decrease by 1.9%, or approximately $2.5 million from the Proposed Operating Budget of the Electric Fund. •Water Fund: Revenue estimates included in the FY 2019 Proposed Operating Budget for the Water Fund were based on a 4% rate increase from FY 2018 to 2019. Utilities staff has subsequently revised their rate adjustment down to 3%. This lower increase is recommended based on revised purchase cost estimates from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and greater use of reserve fund balances to help smooth rate increases over time. Overall, the year-to-year increase is mainly due to increasing costs of several near-term capital projects, including the rehabilitation of storage reservoirs and tanks, as well as upgrades to customer metering. With this lower increase, the overall revenue is expected to decrease by 1.0% or approximately $0.4 million from the Proposed Operating Budget of the Water Fund. Staff Recommended Chages to the Capital Improvement Budget VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS: Reappropriations As described in the Proposed Capital Budget document and discussed during the Finance Committee Budget Hearings, the City Council approved change in the method for accounting for capital budget reappropriations is included in the 2019-2023 Proposed Capital Budget Improvement Program (CIP). Previously, any unspent capital funds carried forward from one fiscal year to the next automatically, as long as the project was active. As a result of the October 2014 change to the Municipal Code, City Council authorization is now required for reappropriations. The FY 2019 budget process continues this process with the current FY 2019 Proposed Capital Budget including approximately $36.6 million in reappropriated funds for project expenditures, across all funds. 6 7 5/23/2018 In the time since the Proposed Budget figures were developed (early spring of 2018), departments have re-reviewed current year estimates and the reappropriation amounts built into the proposed CIP. Additional reappropriation adjustments are recommended as part of this wrap-up memorandum in order to update the FY 2019 Capital Budget with current, more refined estimated activity levels in Fiscal Year 2018. Cumulatively, this re-review of projects has resulted in staff’s recommendation to increase the Fiscal Year 2019 Proposed Capital Budget by a net total of $11.1 million, from $211.7 million to $222.8 million, and are recommended in the following funds: Fund Recommended Fiscal Year 2019 Funding Adjustment Capital Improvement Fund $7,560,500 Cubberley Infrastructure Fund -$370,000 Electric Fund $3,502,000 Gas Fund $150,000 Technology Fund $200,000 Vehicle Replacement Fund -$565,000 Wastewater Treatment Fund -362,000 Water Fund $971,000 Total All Funds $11,086,500 These adjustments, as outlined by project in Attachment [C], combined with those outlined in the Proposed Capital Budget will ensure that funds are available at the onset of Fiscal Year 2019 for projects that have experienced delays in the current year and will reduce the Fiscal Year 2019 Proposed budget for projects that experienced higher than anticipated expenditure levels within Fiscal Year 2018. In total, reappropriations of an estimated $47.7 million remain below those assumed in the FY 2018 Adopted Capital Budget of $60.9 million. FY 2019 Municipal Fee Schedule Subsequent to the finalization of the FY 2019 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule Staff Report (CMR #9210), staff discovered that one of the changed fees was inadvertently omitted from the report. Staff alerted the Finance Committee of this omission during the May 16th meeting, and the details of that particular fee are included below. •Comprehensive Plan Maintenance Fee: This fee was evaluated and updated as part of the Development Services Department’s Fee Study in FY 2018. Based on the recommendation from the Fee Study, staff proposes to change this fee to align with that study. o FY 2018 Adopted rate: $0.55 per $1,000 of construction valuation o FY 2019 Proposed rate: $1.08 per $1,000 of construction valuation Additionally, the Finance Committee requested fee-based General Fund revenue data during the Municipal Fee discussion at the May 16th meeting. The Finance Committee specifically asked to examine the level of revenue adjustments programmed into the FY 2019 Proposed Budget in the General Fund as 7 8 5/23/2018 a result of fee changes. Overall, fee-based revenue for FY 2019 is approximately $31.6 million. This represents an increase of 11% or approximately $3.0 million from FY 2018 with the primary driver of that increase assuming the renovated golf course will be open for 12 months during FY 2019. 4)SUMMARY OF FINANCE COMMITTEE REVIEW OF FY 2019 PROPOSED BUDGET (ACTIONS, REFERENCE, & REFERRALS) Finance Committee Tentative Motions & Materials Distributed (actions & reference materials) Action Minutes to the Finance Committee Hearings can be found on the City’s webpage here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/finance/default.asp. In addition, throughout the Finance Committee Budget Hearings, various memorandums were distributed “At Places” in order to respond to inquiries made by the Committee or provide additional pertinent information at staffs behest. In addition, summary presentations were given at each hearing providing high level overviews of each item. Specific meetings and reference links to materials are outlined below. May 15, 2018 Finance Committee Action Minutes: pending Presentations: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65147 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/finance-committee-50-2-2-2-2-3/ At Places Memorandums: - Retiree Healthcare Plan Actuarial Valuation: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65134 - Proposed Electric Utility Rate Changes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65105 - Proposed Gas Utility Rate Changes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65106 May 16, 2018 Finance Committee Action Minutes: pending Presentations: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65148 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/finance-committee-50-2-2-2-2-2/ - At Places Memorandums: Storm Drain Fund Budget: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65108 Future Follow-up Items (potential referrals) During the Finance Committee hearings, the Committee voted to refer a few items for further staff follow-up at a later date with the Committee. The list below is reflective of referral items from the Finance Committee to the City Council for direction to Staff to complete and return to the Finance Committee at a later date. 1.Direct Staff to return to Finance with a discussion of the Fees discussed during this Agenda Item. Examples include but are not limited to the review of activities the City currently regulates and evaluate if it is necessary to continue to regulate such activities and review special events fees and policies 8 2. Direct Staff to bring to the Finance Committee by August 2018 a policy discussion on the strategy for prioritizing Capital Improvement Project criteria Various discussions arose around more in depth review of or summary information regarding topics or service delivery changes not currently included in the FY 2019 Proposed Budget. Staff has noted these items and anticipates that information could be brought forward for consideration in the near term. These topics include but are not limited to: Review of risk, cost, and compliance of replacing pool cars with ridesharing reimbursement Review of risk, cost, and compliance of moving from purchasing to leasing vehicles Review of costs and benefits to the City of the Print and Mail Fund Review of parking garage security camera options Comprehensive parking funding sources and fund structure guide 5 UST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Planning & Transportation Committee Review Attachment B: FY 2019-2023 Tentative Vehicle Replacement Schedule Attachment C: FY 2019 Capital Reappropriation Budget Adjustments DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER: 9 5/23/2018 ATTACHMENT A 10