HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180528plCC 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: 5/28/2018
Document dates: 5/9/2018 – 5/16/2018
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Minor, Beth
From:Ng, Judy
Sent:Friday, May 11, 2018 10:40 AM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Minor, Beth; Sartor,
Mike; Eggleston, Brad; Boyd, Holly; Jeremias, Michel; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah;
Aggarwal, Ruchika
Subject:5/14 Council Agenda Questions for Item 5, ID# 9053, and ID# 9168
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries
made by Vice Mayor Filseth and Council Member Tanaka in regard to the May 14, 2018
council meeting agenda.
Item 5: FY 2018 Street Resurfacing Project Construction Contract Award – CM Tanaka
ID# 9053: Annual Report for FY17 Santa Clara County Multi‐Jurisdictional Flood
Preparedness/Awareness – Vice Mayor Filseth
ID# 9168: Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project‐Collision Analysis – Vice Mayor
Filseth
Item 5: FY 2018 Street Resurfacing Project Construction Contract Award – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. What is the current average PCI for Palo Alto?
A. 1. The current PCI is 84.
Q. 2. Why was it determined that the roads need to be repaved?
A. 2. All streets segments are surveyed biennially to rate their condition. The last
city‐wide survey was completed in December 2017. The streets selected are
based on recent street survey conditions and coordination with Utility
Department and Transportation Division projects. The average PCI of the
selected streets is 53.
2
Q. 1. A FEMA program for Flood Insurance Discounts (“NFIP”) claims to save Palo
Alto residents $740K/year on flood insurance because we have a good “Community
Rating” due to some Public Works programs.
Whom residents actually save money from, i.e. Allstate, State Farm, etc.?
A. 1. Residents who have properties that are in a flood zone and have an
outstanding mortgage are required to have flood insurance. With a CRS rating of
7 they are paying less to their insurance companies (i.e.: Allstate, State Farm,
etc.) than they would have with a CRS rating of 6 or lower.
Q. 2. Does the City spend a lot of time and effort on this?
A. 2. City staff routinely reviews and approves building permit applications for
projects in Palo Alto’s flood hazard area. In addition, several times a week staff
answer questions from residents who either recently purchased a property or are
considering remodeling their home. However, in regards to the FEMA audit, it
occurs only once every five years. In preparation for the audit, City staff gather
copies of the building permits, elevation certificates prepared, and prepare a
package for FEMA to review and approve. Preparing for the audit can be labor
intensive, but again it only occurs once every 5 years. Palo Alto is also required to
re‐certify the community yearly. However, due to FEMA’s limited resources, Palo
Alto has not needed to be re‐certified in 2016 or 2017.
ID# 9168: Middlefield Road North Traffic Safety Project‐Collision Analysis – Vice Mayor
Filseth
Q. 1. Looks like the Middlefield Road pilot between Palo Alto Ave and Lytton is a
huge success in reducing car collisions. Do I read that right? Collisions went from
an average of ~8 per year before the pilot, to zero in the year since?
A. 1. That’s correct. Middlefield Road pilot project between Palo Alto Ave and
Lytton has been successful in reducing car collisions. During the five years (2012‐
2016), an average of 8 collisions were reported along the project corridor and
zero collision reported for the same period in 2017, after the start of the pilot.
Thank you,
Judy Ng
Judy Ng
City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329‐2105
Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org
ID# 9053: Annual Report for FY17 Santa Clara County Multi‐Jurisdictional Flood
Preparedness/Awareness – Vice Mayor Filseth
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nancy Shepherd <nlshep@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:40 AM
To:Mello, Joshuah
Cc:Council, City; 'greg tanaka'; Keene, James; Christine Shambora; Jim McFall
Subject:RE: Minor Correction to Southgate RPP Program - City Council May 14
Hi Josh,
Thank you for reaching out last week, and I apologize for the late communication. As you know, our neighborhood has
been distressed with the Southgate RPP changes that seem to have popped up as the program was being implemented,
not during the promised process. I now understand that the City is loosing more staff with Phillip already gone, and
Hillary soon.
I was part of the neighborhood leadership team that applied for the RPP zone, and I worked carefully with others to
follow the process as intended, and explained the RPP policy passed by the city. We did not request council members to
author a colleagues memo to bypass the process—and yet, our good intentions seem to have turned unexpectedly
against the city, local Southgate businesses, and our neighbor RPP zone, Evergreen Park. This is a sad outcome, as it
takes time and neighborhood goodwill to work with the city to implement the zone.
Here are my continuing concerns:
1) Conversations with staff during the application period were not recorded accurately. Mainly the questions
regarding changes to the pilot program during a period of implementation. It was certain in our understanding
that there would be no changes to the zone without the one year trial period, and when asked specifically if that
included more worker parking permits, the answer was a quick “of course”. This we communicated to our
neighborhood during the election period.
2) Stakeholder meeting between our residential leadership team, as identified in the application, were never held
with representatives from the businesses along El Camino (the doctors offices). We noticed that it was skipped
by staff, we did question if it would impact anything and there was no clear answer.
Subsequently, both of these principles were not held, and the neighborhood is unhappy and how actively involved in
ensuring that the city follow new expectations—all of this would have been unnecessary had the stakeholder meeting
met during the implementation period.
The “stakeholder” meeting convened by Phillip in both December 2017 and January 2018 were not property
managed. It consisted of inviting everyone, not a representative leadership team from the business and residential
groups in our neighborhood. This has resulted in name calling, discourtesies and other unkind experiences that could
have been minimized or avoided with proper stakeholder meetings as already modeled by the downtown RPP process.
I hope that the city will correct this RPP process, and administer the policy with better expectations and consistency. It
can be a collaborative and community building time for a neighborhood, with a true problem solving spirit for the good
of everyone.
Thank you for your outreach here—and I hope that prior changes in the Southgate RPP zone as it becomes permanent, a
true stakeholder meeting of identified neighborhood and business leaders will be convened to resolve changes.
Nancy Shepherd
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:38 PM
2
From: Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2018 11:42 AM
To: Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Minor Correction to Southgate RPP Program ‐ City Council May 14
Dear Southgate RPP Stakeholder:
Good morning, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to write and let you know that we will be taking an item to City
Council on May 14 that will remove the cap on Daily Employee Parking Permits that was mistakenly included in the
consent calendar resolution adopted by City Council on March 5. This cap was inconsistent with the direction given by
City Council on January 29, when they directed us to maintain all aspects of the current “pilot” phase of the parking
program, except for changes to the boundary to include sections of El Camino Real (after Caltrans approval) and the
contingent release of 15 additional Six‐month Employee Parking Permits. When we returned to them with a revised
resolution on March 5, as directed, it included this Daily Employee Parking Permit cap. I take full responsibility for this
clerical error that occurred during a staffing transition. It should have been caught before going to council.
As you know, we are charged with executing these programs as directed by the City Council. Therefore, we need to
revise the resolution for the current pilot program, which runs until September 30. At that time, City Council will likely
consider additional changes to the program, as it continues past the pilot period. I hope that you can spread the word to
your neighbors and provide them with the necessary information regarding this resolution. Please let me know if you
have any questions or concerns.
On another note, we have submitted the request to Caltrans to add the west side of El Camino Real to the Southgate
RPP Program area and I will update you as soon as we hear back from them. Thank you, and have a good day.
Regards,
JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP
Chief Transportation Official
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Transportation
Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org
office: 650.329.2520 fax: 650.329.2154
Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a service request.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Peter Stangl <petersss@stanford.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 10:10 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Employee Parking permits
Dear Council —
I have been a Palo Alto resident since 1971 and currently live in Channing House. The drastically reduced number of
employee permits may prevent our Life Care facility from sustaining an adequate level of service to our senior
population. RPP seems to be working well downtown, so why the drastic cut in the number of permits to employees?
Please reconsider.
Thank you,
Peter Stangl
Channing House
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:03 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Marcia Pugsley <marciapugsley40@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 10:29 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:More Employee Parking Permits
Dear Council Members,
As a Palo Alto resident for more than 20 years and current resident of Channing House I speak for my fellow
residents I request you reverse the reduction of employee parking permits. We are dependent on our employees for the care and services they provide us and there are already housing cost and commute hurtles they must deal
with without burdening them with restricted parking. The RPP appears to be working let’s not punish the our
employees.
Sincerely, Marcia Pugsley
850 Webster Street #535
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 1:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mr. Ted Andersson <tma@stanford.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 11:46 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:parking cuts
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Ted Andersson. I am a retired member of the Stanford faculty and have lived in Channing House for most of
five years. I understand that we are scheduled for another round of employee parking cuts. This is a serious problem.
1. Channing House residents are dependent on staff for food services, health services, maintenance, and administrative
services. We are in danger of being very adversely affected by further parking restrictions. We need more rather than
fewer.
2. The most immediate problem is how to make replacement hires when workers retire or leave. In this market workers
are not available if there is no parking for them.
3. Channing House is not the problem. As I have written before, there is surplus parking on Homer Street and no reason
to reduce the available spaces further, or even as much as they have been reduced.
Thanks you,
Ted Andersson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 1:07 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:zbrcp1@comcast.net
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 12:00 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:mmatsumoto@channinghouse.org; Kleinberg, Judy
Subject:Employee Permits in Downtown RPP Distdrict
Ladies & Gentlemen:
I've lived 45 years in Palo Alto: Professorville, Downtown North, Downtown South.
Please stop reducing the number of employee permits.
Strongly urge you make permanent the current 1000-1100 cap.
Why?
1. 250 retired voters here at Channing House urgently need the care its employees provide. 2. Many businesses serving all Palo Alto can't survive a forced march toward the unrealistic
ZERO goal you approved as recommended by the now departed Planning Director.
Respectfully, Joseph Baldwin
850 Webster Street
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-324-7378
zbrcp1@comcast.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Susan Hartzell <hartzellhs@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 12:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:More Employee Parking Permits
To Members of the City Council:
As a 50-year resident of Palo Alto who has lived in Channing Housesince 2011, I am concerned that the Council decided to reduce to 1000 the number of employee parking permits. Given the high demand for
permits, it seem to me that you should be increasing the supply. At Channing House we depend on our large
maintenance, dining, nursing, and housekeeping employees, many of whom have no recourse other than
automobiles to come to work. Why did you cut the number of permits? I contend that we need more. Another
issue: These low-wage jobs are frequently subject to turnover. When an employee leaves, can his permit be transferred to a new hire? I suggest that you consider add this to your deliberations.
We will be following your decisions on these parking permit issues and hope to see that you have reconsidered.
Sincerely yours,
Susan Hartzell
Susan and Harry Hartzell
850 Webster Street Apt 430 Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Laura Card <laura_card@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 12:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:More employee parking permits
I am a resident of Channing House. More permits are needed for our staff who give care and service to us. Most live
far from Palo Alto making public transporting difficult.
Laura Card
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:robell <robell999@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 1:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:please more employee parking permits
Dear Council Members,
My name is Mary Robell, and I have been a resident of Palo Alto for many years. We owned a house on Louis Road and later a condominium on Channing Avenue. Now my husband and I are seniors and live at Channing
House.
Please allow for more employee parking permits so our employees are able to continue to provide care and
services to our many residents. This is your opportunity to show that you are concerned about seniors.
Thank you for your service to our city.
Respectfully,
Mary Robell
850 Webster St. - #923
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Munter, Mary M. <Mary.M.Munter@tuck.dartmouth.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 1:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:PLEASE! We need more employee parking permits!
Dear City Council Members,
I have lived in Palo Alto/Stanford since 1970 when I came here as an undergraduate. After retiring from Stanford, I
moved to Channing House in downtown Palo Alto.
It’s hard enough to find employees who are willing to work in Palo Alto — because so many of them have to commute to
get here! Their not being able to park will make the situation even worse!
The RPP as is seems to be working fine. The last thing we need is a drastic cut.
Please support Palo Alto citizens’ needs — by voting for MORE EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMITS.
Sincerely,
Mary Munter
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Merrill Newman <seamerrill@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 3:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking permits
I have lived in Palo Alto for over 60 years and - like so many others- find the traffic and crowding distressing.
The solution to parking problems is NOT to reduce the parking available for those who provide care and
services to residents. The solution is better public transportation, more parking facilities and effective use of RPP.
We need our employees and service providers. Today, unlike times past, many/most of these are priced out of
living here. There is no reasonable alternative transportation for many - especially those who must work two
jobs to survive - so even car-pooling is only part of the solution.
We need more, not fewer employee permits. We also need a rational way to obtain replacement permits when current employees leave.
I now live at Channing House where we rely on nearly 100 workers to support us.
And we ALL vote!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Kathleen Kelly <kelly1@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 3:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:more employee parking permits
I am a Palo Alto resident for more than 50 years. We need more employee parking permits for all the service
employees needed in this area
Kathleen Kelly,
850 Webster St., #500
Palo Alto, Ca. 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:laurie liston <lauriejo850@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 3:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Increasing Residential Parking Permits for Employees
I have been a Palo Allto resident since 1947 and currently live at Channing House. We have over 150
employees who support our 260 voting residents. They are essential to our health center and resident tower
building. Please do not reduce these parking permits!
Sincerely,
Joanna Liston
850 Webster St. #1020
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Sullivan <chinsull14@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 8:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:More Employee Parking Permits
Dear Council Members,
I am Arlene Chin Sullivan, a resident of Channing House, 850 Webster St., Apt. 1031, Palo Alto, Ca., 94301, as of Feb. 28, 2017. I support adding more employee permits for the need of employees who serve and
care for residents in Palo Alto.
Thank you for your consideration.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Gordon <bbgordon703@icloud.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 8:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Request to INCREASE employee parking permits
Dear City Council members,
My name is Barbara Gordon—a resident of Palo Alto since 1968.
Please INCREASE our employee parking permits.
Most of our Channing House residents are from this area and have contributed to Palo Alto in their younger years. You
may remember Ray Bacchetti who gave so much to the City. I personally had been a mediator and ambassador for Palo
Alto.
We cannot reduce the number of employees.
Please have a heart and reconsider and INCREASE our employee parking permits. We need them desperately
Many thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
Barbara Gordon
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Beth Train <mbt3305@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 8:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:More employee parking permits, please
Dear City Council --
Please increase, not decrease, the number of employee parking permits. Palo Alto has many service jobs
with irregular schedules, so as a practical matter, these employees can't get to work on public
transportation and they live too far to bike. All employee permits were gone within a couple of days of permit sales. Since they are tied to the employee, the mechanism for new employees is unclear and some go to waste if the employee quits the area before the year is up.
RPP appears to be working in most areas – why the drastic cut?
Thank you!
-- Mary Beth Train, Palo Alto resident since 1972
850 Webster Street #420, Palo Alto 94301-2883
Mary Beth Train - Home office phone 650-324-7346 *voice only, not text* -mbt3305@yahoo.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Carolyn Hofstetter <cshofstet@aol.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 9:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:We need more employee parking spaces
I am Carolyn Hofsteter. I am 91 and grew up and lived here in Palo Alto since 1933 and lived at Channing House 11 years.
Please do support the employee parking program.
Because of housing prices, most of our employees have to drive many many miles to work for us. We desperately need
this help.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Craig Allen <craig.allen@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Thursday, May 10, 2018 9:25 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:More Employee Parking Permits
I moved to Palo Alto in 1965 and rode a bike to work for many years. I now live in Channing House
and my bike riding days are over. I am happy with the RPP so far; it has made it easier for me to find
parking when our own lot is full.
However, Channing House employs a large number of people who obviously cannot afford to live in the neighborhood and, even if public transit served our neighborhood better, that mode of travel
would typically involve 2 or more means of transportation. For those of our employees who work
multiple jobs that would be pretty tough.
Some accommodation needs to be made to schools and non-profits in the area and, as you have heard from many medical professionals who work in the neighborhood, their employees AND customers are feeling the pinch.
I urge the Council to go back to the staff's recommendations about employee parking permits. I also
would like the council to figure a way to give the same reduced rates in parking garages that they do in the RPP. While the garages are not next to Channing House, filling some of those empty slots would help to ease the access to employee permits.
Easy transfer of permits from departing employees to incoming employees should also be made
possible.
Thank you for your consideration
Craig Allen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Florence Haas <grannyrocker@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 10, 2018 10:15 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:More employee parking permits
As a resident of Channing House, a senior residence at 850 Webster Street, I support adding more employee
permits. We need our employees for our care and service, and any further cuts will hurt us as well as businesses
used by our residents.
Thank you,
Florence Haas
850 Webster Street, Apt. 511 Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
14
Carnahan, David
From:G Robert Hamrdla <hamrdla@stanford.edu>
Sent:Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:24 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:More Employee Parking Permits
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
Those of us who live at Channing House are all older, many are infirm, and we all live by virtue of the incredible service
given us by our staff. These staff members are indispensable to us, and many of them cannot afford to live within
walking distance. Many must drive because of the lack of appropriate public transportation.
To reduce the number of Employee Parking Permits is to discriminate even more against those who are bound to driving
to and from work. We need more employee parking, not less, and if Palo Alto is not to become unfriendly to those
whose services the community requires, it will be much the poorer.
Not only are we being hurt, but the Palo Alto businesses we use are being hurt by the lack of employee parking.
I have been a resident of Palo Alto for 8 years and Menlo Park for over 40 years. Please do not make our lives more
difficult by making parking even more difficult for those who serve us and, indirectly, all citizens of Palo Alto.
MORE EMPLOYEE PARKING, NOT LESS!
Thank you.
G. Robert Hamrdla
Channing House
850 Webster Street
Palo Alto, California 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Helene Pier <hpier@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 10, 2018 2:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please allow more employee parking permits
I am Helene Pier, a resident of Palo for 55 years, the last 5 years at Channing House. I strongly support adding more
employee parking permits. Obviously, we need our employees for care and service. How will get permits for new
employees if current employees leave? The businesses we use are being hurt and we will be hurt by any further cuts in
the future. RPP appears to be working in most areas? Why did you make such a drastic cut? Please help us to survive.
Sincerely,
Helene Pier
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Allan Seid <allanseid@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 11, 2018 9:26 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:INCREASE ANNUAL EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMITS
DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS,
WE HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF CHANNING HOUSE SINCE 2009.
IT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN OUR EMPLOYEES IN RECENT YEARS DUE
TO INCREASED EXPENSES BORNE BY EACH OF THEM DUE TO RISING COSTS OF
TRANSPORTATION AND NUMEROUS OTHER COST OF LIVING FACTORS.
HAVING ADEQUATE PARKING PERMITS FOR OUR EMPLOYEES NOW AND IN THE FUTURE IS A
VITAL ISSUE FOR THE OPERATION OF CHANNING HOUSE.
PLEASE ADD MORE EMPLOYEE PERMITS. THANK YOU,
ALLAN and MARY SEID
CHANNING HOUSE RESIDENTS
850 WEBSTER STREET, APT. 734
PALO ALTO, CA. 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Clark <barbaraclark.email@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 11, 2018 11:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Need for more, not less parking permits.
I am a resident of Palo Alto at Channing House, a senior residence.
We hire many employees, who care for us. Employees will leave if they cant park, transportation from where
most leave is poor or non existent. Further cuts will hurt us and those who work here.
We need more not less parking permits.
Respectfully,
Barbara Clark
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
18
Carnahan, David
From:Ann Clark <annhclark1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 11, 2018 2:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:More Employee Parking Permits are Needed!
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Ann Hammond Clark. I’ve been a resident of the Channing House retirement
community for over five years and a user of the RPP for as long as it has been in existence. Before
that I lived in Palo Alto off and on after graduating from Stanford in 1962, so I have seen the
housing, business and traffic situation here for almost 60 years! It has become impossibly difficult
to find affordable housing for our Channing House employees so they must travel from long
distances to work here and care for us. The very least we can do for them is to provide permits and
adequate parking space so they can park near their work which often involves long hours away
from their homes and families.
We need our employees for service in the dining room, in maintenance, in housekeeping and for
medical care in our Health Center.
I support adding MORE employee permits not fewer.
How will we get permits for new employees if current employees leave?
Further, the businesses used by Channing House residents are being hurt. And any more cuts in the
future will hurt them and us in many ways.
The RPP appears to be working in most areas so why the drastic cut?
Please consider adding MORE employee permits.
Thank you very much,
Ann Hammond Clark
850 Webster Street, Apt. 720
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
19
Carnahan, David
From:Alicia Newman <alicianewman@aol.com>
Sent:Friday, May 11, 2018 5:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:More employee parking needed
I have been a Palo Alto resident for 60 years. Please give us the parking our employees need to continue their service to
so many of us.
Thank you,
Alicia Newman
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
20
Carnahan, David
From:Betsy Young <bgyoung334@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 11, 2018 9:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:More employee parking permits
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
As long time residents of Palo Alto, we support more employee parking permits, not less. We lived on
Embarcadero Road (near Greer) for 34 years before moving the Channing House in 2014. As residents of Channing House we very aware of the complexities of the downtown parking problems. We understand our
neighbors' concerns for adequate parking for their families but we are also extremely aware of the problems
that our employees have in parking anywhere their workplace. Most of our employees are not able to use public
transportation, either because of the distance they must travel to come to work, their hours of employment with
us, or the fact they may have to hold 2 jobs just to barely afford to live in the Bay Area. We value our employees and the employees of the small businesses in this area (dentists, cleaners, family restaurants, etc) that
are important to us and we don't want to see them being forced to leave their jobs because they can't find a
place to park.
The RPP appears to be working successfully in most areas - what is the need for the drastic cut in employee
parking permits? Please leave the program as it is and make no further cuts in it.
Sincerely,
Betsy and George Young
850 Webster St, Apt 334
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
21
Carnahan, David
From:laurie liston <lauriejo850@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 12, 2018 9:22 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:More Employee Parking Permits
I was born and raised in Palo Alto and live at Channing House. We have 260 voting residents who shop in
downtown P. A. We also have 100 service and health care employees and will have between 30 and 50
construction workers for the next 4 years.
We need your help !!!
L. W. "Laurie" Liston
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
22
Carnahan, David
From:Agardy, Grace <lovecatsgrace@comcast.net>
Sent:Saturday, May 12, 2018 12:16 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:mmatsumoto@channinghouse.org
Subject:employee parking permits
As a resident of Channing House, I am dependent on its employees for many services -
housekeeping, maintenance, nursing staff, administrative staff. Most of these people drive many
miles to serve us. We need MORE parking spaces for them, not less. Channing House should be in
a special category, as seniors require special services. We are one of the most esteemed senior
retirement communities in the country - it would be tragic if we could no longer get the staffing needed to keep us thriving.
Please reconsider your future plans for us regarding parking permits.
Grace Agardy
Channing House #431
850 Webster Street
lovecatsgrace@comcast.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
23
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Schwaar <schwaar@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, May 12, 2018 3:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:We need more employee parking
To the honorable members of Council:
I've lived in Palo Alto for 47 years, the last eleven at Channing House. Channing House is a wonderful community of
older citizens, but we need a dedicated staff to care for us. Many of them must drive long distances, and some have two
jobs to juggle. Parking is a problem for them.
The current limit of 1000 employee parking permits provides enough parking for residents in the RPP area now; let's
hold it at that level. I'm afraid that if the number of employee parking permits is reduced, we will lose the ability to
retain and replace employees, and we will be really hurt.
Please do NOT cut the number below 1000. Thank you.
Robert Schwaar
850 Webster St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
24
Carnahan, David
From:David Golden <dmg18818@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 12, 2018 9:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:More Employee Parking
Dear Council Members:
I write to encourage you to provide more employee parking permits!! Certainly do not reduce the currently available number!
I am a long time resident of Palo Alto (55 years) who now lives in Channing House. This wonderful retirement
facility can not subsist without well over 100 employees. Many of these drive long distances and leave
Channing House to go to other jobs. They must use private transportation. Furthermore if an employee leave for one reason or another, how do we replace the employee permit?
It seems as if RPP is working well. Why such draconian cuts?
Crass as it is I will reminfd you that we are a group of almost 200 voters in Palo Alto!
David Golden
dmg18818@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
25
Carnahan, David
From:Helen Golden <hsgoldenart@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 12, 2018 9:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:re: we need MORE Employee parking Permits, not fewer
To my City Council -
Please stop reducing the number of Employee Parking Permits that get issued. Their continuing reduction makes Palo Alto a hostile place to many who come here to work and who may have a second job or other needs and must commute by car.
I am a 51 year Palo Alto resident and voter who has recently relocated to a downtown senior residence and I am concerned about the problems our employees have when they have NO place to park the cars they must drive to get here. In order for the residents in our senior community to remain healthy and productive we depend upon these folks who come here to help us.
Other downtown businesses are also struggling to attract employees and are shriveling up or closing for lack of them. Our city is changing in a negative way as those who wish to work here often find the conditions unsupportive. RPP appears to be working in many areas so why must we cut the number issued so drastically at this time?
Please either increase the number of permits issued or keep things as they are!
Sincerely yours, Helen Golden
850 Webster St, Apt 318
Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 324-7345
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:55 AM
26
Carnahan, David
From:paul shaft <paulbettys@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 13, 2018 9:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Residential parking permits
o My wife and I both strongly support adding more employee permits.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:sburgrval@aol.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 1:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:305 N. California Street CUP request
I live within 600 feet of 305 N. California, and have been in regular correspondence with the Planning Department
regarding the issuance of a CUP to the First Baptist Church regarding their request to become a Community Center, which
I believe is a part of the record in Planning Department correspondence. Since that correspondence, the Planning
Department has issued recommendations and the Planning Commission has made a motion for the issuance of a CUP
which changes those recommendations.
The Council should note that all parties, the neighbors and the church, have noted multiple times that a CUP is not the
appropriate vehicle for deciding what uses are appropriate at this location. FBC takes the position that its current uses
are in accordance with modern church uses, and that the city should adapt accordingly. I believe the city should address
this overriding position, rather than issuing piecemeal CUPs for churches to allow them to make different uses. In that
way, the hours of a church operating in an R1 neighborhood, the number of attendees at any event, and the noise that is
permissible, may be addressed in a uniform manner, allowing for the differences in church location. If the council
proceeds with issuing this CUP, we have been advised other churches will follow suit, which will result in non-uniform
allowable uses throughout the city. It will be viewed as precedent, and the result could be disastrous.
If the council proceeds to consider a CUP, the most concerning issues to me are the burdens of parking upon the
neighborhood, as well as safety.
FBC has only 5 regularly available parking spaces. - 8 in total including the disabled space and the spaces reserved for the
Pastor and the psychologist who has offices there. If it were to apply for a permit to operate as a community center
today, it would be allowed to have 32 people in attendance at any time. Because it originally began operating as a
church in the 1940s, it can continue church services and uses with many more people. This is allowed in fairness and in
law - it is grandfathered in, much as the neighbors have the right to require that the church only have the uses it did
when the purchased their property. The new use, however, requires that FBC meet the current codes for parking (as well
as codes for usage such as disabled entry, sprinklers, etc). No law has been cited by any of the parties to allow the use
in contravention of the code requirements. I would note that Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.12.150 provides for
the continuation of a grandfathered use in an R1 zone only
"...for continual use and occupancy by the same use" PAMC 18.12.150c)(1) [emphasis added}
Any CUP allowed must limit the occupancy to no more than 4 people per parking space.
With regard to safety, FBC lies at the intersection of two major bike routes, both part of the Safe Routes to School. To
lessen the risks and burden upon the neighborhood and the bikers, the church has created a drop-off spot on the curb,
through which cars must traverse the bike lane in order to drop off and pick up students. This is not a safe location for
drop off and pick up, and would not be allowed at any other community center or school in the city. Under the uses
proposed by the planning department (50 people in attendance over 9 hours during the day, assuming hourly changes for
appointments or classes = 450 per day) or those proposed by the Planning Commission (120 people in attendance per
day, over 13-14 hours per day, same assumption = 1560 / 1680 per day) the attendant traffic and drop off and pick
up through 20 feet of a bike lane is mind-staggering. It does not matter whether the use is at this rate currently, the
Council must address the fact that allowing a CUP with these provisions will allow a use at this rate. It is the job of our
City Council to allow uses which are not only safe at this time, but will continue to be safe due to their provisions. The
issuance of a CUP with these provisions simply is not safe. This is not the proper location for a community
center. Additionally, think of the cars which will travel on the Safe Routes to School, in order to provide for these uses.
While the Planning Department attempted to craft a CUP which ameliorated these concerns of citizens and voters, the
Planning Commission, without facts or data, enlarged these uses to the figures above. Some of the many illegalities and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:09 PM
2
irregularities of the motion made by the Planning Commission include:
1. Expanding the availability of the FBC to rent to mental health professionals. This use is illegal in an R1 zone as a
personal service use (PAMC 13.12.130) The Planning Department limited these uses to 3 professionals at any time,
determining that such would amount to an ancillary use. This may or may not be legal, however, enlarging that scope to
9 is certainly neither ancillary nor legal;
2. Enlarging the permitted hours of operation and permissible amplified music beyond that recommended by the Planning
Department and beyond that allowed for other City-run community centers (which are in areas with large parking
facilities, generous set backs and on major street arteries) and for other uses in the same neighborhood such as Gamble
Garden.
Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough, that this CUP has nothing to do with the worthiness of any of the uses presently
in the FBC. Many seem worthwhile activities which would be heartily supported by these neighbors at other
locations. But the attempts at consideration for the neighborhood sensitivities by these organizations as well as their
value, is completely irrelevant to this application. This application is not for iSing, folk dancing, or the psychologist who is
presently renting office space at FBC. If the CUP is granted, FBC could evict all of these tenants tomorrow, and replace
them with other, unknown uses. The application for the CUP must be evaluated on its own merits, without
regard to any of the current tenants. FBC's talk of "partnership" and placing tenants who follow its values are not a
part of the CUP request - it is simply a request to become a community center. If granted, any tenant who rents to a
community center could come into our neighborhood - much as Palantir recently used
Cubberley. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/04/27/palantirs-plan-for-cubberley-party-riles-neighbors
Thank you for your careful consideration of this application for a community center in the middle of our quiet residential
neighborhood. It is unprecedented, but most certainly will create precedent for the rest of our city. There are people
who desire to live downtown, with busy traffic and no available parking. The people who carefully chose their houses,
paid their taxes and voted for the past 30 years in the houses surrounding this church are not among them.
Sarah Burgess
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:09 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Chuck Fulanovich <drchuck48@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 3:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit
Dear City Council Member,
In less than a week you will be asked to grant a conditional use permit (CUP) to the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto that will allow it to operate as a community center and commercial business enterprise in a residential neighborhood, seven days a week.
The permit will allow for conduction of business until 10 PM on weekdays and 11 PM on weekends
and does not consider the time involved for these events to break up and leave the facility in a quiet, timely manner that doesn't disturb neighbors in their homes adjacent to and near the church property. It will allow for gatherings of up to 120 people per scheduled event and also the use of amplified
music.
There are legal considerations regarding existing zoning laws that the permit violates relative to parking, safety, noise and the leasing of office space to medical providers in a neighborhood designated R-1.
As you must know, the church is located at the corner of North California Avenue and Bryant streets,
both heavily traveled by bicycles and cars. Bryant street is a designated bike route and is used by students riding to Palo Alto High School and commuters riding to work downtown and North Palo Alto. North California Avenue provides students on bikes a direct route to Jordan Middle School and is
used by cars traversing Alma Street to Middlefield Road.
It is projected that the permit will increase auto traffic up to 500 trips per day during the week, presenting significant safety concerns for cyclists as well as drivers of cars. North California Avenue was recently narrowed to allow for bicycle lanes on both sides of the street and in doing so,
automobiles approaching each other need to move into the bicycle lanes to avoid collision. We don't
need a serious injury or worse to understand that this idea just isn't logical.
Unlike nearly every church in Palo Alto, First Baptist is surrounded by homes on four sides and has only 8 parking spots on the property. It's right in the middle of a dense residential neighborhood
making its use as a community center and commercial enterprise incompatible with zoning
restrictions. The residents desire to live in a quiet, peaceful environment. We didn't buy our homes
here with the understanding that one day that environment would be dramatically changed without our input.
I have lived directly across the street from the church sanctuary for the last 40 years and have
experienced a significant change in non-church related activity levels over the last decade or longer.
Music, singing, dancing groups with amplified music and the list goes on.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:09 PM
4
Imagine waking up tomorrow to find the property directly across the street from your front door has
been changed to a commercial building with a variety of tenants coming and going all day long during
the hours of operation referenced above. I have a feeling you wouldn't be very happy. Neither are we. This CUP in its present form demands a
NO vote from City Council. In light of a recent poll conducted by the city that shows only 43% of Palo
Altans think the city is headed in the right direction as opposed to 61% just two years ago, it's not
hard to understand that decisions like these and others that have been made recently directly affecting the quality of life in our neighborhoods, have people seriously questioning your leadership capabilities. You can begin to change that perception. Vote NO.
Chuck Fulanovich
310 N. California Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Anna Dieck <annamdieck@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 5:20 PM
To:Council, City; info@isingsv.com
Subject:First Baptist Church
Attachments:FIRST BABTIST LETTER A.docx
335 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Tel, (650) 325-7372
May 2, 2018
City Council
Palo Alto CA
Re: First Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of Palo Alto and live in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood and am writing this letter
to support First Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with workable use conditions.
I support First Baptist Church that serves as an affordable community center here in Palo Alto. There
are very few inexpensive spaces for community groups to meet near our very expensive downtown
areas. Community Centers recommended by church neighbors as alternatives to First Baptist Church
have been found to be impacted or unable to accommodate iSing. These include Mitchell Park,
Cubberly and Lucy Stern.
First Baptist Church has long been a focal point for building and supporting our community. Over the
years they have provided local access to groups such as iSing, therapists and other groups that build and
support the fabric of our community. This is only possible because First Baptist Church can offer an
affordable, centrally located home for these groups.
I frequently pass by the church and have personally noted many of the efforts to respond to concerns
from some of the church’s neighbors. I am also aware of many of the plans to respond to those
concerns. These include installing HVAC and replacing single pane windows to minimize external sound
and creation of a multi-faceted traffic and parking reduction plan to reduce street parking and street
traffic.
The First Baptist Church plays a critical role in Palo Alto and the local neighborhood. It has been a
part of our neighborhood for years and has contributed to the quality and depth of our
community. They have been a responsible neighbor and have timely responded to recent
concerns by some in the community. I respectfully request that the City Council approve First
Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with workable use conditions.
Sincerely yours,
Anna Dieck
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:10 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kat Dieck <kat.dieck@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 6:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Church
Attachments:FIRST BABTIST LETTER K.docx
335 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Tel, (650) 325-7372
May 2, 2018
City Council
Palo Alto CA
Re: First Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of Palo Alto and live in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood and am writing this letter
to support First Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with workable use conditions.
I support First Baptist Church that serves as an affordable community center here in Palo Alto. There
are very few inexpensive spaces for community groups to meet near our very expensive downtown
areas. Community Centers recommended by church neighbors as alternatives to First Baptist Church
have been found to be impacted or unable to accommodate iSing. These include Mitchell Park,
Cubberly and Lucy Stern.
First Baptist Church has long been a focal point for building and supporting our community. Over the
years they have provided local access to groups such as iSing, therapists and other groups that build and
support the fabric of our community. This is only possible because First Baptist Church can offer an
affordable, centrally located home for these groups.
I frequently pass by the church and have personally noted many of the efforts to respond to concerns
from some of the church’s neighbors. I am also aware of many of the plans to respond to those
concerns. These include installing HVAC and replacing single pane windows to minimize external sound
and creation of a multi-faceted traffic and parking reduction plan to reduce street parking and street
traffic.
The First Baptist Church plays a critical role in Palo Alto and the local neighborhood. It has been a
part of our neighborhood for years and has contributed to the quality and depth of our
community. They have been a responsible neighbor and have timely responded to recent
concerns by some in the community. I respectfully request that the City Council approve First
Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with workable use conditions.
Sincerely yours,
Katarina Dieck
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John McGilvray <jdmcg@pacbell.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 03, 2018 1:33 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:First Baptist Church CUP Concerns
Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto, CA
Dear City Council –
Regarding the First Baptist Church’s request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to act as
a community center, I, as a neighbor within half of a block of the church, strongly object to the City Council allowing/issuing such a permit.
This a classic case of doing a good thing in a bad way. No neighbor has stated that the
activities to be allowed under the CUP are bad or intrinsically improper. The proposed
uses are reasonable for a community center. The problem is the location of the proposed
community center is in violation of current zoning laws. This an R-1 neighborhood with
very limited parking. All the proposed uses for the community center will impose heavy
traffic and parking burdens on the center’s immediate neighbors. School students using
California Avenue and Bryant Street will be at great risk from inattentive drivers dropping
off or picking up visitors to the community center. The new traffic circle will only make
congestion worse and traffic patterns less predictable. Proposed events for the center will
impose further community disruption, including intrusive musical noise levels.
All the immediate neighborhood disruptions noted above are inevitable and intrinsically
part of the proposed usage under the CUP. The comment from supporters of the CUP
that only a few neighbors have repeatedly objected to the proposed use is naive. Of
course they object. The closest neighbors are the ones most affected by the CUP. The
impact of the CUP will be felt most by neighbors within a block of the church. Not one
neighbor, but many neighbors. Most strong supporters of the CUP and associated
activities don’t live within the affected area. Their use of the church’s proposed expanded
offerings/services won’t affect them at. They’ll be part of our problem.
Why is it so difficult for the City of Palo Alto staff to see the obvious problems. Why is the
proposed CUP not perceived as making a bad situation worse. It’s unfortunate that the
First Baptist Church apparently has financial problems that they hope to solve via the
CUP. However, their propose solution will have a strong negative impact on their
immediate neighbor’s quality of life.
Please deny the proposed Conditional Use Permit.
John McGilvray
South Court
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:15 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ronald Dieck <ron@magicvc.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 03, 2018 6:26 PM
To:Council, City; info@isingsv.com.
Subject:First Baptist Church
Attachments:FIRST BABTIST LETTER R.docx
Dear Palo Alto City Council
Please find the above attached letter in support of the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto.
Best regards
Ron
Ronald Dieck
Advisor
Medical Device Industry
(650) 269‐0868
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Please note that communication in this form cannot be 100% secure. This communication and any attachments may
contain confidential or privileged information for the use by the intended recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying
of it or the attachments is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender by reply e‐mail an destroy all copies of the original message and
attachments.
335 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Tel, (650) 325-7372
May 2, 2018
City Council
Palo Alto CA
Re: First Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of Palo Alto and live in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood and am writing this letter
to support First Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with workable use conditions.
I support First Baptist Church that serves as an affordable community center here in Palo Alto. There
are very few inexpensive spaces for community groups to meet near our very expensive downtown
areas. Community Centers recommended by church neighbors as alternatives to First Baptist Church
have been found to be impacted or unable to accommodate iSing. These include Mitchell Park,
Cubberly and Lucy Stern.
First Baptist Church has long been a focal point for building and supporting our community. Over the
years they have provided local access to groups such as iSing, therapists and other groups that build and
support the fabric of our community. This is only possible because First Baptist Church can offer an
affordable, centrally located home for these groups.
I frequently pass by the church and have personally noted many of the efforts to respond to concerns
from some of the church’s neighbors. I am also aware of many of the plans to respond to those
concerns. These include installing HVAC and replacing single pane windows to minimize external sound
and creation of a multi-faceted traffic and parking reduction plan to reduce street parking and street
traffic.
The First Baptist Church plays a critical role in Palo Alto and the local neighborhood. It has been a
part of our neighborhood for years and has contributed to the quality and depth of our
community. They have been a responsible neighbor and have timely responded to recent
concerns by some in the community. I respectfully request that the City Council approve First
Baptist Church’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with workable use conditions.
Sincerely yours,
Ronald Dieck
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:17 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Melanie Wilensky <melaniewilensky@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, May 04, 2018 12:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Let's apply the Golden Rule to the First Baptist Church CUP
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
The First Baptist Church has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a for-profit community
center in our quiet residential neighborhood. The discussions have become contentious. It would be
so much better if all parties followed the simple rule of Matthew 7:12 to treat others as you would
have them treat you.
The church has already been leasing space to non-religious activities that adversely impact the neighborhood.
One the other hand many of these activities are very worthwhile and beneficial to the community. But
to apply the Golden Rule, these activities should not impose undue noise, traffic, parking, and safety
burdens on the church’s neighbors.
We now have a situation in which supporters of the proposed community center who do not live adjacent to the church attack those of us who object to their desires to have large, noisy events at the
church, often with amplified music. They have no appreciation of the impact their activities have on
those of us who live near to the church. It would be helpful if they would put themselves in the shoes
of the church’s neighbors. Would community center supporters want unrestricted activities at a facility
across the street from their homes?
One solution to this problem is for the City to issue a Conditional Use Permit that includes reasonable
restrictions that would reduce the many impacts of the community center. The Planning Department
staff has already studied this issue in great detail, conferring in depth with the church and its
neighbors as well as conducting a public meeting at which all parties could air their concerns. The
planners prepared Department Staff Report ID #8981 that contained a draft CUP that addressed all of the concerns in a fair and balanced way that I think should be acceptable to both the church and its
neighbors.
The Planning and Transportation Commission at its April 11, 2018 meeting amended the draft CUP in
a way that removes all reasonable restrictions. These changes are not even consistent with the
existing restrictions in the rules for the City’s own community centers and the CUP for a private community center at the Gamble Garden. The City Council should therefore NOT approve the
amended CUP. Instead, the City Council should approve the original version prepared by the
Planning staff, which is fair, balanced and imposes only reasonable restrictions on operation of a
community center at the church.
I would also ask that in consideration of its neighbors someone from the church should be required to personally monitor and control parking, bicycle safety, and noise at all events.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/4/2018 4:17 PM
2
It is not difficult for the church to be a good neighbor if it is aware of how its actions adversely affect
others and takes steps to minimize their impact on the neighborhood.
Best regards,
Melanie Wilensky
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:holli <writeholli@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 04, 2018 11:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:CUP for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto
Dear City Council Members,
We write to you as a family that resides in Downtown North with a daughter that attends iSing. Although we do not live in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, this is a small community and several of our friends and colleagues
live as close as 3 doors down on N. California Ave and on Washington. We have a vested interest in keeping
the neighborhood safe, preserving its charm and mitigating noise and traffic. Our daughter can now bike to
FBC!
Over the last school year, we have observed a drastic decrease in traffic volume after the departure of the music
school. The directors/founders of iSing have have also worked and continue to work tirelessly to encourage
behaviors that decrease traffic (setting up carpools), and increase safety like doggedly enforcing adherance to
traffic laws. Yes, actually *enforcing*! I was shooed away from the drop off lane for taking an extra 30 seconds
to look up an address to put into my GPS and I've seen other parents get addressed for any infraction. They are motivated and listening to the FBC neighbors. As iSing families who would like to stay at FBC, so are we!
If the community supports FBC as a church, we hope it can support its extension as a community center. The
church's mission is to minister and offer a home to individuals or organizations offering religious or social
services and education . We hope you can see that allowing organizations like iSing to operate on premises goes hand in hand with the mission. Through music education, iSing brings music and joy into the community.
Beyond music education, there are far-reaching outcomes for young women through promoting self esteem,
inclusion and a sense of purpose and belonging. These types of programs are what make communities shine,
especially during these times.
We heartily support the granting of the CUP for FBC which would allow reasonable days, hours and occupancy
making it possible for FBC to be a host to iSing and other community services at a reasonable distance and rents
which make these services accessible to those who otherwise would not be able. Thank you for your
consideration.
Respectfully,
Holli, Bryan and Lily Cho
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:50 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Mari Varma <marivarma@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 8:43 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:First Baptist Church - CUP
Dear Palo Alto Council,
We are writing to express our opposition to the Planning & Transportation Commission's recommendation for the Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church to operate as a community center. Specifically, we are opposed to the
increased hours and maximum number of participants in the proposal. I respectfully ask you to maintain the city planning staff’s conscientious and well-researched recommendation.
Our family moved to Palo Alto in 1996 and has lived on Bryant St. for over twenty years - within 600 feet of the
Church. For a long time we found the First Baptist Church to be a wholesome and cooperative neighbor. They rented space in the fellowship hall for regular events: Monday evening talks, vegetarian dinners, dance lessons. These functions
presented no problems and gave an uplifting culture to the community.
Increasingly, however, the Church has begun to lease space in a fashion similar to a commercial landlord. Coinciding with this increased rentals has been an increase in events with loud music, increased traffic, and a rise in littering that was
virtually unseen in the past. The result is a neighborhood cultural change - one of diminished safety and receding quality of life. A change that, once set as law, is not possible to roll back.
I want to particularly emphasize the increase in traffic due to events at the church - one has been accompanied by erratic
driving and disorderly parking, often blocking the fire hydrant located in front of our house. Bryant Street is the Bike Boulevard and has a large volume of bicycle and pedestrian traffic at all times of the day. In addition, both California
Avenue and Bryant Street carry a large volume of children going to Walter Hayes Elementary, Jordan Middle School and Palo Alto High. We are concerned with the safety of the bicyclists and pedestrians, and want to caution the City to set
rules to keep the hours and event capacity in check, lest it lead to a tragedy that we all might regret.
The discussion, of late, has centered largely around the behavior of the current chief tenants, iSing. Luckily, iSing has been accommodating of and cooperative with the neighborhood. They, together with the current pastor Rick Mixon, have
reduced noise levels and taken measures to address various grievances. The fundamental issue, however, has little to do with this group in particular, and the discourse has been short-sighted. Future tenants and future pastors may take
different approaches. Perhaps these approaches will be similarly accommodating. Economics and history, nonetheless, tell us a story of a tragedy of the commons. Put statistically, the more tenants that come and go, the more cultural
disagreements will arise with surrounding neighbors.
It is prudent for, and indeed the responsibility of, the City Council to enact rules and laws that anticipate future evolution. We are thus asking that conscientious regulations be placed on the logistics of use. It is the obligation of the
municipal government to do right for its residents. This means allowing the Church to promote social good through its functions. It also means maintaining the safety of the neighborhood and preserving the rights of the residents for peace
and enjoyment.
Thank you for your time,
Maricela and Rajiv Varma
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Ivey <karenivey@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 9:37 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:May 14 City Council Meeting: 305 North California Avenue
There are many questions that were not answered by the Planning and Transportation Commission that need to
be considered by the City Council before a Conditional Use Permit is granted for the First Baptist Church at 305
North California.
1). Why should there be another community center in Palo Alto?
I asked the City of Palo Alto’s Planning Director Hillary Gitelman for a list of the existing community centers
in Palo Alto. I explained that I wanted to compare the locations and parking capacity of existing community centers against the residential location and limited parking capacity at 305 North California Avenue. She
emailed back that the City of Palo Alto did not maintain such a list and that I would need “to Google to find out
that information.” I am stunned that the City’s Planning Department would advocate for another community
center without the knowledge of whether one was actually needed. A recent survey, provided to the Planning
Commission in their packet, showed that there was plenty of available and affordable space for rent at other nearby Palo Alto locations, including at community centers owned by the City of Palo Alto.
2). Why is this church going to be allowed to do what no other church in Palo Alto can do?
At present, churches in Palo Alto exist compatibly with their surrounding neighborhoods because most have light, occasional use solely for church-related activities. There are at least thirty other churches in Palo Alto
with more parking and with locations like Middlefield Road that are not close to private homes. As written, this
CUP would set a new precedent for churches in Palo Alto to shift to adding commercial activities that are well
beyond the scope of Palo Alto’s current zoning laws.
3). Why would personal services be permitted in an R-1 neighborhood?
The City of Palo Alto Planning Department staff report in June 2017 to the City Council explained why the
New Mozart School of Music’s application for a Conditional Use Permit at this same site was denied, and
explained that “New Mozart School of Music is a personal service use in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.04.030 (114)(G), which states that personal service uses include “music studios intended for
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
2
individuals or small groups of persons in a class.” The staff report goes on to say that “personal service uses are
not an allowed use in the R-1 (10,000) zoning district in accordance with PAMC 18.12.030. Locating the
subject personal service use at the church would therefore not be permissible.” Note that iSing, the largest current tenant at the First Baptist Church, would also not be permitted in accordance with PAMC 18.12.030.
4). Why is this the only community center or church in Palo Alto where medical services would be
permitted?
At present, the City of Palo Alto bans the provision of medical services in R-1 neighborhoods. No medical
services are allowed at the Cubberly, Lucie Stern, or Mitchell Park Community Centers. Why is this precedent
being considered for a completely residential neighborhood with just eight parking spaces?
5). Why aren’t the City of Palo Alto’s parking regulations being followed?
The inadequate parking at 305 North California Avenue is presently allowed because the site's current use as a
church is grandfathered in. However, the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52.010 specifies that a “new
use” requires the implementation of new parking criteria. This Conditional Use Permit application is clearly
meets the legal definition of a new use, because the First Baptist Church does not need any CUP to continue operations as a church. The only reason that the City of Palo Alto is requiring the First Baptist Church to apply
for a CUP is solely to regulate the non-church-related commercial activities that are a “new use” and therefore
require parking appropriate for that new use. The Planning Department staff estimated that more than 70
parking spaces would be needed under current parking criteria.
I hope that City Council members will take the time to read through the many letters provided by neighbors and
Palo Alto residents as this issue is considered. This CUP would set a dangerous precedent for Palo Alto in
multiple ways, and should be denied.
Karen Ivey
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:35 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Joyce Farnsworth <joyce.farnsworth@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Grant Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council:
Please grant the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto the Conditional Use Permit it has applied for to let it continue to host community organizations and services. Palo Alto has always been a vibrant, engaged place to live, and
letting churches continue to host community organizations and events is integral to its remaining so.
I have two daughters in iSing, and they've formed strong ties to Palo Alto through iSing as they've grown as
musicians. iSing fosters collaborations even between very young girls, so that my daughters knew girls in any camp or event they attended in Palo Alto even when they were in school in Menlo Park. They've become very
conscientious about minimizing our impact on traffic and noise near the church, as I think they should. We bike
to choir when we can and appreciate the improvements that have been made in the traffic.
I do understand that there are impacts on the neighbors from any community activity. We live a couple of blocks from JLS and Fairmeadow, so we pick up discarded snack wrappers in our garden most days, and when I
started to write this the JLS marching band was practicing at the end of our driveway. There are also
immeasurable benefits to living in a place where people know each other and want to help each other. It is my
hope that a conditional use permit can limit the inconvenience to neighbors while allowing the many positive
effects that FBCPA's and other churches') hosting of organizations and events has on our community.
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Farnsworth
3571 Bryant Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:39 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Natalie Watkins <natalieawatkins@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:10 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:iSing Silicon Valley
Subject:Support for First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit
Dear City Council Members,
I support the granting of a Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, with workable use conditions
(including reasonable days, hours, and occupancy) that will make it possible for First Baptist Church to host its arts and
social services partners.
My daughter started iSing this year and it has been a wonderful experience for her. She is a quiet girl but iSing has given
her a place to shine. There are many wonderful activities for kids in the bay area, but this an important asset for our
community. For many of our other activities, we have to drive to Los Altos and Mountain View. It’s very stressful to get
kids to after‐school activities during high traffic times, it’s so convenient for us to bike to First Baptist Church to take our
daughter to iSing. Having activities in the community where we live is important to us.
I support First Baptist Church as the home of affordable community center uses in Palo Alto. There are very few
inexpensive spaces for community groups to congregate near our very expensive downtown areas. Community Centers
recommended by church neighbors as alternative venues for First Baptist Church tenants, including Mitchell Park,
Cubberly, and Lucy Stern have informed us that they cannot accommodate iSing.
I support local organizations, as a way of building local community. In providing partners like iSing with a local,
accessible, and affordable home, First Baptist Church helps Palo Alto helps residents like us to build that community.
Thanks,
Natalie Watkins
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:39 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Erin McOmber <erin.mcomber@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 12:03 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:iSing Silicon Valley
Subject:Support of FBCPA CUP
Dear City Council,
My name is Erin McOmber. I live on Byron Street between Santa Rita and N. California.
With this letter, I voice my support for the city granting a Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto. I respectfully ask the City Council to listen to the voices of neighbors who support the FBCPA CUP
in addition to the sometimes-vitriolic voices of those who feel the opposite. As Commissioner Alcheck
commented during the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on 11 April 2018 (which I attended
and at which I addressed the commission), “I’m sure you’re familiar with the saying ‘the squeaky wheel gets the grease.’ That’s not our role. Our role on this Commission is to not to grease the squeaky wheel. I believe our role...is to insist that our City do a better job of balancing the interests.”
FBCPA provides affordable space for community groups and non-profits that offer arts education/performance
and social services, as well as the church’s own ministry-related religious activities, as do faith-based organizations throughout the United States. Churches and multi-use spaces like community centers allow our Old Palo Alto neighborhood be more than just a bedroom community. A community center is just that—a
center for the community that houses organizations that benefit the families who live in the surrounding area.
Bicycle accessibility to businesses and public spaces has long been of import to Palo Altans. FBCPA’s location
at the intersection of two bike boulevards only increases its value. Community centers located on bike boulevards create safe routes to community activities, which lowers car trips.
I am particularly supportive of this cause because my teenage daughter is part of iSing Silicon Valley Girlchoir.
Due to the Cubberley, Lucie Stern, and Mitchell Park Community Centers not having space available to
accommodate iSing, their continued residency at FBCPA is absolutely essential to their survival. No other church or space in the city could allow iSing to continue to function in the same way at the same price as does FBCPA. The relationship between FBCPA and its tenants is mutually beneficial, as the church receives funds
necessary to make improvements to the buildings, which must lead to increased community spirit and property
values in the immediate area.
Despite several tangible changes made by FBCPA and its tenants—e.g. the Dec. 2017 [or Jan. 2018] departure
of the for-profit New Mozart School of Music and the attendant increase in afternoon parking space availability,
staggered start times and strict adherence to the loading zone by iSing staff and parents, installation of HVAC in
the fellowship hall, and planned window replacements/upgrades—a handful of vocal neighbors continues to
oppose the CUP and asks the city to impose ridiculous restrictions such as allowing no more than twelve people to occupy the buildings at one time. For a building of its square footage, despite the number of on-property
parking spaces, a limit of twelve people is not only unreasonable, but just plain senseless. Workable use
conditions, including reasonable days (seven days a week), hours (10am–9pm), and occupancy (at least 120
people), will make it possible for FBC to continue to host its arts and social services partners. It is the right
thing to do for the community.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:39 AM
3
I raise my voice to join those who support FBCPA, the potential CUP, and the City of Palo Alto. Thank you
very much.
Sincerely,
Erin McOmber, DMA, MM
--
Erin McOmber
Doctor of Musical Arts
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:39 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:jhchinatpa@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 8:37 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Your approval of CUP at FBCPA and Initiation of Discussion to Update Municipal Code
definition of Church
Dear City Council Members,
First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, where we have been members since 1960, has provided affordable
space to selected individuals and organizations whom we call partners (instead of tenants), since we
consider them as part of our church family community as well as part of our broader Palo Alto
community. We think this service of community building is a part of the mission of our church which is consistent with what has been done over the years, similar to the conventional practice of other faith-
based organizations in Palo Alto and throughout the country. In fact, our major current partner, iSing,
was sponsored as a mission project when they first started and was subsidized by the church for
several years before they obtained their 501c as a non-profit entity. iSing is indeed making a huge
positive impact on the lives of young girls and their families in our community.
Some of us were surprised when we received the abrupt enforcement orders from the Department of
Planning and Community Environment that we were having events and activities that did not meet
Palo Alto code’s definition of a “church”. Thus we have spent many hours in providing the information
required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) so that we can officially be considered a “community center” as well as a church. We think our current situation at the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto is an excellent time for a longer term approach as voted by the Planning and Transportation
Commission on April 11 that the City Council direct Staff to bring to the Commission a discussion of
uses that are considered under the definition of church, so that the amended Municipal Code can
reflect the reality of what actually goes on in most Palo Alto churches at this time.
We at First Baptist Church and our partners are truly sorry that we did not get a chance to sit down with our church neighbors to resolve many of their concerns before they brought their complaints to
the City. Now that we have heard the concerns of our church neighbors about noise, traffic, parking
and other safety issue, we and our partners have been working very hard to address these issues.
We do want to be good neighbors and will be using discretion in selection of any new partners. To
reduce noise from Fellowship Hall, a new HVAC system has already been installed mid-April and bids are being received for window replacement. To reduce traffic and parking issues, iSing has worked
closely with parents by adjusting class schedule to have staggered drop-off pick-up times and the City
has created a drop-off zone in front of the church. These recent measures have already alleviated
much of the earlier traffic congestion.
We are thus requesting your approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) submitted by the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto to allow our community partners to continue to operate with reasonable
and workable conditions as approved by a 5 to 1 vote of the City’s Planning and Transportation
Commission on April 11 so that we can work together through open communication to be a good
neighbor and still contribute to the life of our city of Palo Alto. We also urge you to begin the serious
discussion of amending the outdated Municipal code definition of “church”.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/8/2018 9:39 AM
5
Thanks to each of you for your dedication to do what you consider is best for Palo Alto,
Jane and Jin Chin
727 Christine Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 1:49 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham; Keene, James
Subject:First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth, and Honorable City Council Members,
Thank you for your attention to the the First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit. I have never officially been part of a religious community. But for my two daughters, ages six and four, their best memories were formed at programs in Palo Alto churches, from Music Together classes at Unity, to many years of preschool at First Presbyterian, and starting last August, iSing at First Baptist. As a family that bicycles as our primary mode of transportation, when my daughter joined iSing, we loved that it was located at two bike boulevards. It makes transporting her by bike more stress-free and safe. (We also try to bike to activities at the Midtown Shopping Center and Cubberley Community Center, but both are much more stressful destinations access by bike). While we stop at FBC once a week, we bike past or around it every day along Bryant and California streets and we have always felt safe cycling there. Whenever I have passed through on my
bike, the parents and caretakers I see dropping off and parking around FBC are conscientious and alert to all the children,
cyclists, and drivers around.
As someone with a young family and the founder of a local community group, I want to underscore how excruciatingly difficult it
is to find space for community activities in Palo Alto. For decades, religious institutions in Palo Alto have opened their doors to house child care centers, music and arts classes, non-profit organizations, soup kitchens, clothes closets, even shelters for the unhoused. I am tremendously grateful to ALL the faith-based groups who have opened their doors to provide safe and welcoming services and activities. The community spaces that religious institutions provide also support our city's mission for a more inclusive and diverse population and nurture the spirit of individuals holistically: through faith, friendship, emotional well-being, artistic expression, or basic needs. This Conditional Use Permit process for First Baptist Church has highlighted the tremendous demand for community activities,
arts/music classes, and non-profit space here in Palo Alto, and how much religious institutions have stepped up to provide. I
urge you to approve First Baptist Church's CUP with workable conditions to support their mission and their partners. In
particular, please approve a capacity of 120 people and extended hours to 10p on Monday-Thursday and 11p on
Friday/Saturday. Approving these terms does not mean 120 people will be there every day, every hour until 10p or 11p, but
provides flexibility for different program needs. Regarding noise, the city has a noise ordinance, and the church and its partners
have worked hard to address noise concerns by installing a new HVAC system to provide cooling and acoustically absorptive double paned windows prevent noise transmission. With respect to parking and traffic, the church and partners seem to be working continuously on this, staggering program sessions from school commutes, continually notifying people where to drop off safely and park, and sharing safe driving tips along the busy bike boulevards. Even some of the neighbors acknowledge traffic & parking issues have been greatly reduced since last summer. The Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for larger events (120-300 people) seems like a good solution to help set conditions for such activities. 12 TUP events per year (about 1/month) also seems reasonable and provides flexibility for the church and its partners.
Thus far, it feels like all sides are working hard together and in the spirit of community harmony. I hope you can see the positive
outcomes that have already resulted and grant the conditions First Baptist Church requested and the Planning & Transportation
Commission recommended. Not approving the CUP will set a terrible precedent in our city, endanger the ability of First Baptist
and their partners to fulfill their missions, and begin to undermine Palo Alto's long tradition of supporting its community
needs. Not approving the CUP will embolden a small tyranny of voices to stymie the ability of religious institutions to serve their
congregants and provide activities and services that young families, youth thrive on and our neediest community members depend upon. It is my hope that in addition to approving First Baptists' CUP, Council and Staff can develop a longer term plan to review our community's needs and update our zoning standards for religious institutions. We need to craft a more reasonable process to help religious institutions and community organizations thrive and fulfill their missions. Thank you for your consideration, Elaine Uang Palo Alto 94301 Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Lesley N. Robertson <lrobertson@stanford.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 2:28 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:iSing Silicon Valley
Subject:First Baptist Church -In support of the Condition Use Permit
Dear Council Members
I write to you in support First Baptist Church of Palo Alto and the granting of a Conditional Use
Permit with workable use conditions (including reasonable days, hours, and occupancy) making it possible for
FBC to host its arts and social services partners.
First Baptist Church’s central mission includes providing a local, accessible, and affordable home for individuals and organizations offering social services, arts education and performance, as well as offering
religious services and other ministry to its parishioners.
This is a mission shared by churches and other faith-based organizations all over the country.
As a community member I applaud FBCPA efforts towards mediation and their action to accommodate church neighbors.
FBCPA and their partners have listened closely to church neighbors concerns about noise, traffic, parking, and
related safety issues and have working tirelessly to address them.
The Church has installed HVAC and is currently planning window replacement in the Fellowship Hall. This
will reduce noise from the Church to a minimum, all year round.
iSing and the other Church partners made a commitment last year to a multi-faceted traffic and parking reduction plan, including staggering activity start/stop times with school drop off/pickup times when Bryant &
California are most heavily used by cyclists — and will willingly commit to report to church neighbors about
this on a regular basis. Church neighbors have acknowledged noticing the difference already.
I support local organizations, as a way of building local community. In providing partners like [iSing/other organization/therapists] with a local, accessible, and affordable home, First Baptist Church helps Palo Alto helps residents like us to build that community
I support FBCPA as the home of affordable community center uses in Palo Alto and ask you to grant the
Conditional Use Permit
Respectfully yours Lesley Robertson
Artist In Residence
Stanford University
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:iSing Silicon Valley <info@isingsv.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 3:50 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:In support of a First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit
Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
We, the undersigned, respectfully send this letter in support of the final approval of a Conditional Use Permit
with reasonable and workable use conditions for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto, as recommended by the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission.
Like other churches throughout the United States and beyond, FBC makes it a central part of its mission to
provide rare affordable and accessible space to individuals and organizations providing arts and social services
to their local communities. Please make it possible for FBC's partners to continue to operate at the Church, to offer essential, accessible, and affordable programs and services to residents of Palo Alto and elsewhere on the Peninsula, and to bring our local community together in the pursuit of artistic expression, appreciation, and
wellness.
Sincerely,
Pastor Rick Mixon, First Baptist Church
Jennah Delp-Somers & Shane Troll, iSing Silicon Valley (FBC Partner)
Jenn Sherer, Spinefulness (FBC Partner)
Joellen Werne, M.D. Psychiatrist FBC Partner) and the following local community members:P
1. Oliver Aalami (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
2. Lauren Aalami (iSing singer, Old Palo Alto resident)
3. Alexa Aalami (iSing singer, Old Palo Alto resident)
4. Evan Aalami (iSing family member, Old Palo Alto resident) 5. Felice Ahn (Palo Alto resident) 6. Mehdi Alhassani (Old Palo Alto resident)
7. Audrey Alonis (Midtown resident)
8. Kristen Andersen (iSing parent)
9. Brian Andersen (iSing parent) 10. Neali Armstrong (iSing parent) 11. Chris Asing (iSing parent)
12. Colleen Backstrand (Palo Alto resident)
13. Marcia Baugh (Member AAUW Palo Alto Branch)
14. Annie Bedichek (Community member) 15. Angelina Bena (College Terrace resident) 16. Sandra BenEfraim (iSing parent/community member, Old Palo Alto resident
17. Henny Bhushan (iSing parent)
18. Margaret Billin (Old Palo Alto resident, musician)
19. Karin Bonnard (Old Palo Alto resident)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
4
20. Katharina Borchert (FBC Congregant, Old Palo Alto resident)
21. Maureen Bradford (iSing parent)
22. Susan Bradley (FBC Congregant) 23. Lisa Branson (iSing parent)
24. Jeff Brown (iSing parent/community member)
25. WilliamBruner iSing (parent/community member, Old Palo Alto resident)
26. Brooke Carson (Friend of many iSing parents and Old Palo Alto residents)
27. Susan Chakos (iSing parent) 28. Ashokn Chandy (iSing parent)
29. Cindy Chen (Old Palo Alto resident)
30. Jane Chin (Palo Alto resident)
31. Jin Chin (FBC Congregant)
32. Jim Chin (Palo Alto resident) 33. Holli Cho (iSing parent)
34. Bryan Cho (iSing parent)
35. Dave Chou (iSing parent)
36. Michal Cierniak (iSing parent)
37. Amy Darling (Old Palo Alto resident) 38. Grant Dasher (Palo Alto resident)
39. Evie Davidson (Old Palo Alto resident)
40. Cristiana De Oliveira Costa (Palo Alto resident)
41. Toni Deser (Midtown Palo Alto resident)
42. Martin Dieck (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident) 43. Ronald Dieck (Old Palo Alto resident)
44. Katarina Dieck (Old Palo Alto resident)
45. Anna Dieck (Old Palo Alto resident)
46. Ingrid Donahue
47. Scott Doorley (iSing parent) 48. Emily Drennan (iSing parent)
49. Aleksandra Dudukovic (iSing parent)
50. Kathy Durham (Faith-based Coalition member, Palo Alto resident)
51. Adriana Eberle (iSing parent)
52. David Epstein (Palo Alto resident) 53. Charlotte Epstein (Palo Alto resident)
54. Marius Eriksen(Palo Alto resident)
55. Sally Espinoza (iSing parent)
56. Paolo Faraboschi
57. Joyce Farnsworth (iSing parent) 58. Mariseth Ferring (Old Palo Alto resident)
59. Masha Fisch (Old Palo Alto resident)
60. LindseyForrest (Old Palo Alto resident)
61. James Forrest (Old Palo Alto resident)
62. April Foster (iSing parent) 63. Stephanie Frick (iSing parent)
64. Ryan Frick (iSing parent)
65. Jessica Galbraith (iSing parent)
66. Kathryn Gillam (FBC Congregant)
67. Hilary Glann (Supporter of Arts/community Activities in Palo Alto) 68. Leslie Goldman (Old Palo Alto resident)
69. Julie Good (iSing parent, Palo Alto resident)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
5
70. Michael Greenfield (iSing parent)
71. Norma Grench (Old Palo Alto resident)
72. Alison Guan (Old Palo Alto resident, nearby church neighbor) 73. Douglas Ha (Old Palo Alto resident)
74. Maria Haber (Old Palo Alto resident)
75. Jonathan Hammer (Friend of iSing member)
76. Philip Hayes (FBC Congregant, Old Palo Alto resident)
77. Mark Hoffberg 78. Thomas Holzer
79. Mary Holzer (iSing grandparent, longtme choral singer)
80. Jane Huang (Old Palo Alto resident)
81. Jennifer Ibbotson-Brown (iSing parent)
82. Charlotte Jackson (FBC Congregant, Other) 83. Alice Jacobs (iSing parent)
84. Tyler Johnson (iSing parent)
85. Brett Johnson (iSing parent)
86. Alisi Kaihau (iSing parent/community member)
87. Jayanthi Kalyanaraman (Palo Alto resident) 88. Maria Karsner (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
89. Steven Ketchpel (Faith-based Coalition member)
90. Heelan Kim (iSing parent)
91. Gayathri Kini (iSing parent)
92. Sanjay Kini (iSing parent) 93. Dorcia Ko (iSing parent)
94. Mary Anne Kochenderfer (iSing parent)
95. Tom Kramer (Old Palo Alto resident)
96. Susan Kramer (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
97. Murali Krishnan (iSing parent/community member) 98. Chloe Lee (iSing parent/community member)
99. Jusok Lee (Old Palo Alto resident)
100. Cynthia Lee (Faith-based Coalition member)
101. HoChan Lee (Old Palo Alto resident)
102. Josh Lehrer 103. Michelle Lepori (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
104. Roxanne Leung (iSing parent)
105. James Lik (iSing parent)
106. Libby Lungren
107. Elana Manson (iSing parent) 108. Jonathan Manson (iSing parent)
109. Patricia Marcello (Old Palo Alto resident)
110. Elizabeth May (iSing parent)
111. Alix Mayer (iSing parent)
112. Erin McGurk (Old Palo Alto resident) 113. Leisa McNeese (iSing parent)
114. Bryant McOmber (Old Palo Alto resident)
115. Erin McOmber (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
116. Honey Meir-Levi (Nonprofit management professional)
117. Alicia Miao (Palo Alto resident) 118. Jeanette (Mihov)
119. Marcela Millan (iSing parent)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
6
120. Robert Mitchell (iSing parent)
121. Randle Mixon (FBC Congregant, Faith-based Coalition member)
122. Veronica Montero 123. Christine Moon (iSing parent)
124. David Moran (Professorville resident)
125. Debbie Mukamal (iSing parent/community member)
126. Carol Munch (Supporter of Arts/Community Activities in churches)
127. Monika Nagy (iSing parent) 128. Dana Nelson (iSing parent)
129. McHale Newport-Berra (Old Palo Alto resident)
130. Sarah Nguyen (Palo Alto resident)
131. Jacques Nicole (iSing parent)
132. Sarah Nitzar (Palo Alto resident) 133. Collette O'Shea (iSing parent)
134. Alexandra Olsen (iSing parent)
135. Lara Otte (iSing parent)
136. Nancy Palmer (Old Palo Alto resident)
137. Amy Parigi (iSing parent) 138. Heejeong Park (iSing parent)
139. Sarah Patanroi (iSing parent)
140. Ellen Payne (iSing parent)
141. Laurie Phillips (Palo Alto resident)
142. Nicole Pitman (Old Palo Alto resident) 143. Paula Powar (Old Palo Alto resident)
144. Laura Prentiss (Old Palo Alto resident)
145. Nina Randazzo
146. Lesley Robertson (iSing parent)
147. Carin Rollins (iSing parent) 148. Eric Rosenblum
149. Jeffrey Salzman (Baron Park resident)
150. Clea Sarnquist (iSing parent)
151. Hugh Satterlee (Old Palo Alto resident)
152. Eleanor Satterlee (Old Palo Alto resident) 153. Rosalie Shepherd (Old Palo Alto resident)
154. Mari Soberg (iSing parent)
155. Jung In Son (Palo Alto resident)
156. Kathleen Spillane (Old Palo Alto resident)
157. Nana Spiridon (Palo Alto resident) 158. Gregory Stevens (FBC Congregant)
159. Randy Stoltenberg (Faith-based Coalition member)
160. Cari Templeton (iSing parent)
161. Daniel Templeton (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
162. Aurelie Teyssier (iSing parent) 163. Sven Thesen (FBC vegan dinner attendee)
164. Shamim Tong (Old Palo Alto resident)
165. Meghann Tovar (iSing parent/community member)
166. Ron Tuttle (FBC Congregant)
167. Thelma Tuttle (FBC Congregant, Old Palo Alto resident) 168. Melinda Tzeng (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
169. Elaine Uang (iSing parent)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
7
170. Debra Van (Old Palo Alto resident)
171. Jared Verzello (Old Palo Alto resident)
172. Casper Vroemen (iSing parent) 173. Hanna Vuornos (Old Palo Alto resident)
174. Janet Wang (iSing parent)
175. Raziya Wang (iSing parent )
176. Katherine Wang
177. Charles Wang (iSing parent) 178. Rex Watkins (iSing parent)
179. Natalie Watkins (iSing parent)
180. LaRhee Webster (Artist in support of artists of all kinds)
181. James Welch (iSing accompanist, Palo Alto resident)
182. Deanne Welch (iSing parent) 183. Dominique White (FBC Congregant)
184. William Whitmer (Old Palo Alto resident)
185. Janet Whitmer (Old Palo Alto resident)
186. Jessica Wilkes (iSing parent, Old Palo Alto resident)
187. Jeff Wine (Palo Alto resident) 188. Marlene Wine (Palo Alto resident)
189. Jenny Wine (Palo Alto resident)
190. Janet Wong (FBC Partner/Tenant, iSing parent)
191. Michele Wong (iSing parent)
192. Dandan Wu (Old Palo Alto resident) 193. Qing Xiao (iSing parent)
194. Sue Yee (iSing parent)
195. Danny Yee (iSing parent)
196. Jung Yoo (iSing parent)
197. Cliff Young (iSing parent, Palo Alto resident) 198. Helen Young (UNA Midpeninsula Chapter)
199. Uri Zemik (Old Palo Alto resident)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Laura Seitel <lseitel@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 11:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:First Baptist Church CUP
Dear Members of the City Council,
My husband and I and many of our neighbors remain bewildered by the City’s idea of creating a
community center at the First Baptist Church. It is embedded in a quiet residential neighborhood
with very near neighbors, is surrounded by bike routes heavily trafficked by students and has only
eight parking spaces. This concept might make sense at any almost any other church in the City. All but three (out of nearly forty) are located on major boulevards, have ample parking, are
well buffered from neighbors or are located in nonresidential districts.
Should the City, despite these objections, decide to grant a CUP for the Church to operate as a
community center, I hope that you will approve the version of the CUP drafted by the Planning
Department as opposed to the recommendation of the Transportation Commission. The latter will
sow seeds of discord in our neighborhood into the indefinite future. A slightly amended version of
the document prepared by Staff, who studied our neighborhood’s problems at length and in depth,
might give us a chance at a new beginning.
Regarding amendments to the Staff CUP, I would suggest the following:
Hours of Operation: The Staff CUP permits the Church to operate as a community center seven
days a week from 10 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. This means that the quality of life in our gardens, in our
homes and on our streets will be compromised every single day and evening. To balance the effect,
I propose that the hours of operation of the community center be required to end at 6 P.M. and that
weekend activities be limited to church functions only.
Enforcement: This is the key to the success of any CUP for the Church. The latter has a long
history of noncompliance with City ordinance. In addition, the Pastor has been unwilling to meet
with the large majority of neighbors who have asked to discuss problems the church has generated
in the neighborhood. To help it carry through on its welcome and recently expressed wish to be a
better neighbor, I suggest that for each violation of the CUP, both the Church’s tenant and the
Church be fined a sum that will be a true deterrent, with financial penalties increasing significantly
with each successive violation. I also propose that after three violations of the CUP, a tenant be
required to leave the premises permanently. Finally, I propose that after six violations of the CUP,
the permit be rescinded.
Reevaluation After One Year: The CUP is a document that tries to predict a wide range of future
events and is unlikely to be perfect on the first try. Unforeseen problems may arise either for the
church or for its neighbors and a mechanism should be in place to correct these problems. I
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
9
propose that, after one year, the CUP be reevaluated and perhaps amended by the Planning
Department.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Laura Seitel
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:John Bender <bender@stanford.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 9:27 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: First Baptist Church Palo Alto
May 9, 2018
To: Palo Alto City Council
RE: First Baptist Church
From: John Bender I have lived for twenty years in house owned on Cowper Street, about four blocks from
First Baptist Church (FBC). In recent years, I have lived in a house we own at Newell
Road and North California. I frequently use that street as route to Alma, which means
that I pass FBC several times each week. I also frequently pass the numerous churches on Middlefield Road between Oregon and
Charleston, some of which seems to house community functions like schools. These
churches are on a busy thoroughfare and most have large off-street parking lots.
I ask that the Council not put FBC in the same category as the Middlefield Road (and other) churches on busy streets. FBC is one of a tiny number of churches in genuinely
residential neighborhoods made up of single-family dwellings.
I know from direct observation, prior to the current moratorium, that the traffic, drop-offs/pick-ups and on-street parking generated by community center activities in the location of FBC both pose danger to bicyclists and pedestrians and is harmful to the
quiet and safety the residents rightly presumed when they purchased their houses.
The model I propose, though it is not a church, is the Gamble Garden Center. In 2017, while planning an event at Gamble, I learned about the tightly drawn rules they must follow. These include stringent limits on the number of events each month and even
more limits on events over 50 people (with an absolute cap at 75). No amplified music
is allowed, and even some specific instruments are banned. Gamble faces private
houses on only two sides—the other sides are Embarcadero, a very high traffic road, and a small park. Yet these limits are deemed appropriate. And, of course, the Gamble property is far larger than that of FBC.
As a citizen and property holder, I argue that the chief activities of churches should be
churchly, most especially in quiet neighborhoods. Please enact permanent rules that keep the events at First Baptist Church within such limits and that secure the peace of its neighbors.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:00 AM
11
Yours truly,
John Bender
2160 Newell Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 11:01 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennah Delp <jennah@isingsv.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 08, 2018 2:14 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham; Keene, James
Subject:First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit
Attachments:iSing_at_FBCPA.pdf
Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth, and Honorable City Council Members,
Thank you for your attention to the the First Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit.
As the Co-Founders and Co-Artistic Directors of iSing Silicon Valley, we are writing to express our strong hope that the
Palo Alto City Council will grant final approval of a Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto (FBCPA), with reasonable and workable conditions that will allow iSing to continue to make FBCPA our home.
Please find the attached presentation, containing these details about iSing:
Our mission and history
Our programs and who we serve
Our concern about issues of concern to some FBCPA neighbors, and our ongoing efforts to mitigate each of
these issues
The usage conditions we need in order to continue to continue to operate at FBCPA, the only venue in our area that can accommodate and support our organization and our programs
As a clarification on conditions, a view of our typical weekly usage of FBCPA facilities
Thank you very much for your consideration,
Jennah Delp-Somers and Shane Troll
Founders, Artistic Directors
--
Jennah Delp-Somers
Artistic Director, Co-Founder iSing Silicon Valley www.isingsv.com
Following iSing on Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter
iSing @ FBCPA
We’re raising our voices to stay at our home @FBCPA
What is iSing?
•ARTS AND CULTURE: an award-winning
choir that champions the voices of
young girls
•COMMUNITY: providing a diverse,
collaborative environment,
empowering girls to excel
•GIRL EMPOWERMENT: fostering self-
confidence and leadership skills for
girls ages 5–18 from varied
socioeconomic backgrounds
A 501(c)(3) non-profit providing:
Est. 2013 Founded as a mission outreach of FBCPA
2014
•iSing raises supplies for local nonprofit organizations 10booksahome
and Standupforkids
2015
•Established iSing @ School to provide music education to girls in
underserved communities
•iSing tours Scandinavia, iSing hosts the Copenhagen Girls’ Choir in Palo Alto2016
•iSing receives the prestigious Chorus America award, recognizing
musical excellence taking place right here in Palo Alto
•iSing commissions musical composition from world-renowned
composer to be premiered at Bing Concert Hall in 2019
•iSing tours Central Europe
2018
•iSing hosts the Norwegian Girlchoir in Palo Alto2017
19%
12%
2%
4%
3%
60%
Palo Alto
Atherton, Woodside
Belmont, San Carlos, San Mateo
Los Gatos, San Jose
Cupertino, Los Altos, Mountain View, Sunnyvale
Menlo Park, Redwood City
Communities served
iSing is a beacon of musical
excellence for 300 girls from across
the Peninsula region. 260 girls call
FBCPA their singing home. 40 girls
are part of iSing’s in-school outreach
program in Redwood City.
Half of our students, 149, and their
families are Palo Alto residents.
40 iSing families are neighbors of
FBCPA, living in 94301. 107 live in
nearby neighborhoods: 94301,
94303, and 94306.
iSing students/ Valley representation
Neighborhood concerns
•Traffic and congestion: Continual pick-up and drop-off of students
throughout the afternoon
•Illegal stopping & safety: Families stopping in inappropriate
locations, sometimes waiting in vehicles
•Nighttime noise: Activities at the church with high noise levels
carrying on into the night
Some of FBCPA’s neighbors have voiced complaints about the church’s
contribution to the following issues:
Several factors other than iSing contributed to these issues, including other
tenants of FBCPA, many of whom have relocated. Upon learning of
neighbor complaints, iSing immediately and voluntarily endeavored to
mitigate concerns.
Addressing concern: Traffic and congestion
iSing voluntarily modified our class schedule to reduce large numbers
of cars in the area at one time. Students are picked up and dropped off
in staggered groupings to eliminate congestion. We also publish a
group carpool list for our families. Many iSing parents utilize carpools.
A closer look at iSing’s schedule
•Wed and Thurs are highest volume rehearsal days, however:
•Drop-off and pick-up occupies a 10–15-minute window, maximum; then
traffic and parked cars are gone
•iSing parents do not wait at the church during class
•Student benefit: This arrangement of classes is calculated to allow for
our older singers to inspire and mentor younger girls through combined
rehearsals
Addressing concern: Parking
iSing published rules to help parents to understand proper parking
protocols and sends regular reminders. Our staff also enforces these rules
during drop off and pick up.
We will continue to refine and communicate this plan and we welcome
the collaborative participation of our neighbors.
Addressing concern: Nighttime noise
Neighbor complaints on record cite noise occurring as late as 11 PM.
iSing has never operated at these hours.
All iSing activities are concluded each evening by 8:30 PM.
iSing seldom uses amplification or loud instruments. Our latest class in the
church sanctuary is inaudible from the street.
Newly installed HVAC in the church fellowship hall allows us to rehearse with
the windows and doors shut.
We further commit to ensuring noise is kept at a minimum by hosting major
concerts offsite and very rarely using amplification.
CITY OF 9
PALO
ALTO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK
MAY 14, 2018
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9-PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI
JUDICIAL: 305 N. California Avenue [17PLN-00446]: Approval of
a Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Community
Center use at the First Baptist Church. Environmental
Assessment: Exempt per Sections 15301 and 15323 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Zone
District: R-1(10,000) (Single Family Residential).
Attached is additional information regarding this agenda item that was addressed to Council,
City Staff and residents.
Beth Minor
City Clerk
1of1
Dear Palo Alto City Council, City Staff and Residents,
Gregory Stevens is the Assistant Minister at the First Baptist Church, located at 305 N California Ave,
Palo Alto.
Gregory Stevens has a public Twitter account. I thought some of his troubling recent tweets should
come to the attention of Palo Alto city leaders and the residents of Palo Alto.
Gregory Stevens comments should concern our community.
Should this type of person and the organization he represents oversee a Palo Alto Community
Center? Should a person that hates the City of Palo Alto, hates the Palo Alto Police Dept, hates Palo Alto
residents, makes fun of our older citizens and ridicules another faith, be running a Palo Alto Community
Center? A facility that would cater to the elderly, children and residents of our town?
You can read Gregory Stevens Twitter account for yourself. It is public. Open the Twitter
website. Search for Gregory Stevens. Then scroll down to GregoryStevens@HelloGregory. You can
ready his troubling tweets for yourself.
I urge the city council to enforce existing Rl zoning laws and severely restrict the non church related
rental activities being conducted at the church. Thank you.
/l-L.1
..
Tweets Tweets & replies Media
cnnsnan.
0
Gregory Stevens @hellogregory · 3/31/18
Palo Alto is an elitist shit den of hate.
0 t.l.
Gregory Stevens @hellogregory · 3/31/18
Palo Alto is disgusting.
Q t.l. Q t!i
' .
Yes!H
Marcus ·Frye @frye_marcus
Replying to @hellogregory
When I first started to reject my charismatic-eva_ng~e_u_ca_\~-..w...-
------------
13regory Stevens "' @hellogregory. 2/'2.8/TB
Pleading The geopolitics of knowledge and tbe Ello~llil<:f~
multitudes.net;?p=194
0 tl. \:) .
0 t.1
~~~~~ry Stevens Ill @hellogregory. 6d
beyonce could literally bend over
stage and push out a hu~e log fln!
0
t.1. Gregory Stevens Ret1;veeted
r'\r-r/\ m {n)nP.ta · 4/6/18
Wnen you're a socialist arguing with at
r;ight wing douche and they trnink
you're a liberal so their insu\ts reVi0\v@
around Obama and Hillary
'
t1
Details
It's a pain in the a3s to find radical commu'iity in th: South Bay. Let's change that.
\'/e"ll start by ga~hering a: a local_coffea shop (Prin:ers Cafe -320 S. Cal Ave. Pa!o
Alto) and discuss our possible future. Srin;;i friends, ideas, and skills you might
-----------
... -· ~ .. -. -
. • I ' ""· ... • ,,.. -ii.: ·~ • •' • ~ . . ~-
t.1.69 \?224
Gregory Stevens @hellogregory · 22h
Oh and PUSSY RIOT
M1
~f!!~ry Stevens .. @hellogreruiry · 11li6/1 a
My nose my sta~ bl!leding beoaus.e Qf ttle~Jlle "!!ar s:~J:i'tfftlf'~lil ~lit ifi their cars. YALL. FIX THIS. They stil0lJI<§ N@T.f:leafl.
tnefuce migraines with smelly car scent chemt~ls.@.lyft
01 t.l, 01 t!,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:04 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dave Chou <davetchou@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 4:15 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:iSing Silicon Valley
Subject:Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto
Dear Palo Alto Council Members,
As a parent of an iSing member, I wanted to write in support of granting the Conditional Use Permit for First
Baptist Church of Palo Alto such that the church can continue to host arts and social services for the community.
My daughter is an active member of the iSing Community for several years and always looks forward to
spending time with other members of the community there. It is an opportunity for her not just to be part of a
choir, but also to make friends and build relationships outside of her classmates from school. She always comes home de-stressed, energized and happy after each rehearsal. It really is a great safe place for girls to grow!
I feel that many of the issues raised by neighbors (noise, traffic, parking) are actively being addressed and that
these issues are not insurmountable.
It would be very difficult for the iSing organization to survive without an affordable space in which to operate.
Thanks in advance for your understanding.
Sincerely,
Dave Chou (Resident 4193 Willmar Dr)
City of Palo Alto I City Clerk's Office I 5/14/2018 9:04 AM
Carnahan, David
From: Nara <narayani.naganathan@gmail.com>
Thursday, May 10, 2018 12:10 PM
Council, City
Sent:
To:
Subject: First Baptist Church CUP
Dear Palo Alto Council,
We are writing to express our opposition to the Planning & Transportation Commission's recommendation for the
Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church to operate as a community center. Specifically, we oppose the increased
hours, the increased number of people, and the use of amplifiers in a residential neighborhood.
We have lived on South Court within 75 ft from the church for more than 10 years. In the last four years, there has been a
growing problem due to our proximity to the First Baptist Church with regards to noise and safety. Noise from activities like
singing, rock music concerts, folk dance music etc. after 6:00 P.M. on all days and during daytime on all weekends have
greatly compromised the quality of our life. It has especially affected the sleep cycle and learning patterns of my child.
Research has shown that low frequency noise 20dB or less propagates with little attenuation through walls and windows.
Such low frequency noise from the activities at the church can be heard in our home "continuously" even when the doors
of the Fellowship hall are closed. It causes sleep disturbance, interferes with my child's ability to do homework and has
negatively impacted our family life.
The increase in traffic due to activities at the church has also affected the safety of the community. Due to the sheer
volume of people coming to the activities every hour and the lack of parking at the church, people park and drive
erratically. Parking is common on driveways, intersections, handicap accessible entry to sidewalks, and even bike lanes.
People also double park. Poor driving decisions like making sudden u-turns at intersections and on N. California Avenue,
suddenly getting into bike lanes, stopping vehicles in the middle of N. California avenue to drop off the kids etc. are quite
frequent as drop-offs and pick-ups for activities happen every hour. N. California Ave and Bryant are bike routes for the
schools in our community and the safety of many children including my child are severely compromised by poor traffic
patterns near the church. Although there is now a drop-off zone, the drop-off zone is highly unsafe as one has to cut
through the bike lanes in order to drop-off. There are many violations and near accidents. There has been little or no
enforcement of any of these violations.
Couple of months ago, a lot of activities ceased at the church. Also one of the tenants, iSing, has realized that safety of
the community is important and taken steps to mitigate traffic issues arising due to its members. However future tenants
may not be so accommodating.
We realize that the church has taken on new roles to serve the community better. We would like to coexist with the church
as good neighbors and live peacefully in our homes. We request that reasonable limitations be placed on the operations
of the church in its new role.
Our proposal is the following:
1. Any community activities at the church should end by 6 P.M. on weekdays and "only" church functions be
permitted on the weekends.
2. The doors and windows of the Fellowship Hall should be closed during all activities.
3. Amplifiers cannot be used during any activities at the Fellowship Hall and for events held outside in the patio.
4. Remove the extremely unsafe drop-off zone by the bike lanes and move the drop-off to the church's parking lot.
5. Restrict the number of people coming to the church every hour for a community activity to 20 or less to minimize
unsafe driving. We would like to remind that drop-off and pick-up happens hourly and it is a lot of traffic, even
schools do not have hourly drop-offs and pick-ups.
6. Have a Direct Responsible Individual available at the church at all operational hours to enforce any violations. Any
violations should carry a financial penalty and after 2 violations the tenant should be asked to leave the church
with immediate notice.
7. Restrict the duration of the CUP to 1 year and reevaluate it after 1 year.
Please use your vote to keep the neighborhood safe and preserve the rights of the residents to lead a peaceful life. Thank
you for your cooperation. 2
Nara and Viswesh
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:04 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Holzer <mbholzer@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporting iSing with a Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you in support of a Conditional Use Permit for the First Baptist Church so that the iSing, Silicon Valley organization can continue to rehearse in the First Baptist Fellowship Hall.
I do have a personal interest in this, since my granddaughters are both members of iSing, Silicon Valley. I also
sing and have been a long-time member of Bay Choral Guild. I have to say that if I had had the vocal and
musical theory education that iSing gives their singers, I would be a MUCH better singer today. If any of you are singers, or if you have them in your family, you will understand the value of the training the girls in iSing
are getting. This organization is a community treasure, and we should be doing everything we can to support it.
And let's be clear, even if I was not a singer or musician and had no family members involved, I would still be
writing you do everything possible to support this group.
You will be getting, I'm sure, many emails, comments etc. which address all the things First Baptist is doing to
deal with the complaints from church neighbors, so I don't need to echo that. I would like to say, however, that
the location of the church at the intersection of two bike boulevards is a real advantage for local ISing families.
My older granddaughter bikes to rehearsal and back every week, now that it is still light when rehearsal is over.
She is not alone - many girls do this, and cuts down automobile trips.
Finally, If you have not heard iSing perform, they are amazing. Their spring concert is Saturday, May 19, at St.
Joseph’s Basilica in San Jose at 7:00PM. And for more information and video of their singing, check out the
links below:
iSing website: isingsv.com/
iSing on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/iSingSV
Best Regards,
Mary Holzer - Piper and Molly's Grandma
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:04 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Saturday, May 12, 2018 12:15 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Keene, James
Subject:1st Baptist Church CUP
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I support the letter sent to you by Elaine Uang and, in particular her last two sentences.
"It is my hope that in addition to approving First Baptists' CUP, Council and Staff can develop a longer term plan to review our community's needs and update our zoning standards for religious institutions. We need to craft a more reasonable process to help religious institutions and community organizations thrive
and fulfill their missions."
The discussion around the CUP is about two enduring challenges for leaders and the community.
1) How do we adapt to change--in this case the changing mission and role of religious institutions?
2) How do we balance the concerns of people living near a property that is about to have more activity on site, whether it is 1st Baptist Church or the corner of Wilton and El Camino?
I am glad that many neighbors and the church are working amicably to resolve concerns.
I would like my city to be a leader in supporting the changing scope of religious institutions and the ability
and desire of these institutions to serve broad community needs.
Stephen Levy
365 Forest Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:04 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Michelle Lepori <michelle.lepori@mac.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 12, 2018 12:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:First Baptist CUP
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing in support of the proposed CUP for the First Baptist Church. I live off of North California on Byron street
(near Jordan Middle School). One of my daughters is also a member of the iSing Choir.
Historically, churches have been the centers of the communities they serve. They have been gathering places for
connecting people to each other. If we must now make a designation for a church to operate the programs offered
there, it makes sense to designate First Baptist Church as a community center. This allows them to serve as a modern
religious institution that is inclusive and serves the whole community (through enriching activities) as well as the
congregation.
We walk to iSing, but I have spent several weeks going to the church early and really observing the traffic situation. Since
iSing occurs outside of school hours, there is very little bike traffic in front of the church during choir hours. I actually did
a time lapse video of drop off last Thursday that turned out quite uneventful. I contrasted that with Jordan pick up just a
few blocks away, earlier in the day, which was much more alarming in terms of safety. With that said, I could stand on
any corner of Palo Alto and document traffic and safety violations. Living in a city with people, cars, and bikes means
that will always be a possibility. The iSing staff has done a tremendous job with communicating proper drop off
etiquette to parents and families... and that has truly made it one of the safest drop‐offs in town.
Finally, we love living in a community that has programs, activities, and events that we can walk or bike to. If we make it
difficult for programs in the community to operate, they leave our community, as does the reason that many of us
choose to live here. We love walking to iSing each week, and running into friends/neighbors along the way. It actually
promotes a more friendly neighborhood. There may be neighbors that find the girls choir music to be noise, or people
that dislike hearing the Stanford band on game night, and find the fireworks from local sporting events to be disruptive.
There are those that think the many people that visit Palo Alto on Halloween are an annoyance. For me, these are
mostly a reminder of what a cool place Palo Alto is to live.
Thank you for your time on this issue, and I hope that the church receives approval for the proposed CUP.
Thank you,
Michelle Lepori
Old Palo Alto Resident and iSing Parent
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:04 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Kristen Andersen <kristenandersen@me.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 12, 2018 2:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church
Dear Palo Alto City Council members,
I am writing to you in support of the Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church (“FBC”) of Palo Alto, with workable use conditions (including reasonable days, hours, and occupancy) that will make it possible for
FBC to host its arts and social services partners.
My daughter is a member of iSing. Previously she was a member of Cantabile, which is based in Los Altos.
Having a local choir which our daughter can be a part of has improved the quality of life for our daughter and our family. She is able to walk to rehearsals instead of spending hours in traffic during rush hour. This has
allowed me to spend more quality time with my other children and reduced the impact on our environment.
Participating in a choir with other girls in our area has made it easier for her to further develop friendships
outside of choir and to build community. iSing has amazing, caring leaders who exemplify the positive adult
role models who we hope all of our children will have in their lives and who help build the Developmental Assets that research from the Search Institute has show us will help children thrive. Having this relationships
with other adults is important to the well-being of our youth and aligned with the goals of Project Safety Net.
iSing has provided a place where our daughter is free from anxiety about being judged and feels comfortable to
learn new things. Here is an excerpt for an application she recently submitted for Girls Who Code which says it
best in her own words:
"We are a diverse group from many different backgrounds, and our group is always inclusive. In iSing’s tight-knit community there is a sense of belonging, because everyone has become friends over the years and there is always someone to turn to. This environment allows us to fully challenge ourselves to be our best and give it our all on more difficult or unusual pieces. There is no fear of
judgement.”
I urge you to support the Conditional Use Permit so we can keep programs like iSing in our town and affordable. iSing has looked into
the Community Centers as alternative venues and they can’t accommodate iSing. The iSing community is so grateful
to have this program in our city and we are committed to continued traffic and parking reduction plans
to minimize impact on our neighbors.
Best,
Kristen Andersen 2015 Emerson Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:04 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Comcast <jamespoppy@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 13, 2018 9:13 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please follow staff recommendations for Baptist Church CUP
Dear City Council,
Please follow staff recommendations and limit operating hours for the Baptist Church to normal business hours.
Activities up until 11pm in a residential area should not be allowed.
Jim Poppy
135 Melville Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:04 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Allen Edwards <allen.p.edwards@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 13, 2018 9:33 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:First Baptist Church CUP
In 1936 my grandfather, a minister in Queens New York, traded congregations with the minister of the Palo
Alto First Baptist Church. My dad told me this story. The Palo Alto church was struggling and my grandfather
got them riled up to do something about it. His vision was to build a new facility that would serve the community. That included a basketball court for the local kids. He motivated them to raise money which
apparently took some time as the new church was not funded for about a decade.
I know the church is struggling again and needs to get income from the facility to survive. I understand that the
CUP will allow this. I would assume and hope that the church would then be able to use their rather significant facility to benefit the community. Hopefully the congregation will grow and the church will again one day
thrive.
I don't know the why or how of the details of the proposed CUP, which I have read, nor do I care to second
guess the process. I just trust that the people involved did their jobs.
I am not a member of the church or a close neighbor although I walk by it on my walks. I do feel an attachment
to the church since it is basically the reason my dad came to Stanford and met my mom so I can truly say that
without that church, I would not exist. I also feel my grandfather would approve of using the facility as a
community center.
Allen Edwards
186 Coleridge Ave
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:04 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Aleksandra Dudukovic <adudukovic@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:00 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:iSing Silicon Valley
Subject:Support of Conditional Use Permit for First Baptist Church
Dear City Council Members,
I am a parent of a 2nd grade daughter in iSing, and my husband and I strongly support this wonderful
organization. Our daughter has grown and thrived in the loving and caring environment of iSing, and part of the whole experience is the location of First Baptist Church - a lovely residential neighborhood close to where we live.
We have been renting a home in Palo Alto for 11 years, and while the prices have soared astronomically, what
has kept us here is the inclusive and diverse community of good people and good families. I support local organizations, such as iSing, as a way of building this local community, and First Baptist Church has helped build that community by offering iSing an accessible and affordable home.
I know that First Baptist Church and all of its partners have been listening closely to the church neighbors, and
much has been done and will continue to be done to address any of the concerns. The neighbors have acknowledged the positive changes already, and I know it will only continue to improve.
Please grant the Conditional Use Permit for FBC so that iSing (and other wonderful community building
organizations) can continue to thrive.
Thank you, Aleksandra Dudukovic
782 Palo Alto Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:36 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Michelle Arden <michelle@arden.org>
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 3:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page/May 14, 2017
Please support First Baptist Church's request for a Conditional Use Permit. We need our churches to continue to serve
the purpose of community centers for diverse services that benefit the entire community.
Sincerely,
Michelle Arden
405 Lincoln Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:36 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Christel <amymchristel@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 1:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Church or Community Center
Dear Council Members,
Please do not reward bad behavior in the unpermitted use of a church for “for profit” services. Do not allow First Baptist
Church to be given Community Center status. The neighbors have many valid objections to this use of church property.
As a resident of another neighborhood, I think this sets a very dangerous precedent in our city; “Just use buildings or
facilities however is most profitable to you, and ask for code exceptions later.” Council should pay close attention to the
concerns of neighborhoods and residents whose quality of life, safety and peace would be taken by commercial
interests.
This is exactly why Castillea School should also not be allowed to expand its student population or its campus. They
grabbed what was not their right to grab, and then want additional treats after taking more than their share. Simply bad
behavior.
Sincerely,
Amy Christel
Midtown Palo Alto
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:36 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Alison Guan <alisonguan@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 11:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Neighbor input to FBC Conditional Use Permit
Hi Palo Alto City Council,
I am a neighbor of First Baptist Church. I will not be attending the meeting tonight, because I know it would make me get very upset with my neighbors, and I'd like to keep good relationships with all of them.
I live on South Court very near to the church, close enough to hear sounds from their events, have church
visitors regularly parking in front of my house.
I fully support their permit and use of the church as a community center.
I see this as a benefit of living in an urban area, that there is a vibrant and lively community center nearby. I like
seeing people come and go, I like hearing the sounds of music nearby. These are POSITIVE aspects of our
community, this is what a thriving small city looks like, and we are fortunate to have this in our neighborhood.
I think it is absurd that some neighbors have tried to shut this down. Their complaints seem ridiculous to me.
Noise and parking? Move up into the hills if you want solitude! This is a town - we are near the Caltrain
Station. There will be people, there will be noise. What's the big deal!!?
I worry that these complaints could push the church out of the neighborhood. To be replaced by yet more fancy
houses. Which does NOT sound like a neighborhood improvement to me.
Alison Guan
2260 South Court Palo Alto, CA
415-244-2058
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 4:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 3:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Against the CUP filed by the Palo Alto Baptist Church
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am preparing to give this speech, but just in case am not able to, I still want to give my input:
I would like to speak out in support of residents living near the Palo Alto BaptistChurch. …The CUP that the First Baptist Church is applying for would allow it to operate during the hours 9am to 10pm weekdays and until 11pm on weekends.
This constant barrage of activity in this R-1 zone is too much for the residents to bear.
I understand painfully the affect this would have since I live right across from Castilleja Girls School which also operates as an “event center”. And much to our dismay it hosts events on its campus sometimes several days in a row against the
conditions of their CUP. I experience first hand streams of cars coming into the neighborhood and sometimes fail to find parking near my house because attendees
will ignore the “do not park signs”. It reduces our quality of life to be disturbed so frequently at all hours of the day including late into the night and on weekends.
For many years we as neighbors have accepted the school’s occasional dances or afternoon sports events. But when
events happen day after day, night after night, it becomes a burden and I do not wish this on any neighborhood including those residents living near the First Baptist Church.Should you, the city council approve this CUP, you are supporting the
violation of the municipal the code allowing residents to have “quiet enjoyment of their homes”.
Please do not approve of this Conditional Use Permit request. I hope that you will keep the residents in mind when you consider plans that will impact and adversely affect the enjoyment of homes which we all pay top dollar for.
Thank you,
Kimberley Wong,
Old Palo Alto Resident at 1260 Emerson Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 8:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tom <Tommartin@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 06, 2018 9:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:train uderground
Dear council members,
I am not able to attend the meeting on May 14th, but would like to say as a 38 year homeowner on
Greer Rd. in Palo Alto that I think you need to spend the money required to do a serious study of all the advantages and disadvantages of a tunnel through Palo Alto. You need to think in terms of the next 100 years and should seek out creative ways of amortizing the financing over 50 years. The
benefits of going underground are more than I could mention here. The major one of course is to
make the city WHOLE and have considerable land with which to do creative things such as address
the affordable housing shortage. And on and on you could list the advantages of tunneling. So,
please spend the money to study the option of a tunnel throughout the boundaries of Palo Alto.
Thank you.
Tom and Debby Martin
--
Tom Martin
Palo Alto, CA
650-857-1339
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/7/2018 12:36 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Leon Beeler <leonbeeler@live.com>
Sent:Monday, May 07, 2018 11:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Caltrain Grade Separation
Greetings: I have been a Palo Alto resident for 50 years. I ask you to keep the bored tunnel option open in your
discussions. This will present an opportunity to re‐connect East and West Palo Alto with minimal property taken, and
allow construction without altering existing tracks. This is very important to the long‐term livability of Palo Alto.
Thank You, Leon Beeler
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/9/2018 1:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:YORIKO KISHIMOTO <yoriko12330@icloud.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 11:42 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Mayor Kniss and Honorable City Council members: This is regarding the rail crossing item before you on May 14th. First, thank you for your support of Caltrain’s electrification and modernization so it can carry more of the regional commute demand. That helps all of us. I am writing to urge you to eliminate any wording about any road expansions, currently included in Option 3 and Option 9 for Embarcadero Rd and University Avenue. Over the past twenty years, our city has made the clear policy direction to attempt to reduce the volume and speed of automobile traffic,
not accommodate more, for example:
The new Comp Plan you all approved (thank you!) places its primary emphasis on reducing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, and making alternatives safer and more attractive. It keeps safety the clear first priority of citywide transportation planning, prioritizing safety over vehicle LOS (level of service).
The City Council and Planning Commission (thank you) also spent much time planning to improving the bike lanes on Embarcadero between Emerson and El Camino so people can bike more safely to Stanford University, Palo Alto High School, Town and Country, and other key destinations.
We want to be known for our iconic tree canopies, not take them down for road widening - the huge stone pine trees on Embarcadero Road and Alma should be kept as a gateway and for providing shade and habitat, not victim to road widening. Although there is also a specific Comp Plan policy to keep existing at-grade crossings (T3.16), I am open to options of closing Churchill and Palo Alto Avenue automobile crossings as long as they do not push around and WORSEN the citywide traffic impacts. Citywide traffic reduction through a citywide
transportation demand management program should be the goal, not widening roads which encourage both MORE traffic and FASTER traffic. More bike/pedestrian only crossings would be wonderful. Since so many residents are relatively new to Palo Alto, perhaps many have forgotten or have never heard of the physical and political schism caused by the
decision to do eminent domain on hundred plus houses and put an expressway in Palo Alto: Oregon Expressway. To this day, it is a physical divide in the city, as much as any rail line, and the bitter politics led in a convoluted way to a recall of the entire city council just as it was undergoing a reduction in council size. We don’t need another Oregon Expressway in Palo Alto. In summary, please strike out the references to any road widening for both Options 3 and 9.
Instead, I urge a city wide funding mechanism of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) to REDUCE citywide traffic volumes as the best way to reduce congestion, not temporary increases in street and intersection capacity which only invite more long term congestion. We need to attack the root of the problem, not enable more of the same problem.
Thank you very much for your service to the city.
Yoriko Kishimoto Former Mayor of Palo Alto Resident, 251 Embarcadero Road yoriko12330@icloud.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 13, 2018 9:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Caltrain Grade Separations
Dear Mayor Kniss and Palo Alto City Council members,
As a former member of the original Rail Committee, I am very aware of the critical importance of needed grade
separations to address improved operations and safety and electrification of Caltrain. The full benefits of electrification
largely depend upon greatly increasing the number of grade separations between SF and San Jose.
For our segment, I endorse creating a stakeholder group tasked with making strategic and preliminary conceptual design
recommendation to the City Council.
Defensible and thoughtful work now will lead to better designs and outcomes. Project management and funding
options are critical.
This is the largest capital project in our region; the results will define rail transit, mobility and economic development
now and in the future. With focus, we can have creative and timely results!
Thanks
Gail Price
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:03 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Allen Edwards <allen.p.edwards@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 13, 2018 10:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Alma Intersection
I live one block east and one block south of the Alma Churchill intersection. I favor closing that intersection
just as California Avenue was closed many years ago.
The majority of traffic at the busy time in the morning is Alma north to Churchill west. That is best solved by
making a reasonable way to go west from Alma at Embarcadero and widening up the street under the underpass
to reduce the traffic bottleneck there. It makes no since to build a bridge (or underpass) to nowhere over Alma
just to dump traffic onto narrow Churchill. Money is better spent improving Embarcadero.
Morning Churchill traffic is forced to turn left onto Alma but the train interruptions can make that take so long
that I take Bryant to Oregon going through residential streets which I don't generally like to do. If Churchill
were closed at Alma, the train would not interrupt traffic signal and I and others would use that intersection to
get onto Alma without the potential for a long wait, which if you are unlucky enough to have your signal
blocked by two trains can make you miss your appointment.
In summary. 1) Close Churchill at Alma. 2) Improve the Embarcadero Alma intersection to allow traffic to go
from Alma to Embarcadero without going through residential streets.
Allen Edwards 186 Coleridge Ave
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:03 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Douglas Eck <douglas.eck@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 12, 2018 4:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rails
I live in Palo Alto near Robles Park. I recommend that we form an independent rail stakeholder group. I urge
the city to look for innovative regional solutions, making it possible to pull in state and federal money.
Respectfully,
Douglas Eck
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:03 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:carole/steve eittreim <eittreimcs@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 10, 2018 10:12 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:steve rosenblum; Stew Plock; senator simitian; rod.diridon
Subject:Separating the train and automobile traffic
Palo Alto City Council Members,
Palo Alto is about to make a momentous decision that will affect our quality of life for generations to come. It is
one of those 100-yr decisions. I think the best option for rail through our rapidly-urbanizing city is to underground the train and delete the barrier that has always separated east from west sides of Palo Alto. I understand that a source of funds, estimated at over $1 billion, has not been identified to pay for such a Tunnel
Boring Machine (TBM) operation. More than a billion dollars is an amount about equal to the value of the
useable space along the RR right-of-way if that space were made available for other uses than train tracks. To
do such a project would require leadership consisting of top-notch engineering and entrepreneurial skills. Here at Stanford and around the Bay Area we have those kinds of skills at hand. And the funds are certainly in local bank accounts. Perhaps if the resulting tunnel were named the Zuckerberg Tunnel, the funds might be found??
To myself, admittedly a person without such skills, many ideas come to mind as solutions. For example,
continuing the San Jose BART TBM beyond San Clara up the peninsula to or beyond Palo Alto might be one
viable idea. Timing might be a problem as that TBM would not be available to head north beyond Santa Clara before 2025, which would require an intermittent solution to cope with the high density of trains after 2022 when electrified Caltrain should be completed. But first and foremost some leadership with the skills and with
wide geographic community support needs to be created.
Some sentiment on the Menlo Park city council I understand indicated an interest in exploring a joint multi-city cooperation to pay for such a tunnel option.
In any case please don’t give up yet on the under-grounding option.
Steve Eittreim 1975 Ivy Lane Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:03 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Rosenblums(pol1) <pol1@rosenblums.us>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 3:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:City Council Agenda Item 10, 5/14/2018
One of the principles that has been missing from the rail crossing discussion is equitable treatment to all Palo
Alto neighborhoods in the chosen solution. By this I mean that a solution should not significantly increase the
negative impact on one neighborhood to improve the situation of another. As an example of this I would cite
the consideration of alternative CAX which closes Churchill crossing to vehicles and suggests widening the
Embarcadero crossing so that the 9200 cars /day from Churchill would be re‐routed there.
For this reason I have long been a strong advocate for a bored tunnel through the entire city, option WBP.
Recognizing that this is the most expensive option, I would like to suggest that we bring back into
consideration the option of putting the train on tall pylons throughout the city (viaduct). Although this has
negative visual and noise impacts compared to a tunnel, it has many of its advantages in restoring east‐west
connectivity to the City and removing the trains as a safety and traffic flow problem. I would argue that it is
too early in the process to exclude this option out of hand.
Stephen Rosenblum
Santa Rita Avenue, Palo ALto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:36 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cedric de La Beaujardiere <cedric.bike@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 3:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade separation options: Add Viaducts; Trenches too Costly; Engage in community
consensus bldg
Honorable City Council Members,
In your process tonight of narrowing down the set of options for grade separation, I am writing in support of
giving greater consideration of rail raised on a viaduct, as well as in support of engaging in a more fully informed process of community consensus building. I am gravely concerned that the current community favorite of dropping the tracks into a trench has extremely high costs, and I do not believe the city residents
as a whole has a fully informed appreciation of the impacts of those costs on the city and on their own finances.
As council members you are entrusted with the long-term well being of the city, you have a responsibility to see
beyond the glamour and the clamor, and move forward for further considerations a set of options which may best meet all of our needs, functionally, financially, and aesthetically.
I believe Viaducts provide the greatest mobility benefits, at the lowest cost and with the least disruption during
construction, and may well be quieter than the current train and designed to respect the privacy needs of those
who live closest to the tracks. Despite these benefits, Viaducts have not been given the full consideration they deserve due to outdated policy and hidden assumptions.
Specifically, when Staff made their initial assessments of the options, they lumped all raised rail options
together and eliminated them for two reasons:
1. Staff said generic raised rail had a fatal “constructability flaw” of requiring temporary shoo-fly tracks during construction. While this flaw exists for berm and wall options, temporary tracks may not be needed to construct viaducts. This fatal flaw exists for both trenching and all hybrid options, yet
these flawed options were moved forward for further consideration; and
2. Staff pointed to a 10-year old Council policy of no raised rail. However that policy was at the time
based on the assumption that High Speed Rail would be speeding through our community at 200mph and generating a high-pitched wail of wind resistance. This policy is outdated because the plan for the peninsula is for a max train speed of 125mph, which is lower than the ~140mph threshold when wind
resistance becomes the dominant noise contributor.
I estimated system costs for viaducts at each of the 4 crossings vs trenching at Charleston & Meadow, partial trenching at Churchill (reverse hybrid), and Viaduct at Palo Alto/San Francisquito Creek. Based on my
assumptions (noted below in footnote 1), an all viaduct option (which returns to grade between crossings) may
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:36 PM
2
cost $680M and probably less, while options with hybrid or full Trenches may cost as much as $1,900M. Based
on this preliminary estimate, the option with Trenches may cost $1.2B more than the options with only Viaducts.
According to the proposed 2018 operating budget (PDF p.132), "the City is limited to general obligation
indebtedness of $1.04 billion." With interest, bonds cost an addition 50-100% of the borrowed amount. The
Trenching option cost 2 or 3 times as much as our most affordable bonding option even permits. This
would cost each household in Palo Alto thousands of dollars each year for 30 years to repay, damage our city's credit rating, and hinder our city's ability to borrow for any other urgent needs which may arise such as
recovering from a big earthquake or dealing with sea level rise. Is this really the most prudent use of our
resources, when a superior option is more affordable?
I urge you to include an option with viaducts at all 4 crossings, without depressing the roadways, and direct staff to look into the possibility of constructing them without temporary tracks on Alma with their
extra expense and traffic nightmare, by building on the eastern side of the JPB Right of way, keeping the
western track open during construction and possibly later for freight. Direct Staff to produce a realistic
estimate of the cost of Viaducts so options can be properly compared.
With information on costs, construction impacts, and system benefits for each of these options, I then urge you
to engage the community in an authentic consensus building process, not the usual type of community
meetings in which the loudest and rudest get the most say, shy ones are afraid to speak up, people dig in their
heals, and divisions deepen, not that, but a concerted effort to get the full community engaged and aligned
behind an option we can all support.
Thank you,
Cedric de La Beaujardiere
Footnote 1: Because Viaducts were eliminated prematurely, and the possibility of building them without
requiring a shoofly track has not been studied here in Palo Alto, we do not have clear cost estimates for this
option. I figure Viaducts are about the cost of the Hybrid option given in
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62082 which I assume applied to a default case of
Churchill ($180M), and extrapolated a cost proportional to the increased lengths required for
Charleston/Meadow ($300M) and PA/SF Creek ($200M). I think the Viaduct options may actually be less than
this because they may not require temporary tracks, and do not require rebuilding the crossing roads and
intersections, nor any utility relocation, nor eminent domain.
Then I estimated costs for the trenching or hybrid trenching costs based on the Trenching and Tunneling White
Paper (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63496). For these I took the $1B cost for
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:36 PM
3
Meadow & Charleston, and guessed that a partial trench at Churchill might be $700M, and assumed a Viaduct
for PA/SF Creek again at $200M.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:36 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Einar Sunde <einarsunde@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 3:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:5/14 meeting: Agenda Item 10 (Connecting Palo Alto Rail Program)
Dear Members of the City Council:
We strongly urge you to include the tunneling option (#10 ‐ city‐wide deep bore tunnel) among the choices
deserving of detailed study. We cannot attend tonight's meeting, but appreciate the opportunity to make a
written statement.
We have both lived and worked in Palo Alto for 47 years ‐ a time of tremendous growth. The pace of growth
and change will continue. That should focus everyone's attention on the very long‐term. In other words, the
best solution looking ahead 75 to 100+ years.
Yes, tunneling will be expensive, but tunneling has unique virtues in terms of allowing scaling up the rail
traffic, elimination of surface noise, freeing up surface land for other uses, etc. Of the available options, it will
best meet the test of time.
As to the projected cost, we were amazed and chagrined to learn that the planning staff had recommended
against further study of the tunnel due to the high cost. My heavens ‐ our city employees are of the opinion
that residents of one of the world's wealthiest cities should be denied even the next step involving close
analysis of the option that a goodly number feel is by far the best long‐term option because we can't afford it?
We hope and trust that you, our elected officials, will have the vision and confidence to at least include the
tunneling option for detailed study. When that study is completed and the long term needs and benefits are
appreciated, we are confident that the tunneling option will look very attractive.
Thank you.
Einar and Cammy Sunde
675 Channing Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:36 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Cathie Lehrberg <clehrberg@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 3:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Connecting Palo Alto Rail-Initial Ideas-PCX
Dear Council Members, I was interested to read Yoriko Kishimoto’s letter to the Weekly, May 11 edition, and I hope that
you have read it also. I do not support road expansion either.
In addition, I find the terminology of the PCX alternative extremely disturbing. I don’t know if it was sloppiness or
deliberate, but the melding of PCE and PCU into PCX changed the wording from “widen the University Avenue roadway
undercrossing” to “widen University Avenue”. If it was sloppiness, it should be corrected forthwith, if it was deliberate,
it’s certainly not transparency in government to sneak in such language.
Of course, the deep bore tunnel is the cleanest and quietest idea. Elon Musk is proving that it can be done. Maybe you
can get Palo Alto to be a high profile solution in Tesla’s front yard.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cathie Lehrberg
1085 University Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:36 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:tom@tomvlasic.com
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 11:18 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:dshenster@gmail.com; Home; McFall, Jim; Meg
Subject:Palo Alto Rail Program Study Options--Churchill Avenue
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Unfortunately, my wife and I are traveling and can't attend this evening's council meeting relative to the Rail program options. We did, however, want to share our concerns with respect to the options the committee has suggested be studied for the Churchill Avenue crossing. As residents of Southgate since
1972, we have watched the conditions associated with the rail corridor and the Churchill Avenue crossing
for a very long time. We have considered the realities associated with the Rail corridor, high speed rail
and Cal Train plans. We strongly believe that the only reasonable option for Churchill that should be
studied is closure, i.e., CAX as identified in the staff report. We take this position for the following reasons: 1. There are already three grade separated crossings in North PA. These serve the northern community
and can be modified or adjusted with minimum community impact to serve increased rail traffic. If any
money is to be spent on another grade separation it should be for the South part of the City. This is the
only fair alternative.
2. There is limited land for any grade separated crossing at Churchill. The community impacts with taking of land/houses and construction of any grade separated crossing, either above or below as
described in the staff report, would destroy the quality of life in the community, including that around
Paly. More land is available in the possible crossing areas in the South part of the City and the benefits to
improved circulation in that part of the City seem to off set the impacts far more than would be the case
for the north part of town. 3. The time frame needed for completion of Cal Trains electrification and having more trains in service to serve and mitigate (i.e., get people out of cars) growth along the corridor means that any realistic
options must minimize construction cost and time. Thus, it is not practical to think we can achieve (or
study) a large number new grade separated crossings, or for that matter, tunnels, trenches, etc. and have
them actually constructed within the required time frame.
4. The City has indicated its preferred policy for traffic management as getting people out of cars. It appears that the measures that have been taken are increasingly effective in frustrating traffic movement
(and drivers) in Palo Alto. Closing Churchill would be consistent with this policy and certainly be
consistent with forcing drivers to consider other ways to get in, around and through the City.
Again, we request that the only option for Churchill that should be considered or studied is the closure option. Studying the others would be a waste of time and money and, overall, impractical. Thank you for consideration of our comments and service to Palo Alto.
Best regards,
Tom and Linda Vlasic
Mariposa Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 4:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 3:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Grade separation - Item #10
Honorable City Council Members,
I am starting to dive into the available online information about Caltrain electrification and grade separation. I feel at a
loss to compare/contrast specific solutions in an informed way given the data that is presently available. Information is scattered between couple of web pages that are hard to find and navigate. It is presented in a way that, even for a person
who has some familiarity with transportation jargon, it is challenging to understand. I think it would help a great deal to put everything in one location with a good index to help people who are newly entering this issue to find specific studies and
links to other relevant web sites.
Public education and engagement is badly needed. I have to say that often when I mention grade separation to people, they don’t know what it is. That concerns me. I imagine it concerns you as well. I think this is one of the more important
issues on the city’s plate right now (as Council has aptly recognized in the priorities you set this year). I like the idea of a stakeholders group. That should be coupled with a real communications plan that is professionally managed. This will be
the largest, most expensive transportation project in our city’s history. Properly engaging the community from the outset will be critically important to get a project that will later garner public support for funding.
1). The current reduced list of grade sep ideas includes most options that I think are critically important, minus one which I
hope you will consider:
Could the city consider putting Caltrain in a tunnel and leaving freight at grade (because freight runs at night when train preemption is less problematic)? Freight might be accompanied at grade with a crosstown parallel bike
route. Diesel, I understand, is not suited to a tunnel and has grade needs that cannot be met given proximity of creeks. The tunnel with freight at grade is an interesting alternative that is a little out of the box –but might offer
opportunities to eliminate some of the shoofly challenges that are so vexing. It seems to me worth investigating.
2). I see that a number of options are proposed for Charleston and East Meadow –please specify that any treatment on these two crossings must be multi-modal (to accommodate bikes, autos, and pedestrians safely and efficiently).
3). Reminder: The Charleston-Arastradero Plan was designed with future grade separations in mind. Grade separation
will eliminate delays related to train preemption and this could draw crosstown auto traffic from 101 and 280 and encourage higher speeds on the residential arterial/school commute corridor. The C-A Plan hardscape with its safety and
operations improvements would mitigate the impacts of induced traffic and higher speeds related to elimination of train preemption delays. The project must precede grade separation. Please move the C-A Plan forward without delay. It is
preparation for grade separation. Consider how the effects of grade separation may need to be similarly mitigated on other school commute corridors.
4). If we are to consider closing Churchill, I think it will be very important to fully understand the impacts of that possible
change on Embarcadero, another important school commute route. This requires much more study. I find the comments in the recent white paper inadequate to address questions about how/why people are currently driving Churchill and
where those trips might divert. It is critically important to understand this.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Penny Ellson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Chop Keenan <chopkeenan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:48 PM
To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; Wolbach, Cory; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Scharff, Gregory
(internal); Tanaka, Greg; Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom
Cc:John Shenk; Kleinberg, Judy; Russ Cohen; Roxy Rapp; Brad Ehikian; Jon Goldman; John
McNellis; Flaherty, Michelle; Minor, Beth
Subject:Parking 2018-19
Attachments:Parking 2018-19.pdf
Please see the attached document and comments. Thank you for
your consideration.
Best,
Chop
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
Annually, the Administrative Services Department issues a report of the activities in these funds
including the remaining balances within them. The FY 2017 annual report ending June 30. 2017,
is included in City Council Staff Report #8753 found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civi-
cax/filebank/documents/62814. As of June, 30, 2017, approximately $12.5 m illion remained avail-
. able in these funds.
SPECIAL DISTRICTS FUNDS
Special District Funds reflect the combined financial activity of the following funds: University
Avenue Parking District Fund, California Avenue Parking District Fund, and Residential Pa rking
Permit Fund. This grouping does not include any Assessment District Funds. Revenue in these
funds. generated from parking permits. is used for maintenance. repair. and beautifi cation of
parking facilities and public areas within the University and California Avenue business districts
and Residential Parking Permit CRPP) costs. As of Fiscal Year 2019, five neighborhood s are
active in the RPP program to mitigate parking congestion in Palo Alto neighborhoods: College
Terrace, Downtown, Evergreen Park/Mayfield, Crescent Park, and SouthGate.
In Fiscal Year 2019, it is anticipated that Parking Funds will be able to meet near-team cash fl ow
needs. Therefore. increases to current permits throughout the City are recommended to
increase at the 2.6% annual escalator rate for general increases in annual costs. This would
increase annual permits in the Downtown core from $730 to $750 per year. and the California
Avenue Business District from $365 to $375 per year. A complete list of fees and fee changes
can be found in t he Fiscal Year 2019 Municipal Fee Schedule.
This Fiscal Year 2019 Proposed Budget includes the following significant expense proposals. In
consideration of vacancies in current key positions, the Fiscal Year 2019 budget reflects a main-
tenance of current efforts while the City works t o evaluate resources and programs. Most criti-
cal in the upcoming year .is the investment in a arking permit S)!Stem to scale current programs
~· C..,MM ,4=.
• Reallocations to align staffing wit h t he volume of work necessary for administering various
parking programs. A net increase of 0.95 positions are recommended within these funds. ~ re flecting a shift of staff resources from the implementation of Traffic and Transportation
capital projects to the operational management of these programs ($166,000):
• Add 0.48 part-time Administrative Specialist II to prov ide customer support serv ices during ltJ piH,, af' C,..the implementation and transition to the new parking management software system (6-12
months. $19,000 one-time);
/.~ ../r r Increase expense allocation to contract services to assist in administering parking programs
"VMl'\.c.t\C l.J despite vacancies in staffing ($300,000);
Maintain funding to the Transportation Management Association (TMA) to support the
~t-t~1' £,.reduction of single occupancy vehicle rates (SOV) in Palo Alto ($480,000);
• Revise valet parking contract services to d1scont1nue regular services 1n Un1vers1ty Avenue /~,.µ.if' ~ garages and lots and provide temporary services du ring the construction of new garages at
c.,vrri. University and California Avenue (net $11,000);
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW • CITY OF PALO ;\L TO FISC/\L i'EAP 2019 PROPOSE[) 5UDGET 95
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
? Increase contract service funding for janitorial services to University Avenue lots and
tr" garages in accordance with the recent agreement approved by City Council on August 14,
2018 ($148,000):
/ ~ . ~ *Increase contract services funding for the collection and synthesis of parking occupancy
V1J1V'tl data ($127,000); and
Capital improvement investment s in FY 2019 through a net transfer of $2.7 million to the
General Capital Improvement Fund. Major projects funded in FY 2019 include: Downtown
...::-f Utomated Parking Guidance Systems CAPGS), Access Controls. and Revenue Collections GM D>l' M ~quipment ($1.1 million); Parking Management and System Implementation ($1.0 million):
High Street Parking Garage Waterproofing Study ($300.000). Parking Lot J Elevator
Modernization ($50.000); and Downtown Parking Wayfinding ($280.000). Additional
project details can be found in the FY 2019 -2023 Adopted Capital Improvement Plan.
On April 11, 2017, the City Council received the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management
Study that examined all of the City's current. planned. and p otential parking management strat-
egies. including paid parking, within Downtown Palo Alto. As directed by the City Council. staff
has worked to develop potential strategies for the organization and scaling of a comprehensive
parking strategy. The anticipated reorganization and scaling of parking activities necessary to
implement and maintain a comprehensive parking strategy, including a paid parking program.
mf.Y require up-front fi nancial and staff resource investments resulting in forecasts that show a
net gap between anticipated revenues and expenses in future periods. However. it is important
to I note that these forecasts assume that pa rd parking fees are assessed for on-street and sur-
fad:e lot parking in the Downtown area.
The ability of the funds to meet future cash flow needs will be significantly impacted by existing
projects in the pipeline and the design and complexity of the elements of the comprehensive
parking strategy, including permit pricing. In the upcoming year staff will actively engage the
City Council. Committees, and the community to develop a comprehensive parking road map. In
order to strategically manage existing projects and programs in the pipeline and to enact a
comprehensive parking strategy, a pause on new projects and initiatives is recommended in the
upcoming fiscal year to allow staff to fill critical vacancies and assess the various programs.
Parking initiatives and investments not appropriated in this Fiscal Year 2019 Budget but antici-
pated on the horizon. including the projected start date and estimated costs. are detailed
bllow:
• Parking Garage LED lighting upgrades (FY 2019 -2020, $600,000 to $1.0 milli on):
• Centralize parking operations within the City of Palo Alto (ongoing, to be determined); and
On-Street and Surface Lot Paid Parking Program (FY 2019 Downtown only, $1.5 million to
$2.2 million);
This is not intended to be a comprehensive list, nor does it outline the ongoing costs of these
investments. This analysis will continue to be refined and brought before City Council for deci-
sions as appropriate.
96 SPEClf>.L REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW. Cl J'Y or P1\LO 1\L Tl) i'"ISC(l.L YEl .. R 2019 PROPOSED BUDGET
I
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
nivers ity Avenue Parking Perm it Fund
~·?-~ti,~~1;.?&~ ,· .-.. :. :~: '
, FYt 2018 Adopted .. ~,,~, ~~ '.,~.., 1,.i;. • I : >;. >r' FY 2018 Adjusted ··, ·?. ,'J.1;c• :~ <
R~venues
Pr mit sa1es 2, 190,000 2,190,000 2,217,000
D y Passes 312.000 312,000 675,000
Tibket Machine 215,000 i 215,000 215,000 I
Tr nsfer from Other Funds for City Share 340,180 I 340, 180 354,000
In estment Income 21,800 21,800 21,800
Tqtal Revenue 3,078,980 3,078,980 3,482,800
Expenditures
Administration ~ * P0sitions 1.18 1.18 1 .30
Salaries & Benefits 154,227 154,227 ' 189,541
CA ~fll'-,Jr' t C~ntract Staffing
I
-I 182,248 ~ L P}rking Occupancy Services 77,031
J iscellaneous Supplies 20,548 20,548 21 ,048
Tieket Machine (bankcard services, 6,000 6,000 20,790 t~tnsmission, maintenance)
S btotal Administration 180,775 180,775 490,658
Maintenance
Pritions 3.87 3.87
S laries & Benefits 478,239 478,239 495,785
sl pplies 60,090 60,090 60,090
Tt inkle/Tree Lights 30,000 30,000 ' 30,000
~intenance (garage, elevator, fire sprinkler, 88,751 I 88,751 88,751
~
IJ dscaping)
c1ustodial Ganitorial services, power washing, 121,706 1 121,706 270,519 'Fep;ng)
S earn Cleaning 94,660 94,660 . 94,660 rf btotal Maintenance 873,446 873,446
Police Patrol
PLsitions 0.50 ' 0.50 .
' 1a~aries & Benefits 116,296 116,296 . 121,723
Subtotal Patrols 116,296 116,296 121 ,723
T
102 SPE<r:IAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW• CH Y OF Pi\LO A.I_ T() c1:;.CAL YEAR 2019 PROPOSED f:.UDGET
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
University Avenue Parking Permit Fund
~ ~~jlet Programs (Lots R, CC, CW, & S)
,, • _ -ts' (JV~let Program (Downtown garage ~ I crstruction)
..t-Drwntown Streets Team
6 "°" ~ f Transportation Management Authority (TMA)
J U ilities/lndirect costs
Transfer to GF (PARS trust)
Transfer to GIP Fund
Subtotal Other
Total Operating Expenses
lnpome from Operations
. ... '.
FY 2018 Adopted
289,972
118,744
480,000
198,560
10,802
953,084
2,051,162
3,221,679
(142,699)
c... (. p
,...., .
FY 2018 Adjusted
289,972
118,744
480,000
198,560
10,802
953,084
2,051 ,162
3,221,679
(142,699)
• -FY 2019'" .,,._
Proposed ' r, '. -' '·.
150,000
118,744
480,000
224,716
5,621
2,337,015
3,316,096
4,968,282
(1 ,485,482)
~f,_~,f~~
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW • CITY OF PALO ;.\LTO FISCAL VEAR 2l119 PROPOSED BU:JGET 103
r ay 15, 2018
,E: University Avenue Parking District Fund
!ear City Council,
P.lease consider the following comments regarding the University Avenue Parking District Fund:
1. There has been zero outreach with the assessment district property owners. This is the
same complaint as the last year and the year before that.
~omment A -(per: page 95 Special District Funds) "The investment in a parking permit system
~o scale current programs to manageable levels" has been promised and paid for many times.
)he systems never worked. Recommend not pursuing this "system" any further without input
l orn the District.
~omment B -add .95 FTE staff at $166,000. No. Parking fees increased from $466/year to
r30/year to accommodate capital projects, not add more staff.
([omment C -Same as Comment B. Staff is either inefficient or unknowledgeable.
I ([omment D -Same as Band C.
l omment E-The general fund was funding the TMA. If this is to be charged to the Assessment I f istrict, we would like to see the expenditure of TMA to date, the measurable outcomes to
<!late, and concrete metrics of what the TMA is going to achieve in 2018-19. We are the envy of
t very city, sitting right at the Caltrain station with a bullet stop.
([omment F -Terminating the valet system, which was intended to be temporary bridge to new ~arking construction without any comments on usage is going to shock the users of those lots. l~ow many spaces will be reduced?
he downtown construction valet should be in the downtown construction budget. Handled
yery poorly to date. How many retailers are going to fail during construction?
t omment G -You have previously received pictures of the garage bathrooms. They are ~isgusting and inaccessible because of the homeless "living" in them. Since they cannot be ~ccessed they should be permanently shut. Where will the homeless go to the bathroom? The
Jame as now: anywhere. This is not a hard hearted recommendation. It reflects the facts on ~he ground.
omment H -Reject the request for more collection of parking occupancy data. The Business
lgistry has been a complete failure of data analysis. Why double down? Kill the Registry and
t,.econsultantreque~. ·
Comment I -The huge increase in parking fees was intended to fund important capital
+provement projects. Apparently in April 2017, over 13 months ago, staff brought to Council a
comprehensive parking management study. Council directed staff to develop strategies for
'organizing and scaling of a comprehensive parking strategy." Nothing has happened.
he items listed to be funded are:
1. Downtown Automated Guidance (APGS), access controls and revenue collection
equipment $1.0 MM
2. High Street Parking Garage waterproofing "study" $300,000
3. Parking Lot J elevator modernization $50,000
4. Downtown Parking way finding $280,000 (Flags)
It is not clear if these are intended to be in the 2018-19 fiscal year. Zero discussion with district
Jtakeholders. Item 1 sounds like gated garages. Retailers are going to be slammed. I~ the past 13 months there have been no meetings with the stakeholders. This is a top down
ress and utterly mismanaged. Every single parking structure, including City Hall, has been built
l:hy the District and driven by the Assessment District members and merchants. If you want
+itiatives to be collaboratively developed I suggest you take a hard look at the current process.
This report should receive an F. ~niversity Avenue Parking Permit Fund (Page 102-103)
I
f ommentJ -Reject l omment K -Reject
~omment L-Reject -Should be in construction budget. Need further data on existing valet
j ervices.
[omment M -Discuss the homeless abuse of district bathrooms. ~omment Ml -No other area of the City is charged for police services. This expenditure started
i
1
n a recession and the District chipped in . There is no justification for the Parking District to pay
l or police services. At this date, it is effectively a double dip and a boondoggle for the City.
(omment N -Restore valet budget.
omment 0 -Reject -Should be in Construction budget.
I <!omment P -Need report on TMA budget ex penditures, outcomes, and expectations. Why i~n't this funded by the General Fund ?
I
l omment Q -It does not appear to provide any capital improvements.
hank you for your consideration,
hop
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 10:21 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Projects From General Fund for 2019-20. Certainly some of these can be cut--
Council Members:
I support Council Member Filseth's proposed $8M cut of the budgets. Here is a list of the projects called out in the 2019
Caps Budget (excluding Enterprise Funds): Certainly any number of these could be cut from this year's budget--
1 AC-18000 Performing Arts Venues Seat Replacement 2 AC-18001 JMZ Renovation
3 FD-19000 Fire and Utilities Trench Training Facility 4 PD-14000 Internal Alarm System Replacement
5 PE-14018 Baylands Boardwalk Improvements 6 PE-15001 New Public Safety Building
7 PE-15003 Fire Station 3 Replacement 8 PE-15007 New Downtown Parking Garage
9 PE-17006 Baylands Flood Protection Levee Improvements 10 PE-17010 Civic Center Electrical Upgrade & EV Charger Installation
11 PE-18000 New California Avenue Area Parking Garage 12 PE-18002 High and Bryant Street Garages Waterproofing and Repairs
13 PE-18004 Fire Station 4 Replacement 14 PE-18016 Civic Center Fire Life Safety Upgrades
15 PE-19000 City Hall Space Planning 16 PE-19001 Water, Gas, Wastewater Office Remodel
17 PE-19002 Animal Shelter Renovation 18 PF-07011 Roth Building Maintenance
19 PF-16006 Municipal Service Center Lighting, Mechanical, and Electrical Improvements 20 PF-17000 Municipal Service Center A, B, & C Roof Replacement
21 PF-18000 Parking Lot J Elevator Modernization
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE 1 OS-00002 Open Space Lakes And Pond Maintenance
2 OS-18000 Foothills Park Boronda Lake Dock Replacement 3 OS-18001 Pearson Arastradero Preserve Parking Lot Improvement
4 PE-08001 Rinconada Park Improvements 5 PE-16000 Bol Park Improvements
6 PE-17005 Boulware Park Improvements 7 PE-18006 Byxbee Park Completion
8 PE-18010 Mitchell Park Improvements 9 PE-18012 Hoover Park Improvements
10 PE-18015 Robles Park Improvements 11 PE-20000 Foothills Park Dam Seepage Study
12 PE-21000 Foothills Park Improvement Project 13 PE-21001 Pearson Arastradero Improvement Project
14 PE-21002 Johnson Park Renovation 15 PG-14000 Ramos Park Improvements
16 PG-14001 Peers Park Improvements 17 PG-14002 Cameron Park Improvements
18 PG-14003 Seale Park Improvements 19 PG-17000 Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20 PG-17001 Foothills Park, Pearson Arastradero Preserve, and Esther Clark Park Conservation Plan 21 PG-18000 Golf Course Net and Artificial Turf Replacement
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:46 AM
2
22 PG-19001 Baylands Athletic Center 10.5 Acre Expansion Plan
23 PG-21000 Heritage Park Site Amenities Replacement 24 PG-22000 Werry Park Playground Improvements
STREETS AND SIDEWALKS
1 PE-12011 Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 1 PE-11011 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project
2 PE-13011 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project 3 PL-15001 Embarcadero Rd at El Camino Improvements
4 PL-15002 Downtown Automated Parking Guidance Systems, Access Controls & Revenue Collection Equip. 5 PL-15004 Downtown Parking Wayfinding
6 PL-16000 Quarry Road Improvements and Transit Center Access 7 PL-16002 Downtown Parking Management and System Implementation
8 PL-18000 El Camino Real Pedestrian Safety and Streetscape Project
Wayne Martin Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Coale <david@evcl.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:45 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Friend, Gil; Keene, James
Subject:Budget - project ranking
Attachments:Project ranking.xlsx
Dear Mayor and Council members,
As you are looking at the budget this year and in light of the very large capital project short falls, I think a
review of the projects is in order. This has been expressed by several council members and is very appropriate
and here’s why:
With such a large shortfall for various projects I think it is prudent to look at and rank the projects on several criteria such as funding shortfall, Comp plan compliance, SIP compliance and if there are any other alternatives that might be cheaper.
To date, a real frank discussion of the projects at the council level has been missing and this is not good. It
seems that the finance committee along with staff have avoided this important discussion and this is not good or
part of a good democratic process. The excuse has been we can’t wait on these projects as they will only cost
more. I think we can try other cheaper solutions first and then see if we really need some of these projects, in particular, the garages downtown and at Cal Ave.
While there is a proposal to raise money for all the projects through a variety of possible taxes, I think this is
unwise and short sided. I think the appetite for more taxes is limited and if some of the projects are not really
needed or there are cheaper alternatives, these must be explored first. I am not willing vote to for taxes for projects that are not really needed (parking garages downtown and at Cal Ave) when other cheaper alternative have not been tried such as TMA, ride sharing, bike sharing, etc. These types of solutions have been
successfully employed to avoid building these type of garages, which will soon be obsolete in these changing
times.
If we put taxes in place now for projects where there are cheaper solutions, the public will be unwilling to fund
(be taxed) for projects that we really do need such as paying for grade separations.
To this end I have put together a first pass at a possible ranking system for the projects, which takes into
account the major planning documents that the city has spent thousands of hours on and should not be
ignored. These documents that the council has approved and that the citizens of Palo Alto have helped shape,
also represent, to some extent, the will of Palo Alto and public opinion on how the city should grow and spend
effort on. Please do not ignore these important planning documents!
I have attached an excel document with this ranking so that it can be used as a straw man for you or city staff in
looking into this ranking process. Please take a serious look at this before proposing any new taxes or putting
the city further in debt with projects that have enormous shortfalls both in spending and actual need.
Sincerely,
David Coale
Project Priority List Project ranking
Project Budgeted Estimated Shortfall Comp Plan OK SIP Plan OK Alternative
Public Safety Building 75.0 91.0 34.0 Yes NA no ‐29
Cal Ave Parking Garage 9.6 40.4 30.8
No, Comp plane says we
need to reduce auto use
No, SIP says we need to
reduce auto and GHG
emissions
Yes, TDM needs to be
implemented in Cal Ave
Area, ride sharing, etc.‐45
Downtown Parking Garage 13.0 28.1 15.1
No, Comp plane says we
need to reduce auto use
No, SIP says we need to
reduce auto and GHG
emissions
Yes, TDM is working well
downtown, garages not
needed ‐30
Charleston/Arastradero 10.8 14.6 3.8 Yes Yes NA 6.2
101 Bike/Ped Bridge 14.0 16.3 2.3 Yes Yes No 7.7
Bike/Ped Plan 20.0 20.0 Yes Yes 10
Byxbee Park 2.8 2.8
Project listing cost in millions
Project ranking: ‐1 for every 1 million short fall, +5 for every Yes compliance, ‐5 for every No and ‐5 if there is a cheaper alternative
(feel free to come up with your own ranking system)
Data for table comes from Staff report ID # 8855 Direction on Council Infrastructure Plan Funding Challenges, meeting date 1/22/2018
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net>
Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2018 12:45 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Friend, Gil
Subject:Budget Shortfall and the Garage Projects Alternative
Dear Finance Committee and Council Members,
I would like to call further attention during this week’s Finance Committee budget meetings to the need to
evaluate alternatives to the planned California Avenue and University Avenue parking garage capital
investment projects.
These two projects make up the majority of the 2018 budget shortfall and this fact alone should compel the
Committee and Council to carefully evaluate them against available alternatives to decide whether they
should be delayed further or cancelled.
However, as community members, we should also have serious misgivings about moving ahead with such
investments given that 1) they run contrary to our community goals and plans as documented in the Comp
Plan and SIP, and 2) we appear to have a readily available, more flexible and much less costly means of solving
the underlying problem of excessive parking demand during peak times. Namely, the downtown
Transportation Management Association (TMA) is already successfully promoting a broad set of alternatives to
driving that is reducing the need for additional parking spaces.
The arguments for reconsidering these projects can be summarized as follows.
The garage projects would move us back from our recognized city and community goals.
o The Comp Plan and SIP reflect years of consensus building effort with city staff and many
community members
o The documents are intended to direct us toward more effective and beneficial investment in
alternative transportation modes and away from heavily subsidized, dedicated car centric
infrastructure
o The documents make it the job of community members and city leadership to work diligently to
assure that we are investing public funds accordingly
The California Avenue (Cal Ave.) project is risky and likely not a good use of public funds.
o It represents the majority of the budget shortfall at a cost that has risen from $9.6 to $40M in
2018 ($47M 2019 Budget, p110)
o It is pushing the city to explore ways to raise taxes on those who would not directly benefit
from the garages which is both politically and economically costly
o The garage was proposed in large part as a way to satisfy the demand for parking during the
limited, lunchtime peak in demand. City staff describes it in the slide below as a “$75,000 per
space for a 2‐hour need” solution in its presentation of recommendations for rescoping,
reprioritizing or dropping projects from the Infrastructure plan (presentation to Council on
January 22):
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:47 AM
2
The most obvious parking garage alternative to explore is the expansion of the Downtown TMA to the
California Ave. district. Today, the Downtown TMA provides small business and service employees incentives
for using the growing set of alternatives to driving that are available in the Palo Alto area. This March 2018
Palo Alto Online article explains the TMA’s impact and how it plans to build on its success:
The rate of service workers driving alone declined from 80 to 70% from 2016 to 2017
Goal is to shift 30% or 1,650 drivers to other modes in the next several years
It’s budget is $450k for 2018
Aims to increase transit pass use from 200 in 2018 to 700 in 3 years and 1000 in 5 years
The Scoop and Waze carpooling programs currently serve 160+ users and aim to serve 300 in 3 and 600
in 5 years. These are the TMA’s cheapest programs to provide.
Aims to add 100 to 150 riders to shuttles in 3 to 5 years
The TMA board will consider expanding to the California Avenue business district if funding is available
The table below summarizes the comparison of the California Ave. Parking Garage alternative to expanding
the Downtown TMA to the California Avenue business district to manage the demand for parking in the area
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:47 AM
3
It is clear from the brief comparison above that the Cal Ave Garage project is likely to be unnecessary and
wasteful. I recommend that the Finance Committee and Council demand a complete analysis of the costs and
benefits of delaying or cancelling the project in light of a complete view of the underlying need for parking
demand management and the available alternative solution represented by the TMA example.
Sincerely,
Bret Andersen
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
Fig. 1. Installed
AT&T antenna
Fig. 3. Proposed
installation pole is a
tilted and short "
support pole.
Fig. 2. Proposed
new installation ~ Our bedroom
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 | 5/16/2018 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 | 5/16/2018 7:33 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Judith Schwartz <judith@tothept.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 11:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Balancing diverse interests
Dear Council Members,
It is always instructive to participate in the process of city governance and last night was no exception.
As we tried to communicate consistently in our comments to you, our group of neighbors concerned about the CUP is
supportive of the First Baptist Church thriving with revenue producing tenants that do not disrupt the neighborhood.
Allowing extra therapists on site is fine with us, for example. A spiritual meditation center would be an ideal tenant as
would a counseling service for immigrant rights. Inviting the local Chabad to hold services there on Friday nights and
Saturday mornings is another option. Their congregants walk to services and currently have to cross El Camino Real at a
rather unsafe intersection. Such a gesture would generate revenue, complement the Church’s worship schedule, foster
goodwill, and demonstrate loving kindness towards all, without risking young cyclists’ lives on their way home from
school.
We are supportive of iSing and its mission. We just think there are other locations in Palo Alto with setbacks and large
parking lots that are more suitable alternatives for such a successful and popular program. iSing has done a fabulous job
and has outgrown their space. The good news is there IS space available at existing low‐cost, city‐owned community
centers. Last night I learned the group doesn't want to move to any of them because the hours don't run late enough.
Wouldn't it make sense to extend the hours at Cubberley to accommodate them? The underlying problem will not go
away with the CUP and this would be a really easy fix that would solve iSing’s needs AND address the residents’ concerns
at the same time.
I truly appreciate Councilwomen Kou and Holman’s valiant attempts to preserve the spirit and acknowledge the reality
of living in an R‐1 neighborhood where the lots are small and the setbacks are narrow. This experience has been a great
opportunity to get to know more of our neighbors and to underscore why we all need to become more active in
neighborhood matters. The Churchill grade separation and Castilleja expansion are two examples where I fear common
sense and quality of life may be ignored.
In my opinion, effectively solving the impact of high speed rail needs to be a regional initiative not a local one. Hiring 24
x 7 guards at the Churchill crossing would be much more cost effective and reasonable than seizing billions of dollars of
homes through eminent domain. Again I would ask you, what are your goals here?
I support girls’ education with my taxpayer financing of Palo Alto schools. If a private entity wishes to expand beyond
legal capacity in an R‐1 neighborhood, wouldn’t it be cheaper and better for Palo Alto residents if they acquire a satellite
campus at another location? Why do the rights of a tax exempt educational institution or non‐profit outweigh the
interests of hundreds of tax paying neighbors? I appreciate these parents are passionately devoted to their children and
I applaud their commitment. However, they have alternatives. Isn’t it possible to support them without giving them the
power to trample over the reasonable expectations of neighboring residents who don’t have kids in this private school?
I know you have a very tough job and I do not envy you. Thank you for your willingness to take this on.
Sincerely,
Judith Schwartz
2330 Bryant St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301 USA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:20 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Jung <jgjung1@rogers.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 10, 2018 10:03 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:jjung@intelligentcommunity.org; City Mgr; Office of the CIO; Info, Plandiv
Subject:City of Palo Alto - Intelligent Community of the Year opportunity
Hello Mayor Scharff:
I happened to come across your recent video: Smart Cities‐ Solving Urban Problems using Technology that
features you, Jonathan Reichental, James Keene and others. It was very interesting and speaks to the goals
that the Intelligent Community Forum (www.intelligentcommunity.org) , known globally as ICF, has been
promoting for over two decades. The reason I am reaching out to you is to recommend that given all this
exciting work that you and your team at the City of Palo Alto have done, you may be eligible for our 2019
SMART21 City Award and potentially our global award as Intelligent Community of the Year. Unfortunately, we
just don’t hand these out. You must apply and be benchmarked globally against others that apply annually.
We are a global non‐profit, headquartered in NYC. We are not trying to sell anything. The link above explains
our goals and mandate. We have an international board, currently headed by the Mayor of Eindhoven,
Holland. We have been around for over 2 decades and have institutes and national associations in the USA,
Canada, as well as overseas in Asia and forming in Europe and Australia. We are keen to identify best practices
and share solutions to the world’s most challenging issues. Our programs have also helped communities to
attract investment. City CAO’s, CIO’s, Urban Planners and Economic Developers, as well as Sustainability
Officers and Mayors from the public sector are most interested in our work, as are institutions, libraries,
chambers and the private sector. We work towards facilitating collaboration and profiling and promoting the
best intelligent communities globally.
Our current lists of cities that we have evaluated and endorsed include 170 cities globally:
https://www.intelligentcommunity.org/intelligent_community_network . We have a global Summit that is
taking place in London, UK from June 4‐6. It will focus on the top 7 of the 2018 SMART21 cities
https://www.intelligentcommunity.org/top7 and can be very enlightening for you and your team to attend. As
such I would be pleased to offer you some free day passes that will cover the 3 days at the event to give you a
sampling of what the ICF is all about and the value of the global recognition that the awards provides. Let me
know if this is of interest and I will send you my allocated code for the free passes. The program and speakers
are shown here: https://www.intelligentcommunity.org/summit_18 . The current Intelligent Community of
the Year is Melbourne, Australia.
If you would like to enter the awards process, the application is due this September. You can find the
application at https://www.intelligentcommunity.org/nominations . The 2019 Smart21 cities will be
announced in October with the Top7 being announced in Feb 2019 in Quebec City at an event we are
organizing there with Quebec City and Laval University. The 2019 Intelligent Community of the Year will be
announced in NYC in June 2019 at the Global Summit in NY.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:20 AM
2
I look forward to your response. The video was most enlightening, well done and could be a great source for
our global jury to consider along with your application, should you decide to pursue this opportunity for global
earned media and a new network of communities to connect with.
Regards,
John
John G. Jung
Chairman & Co‐Founder
Intelligent Community Forum
250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10177 ‐ United States
Direct: +1‐647‐801‐4238
www.intelligentcommunity.org
jjung@intelligentcommunity.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 12:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:First Baptist
Thank You! Much relieved to see this treasured community resource continue in that capacity.
In my experience, it’s usually only a couple of bad actors; a couple of neighbors who are exceptionally territorial and a
couple of choir parents who are jackasses; who are causing most of the problems. With any luck, First Baptist will figure
that out, keep those few offending parents in line and keep everyone else away from the neighbors who are the most
put out.
Deb Goldeen, 2130 Birch, 06, 321‐7375
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:20 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Friday, May 11, 2018 5:52 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Louis Road "improvements"
Attachments:2018 suv dimensions.pdf
Council Members:
This afternoon I made a right turn from Moreno on to the newly‐configured Louis Road. I couldn’t make that turn
without going over the yellow center line – or else I would have had to drive on the “sidewalk” – or whatever it’s now
called. I drive a Nissan Leaf. Hard to imagine what I’d have to drive over if I had one of the 2018 vehicles on the attached
chart.
How will emergency vehicles navigate these Midtown streets where the lanes are barely wide enough for my little car?
Why are you allowing this (expensive) madness to continue?
Pat Marriott, Palo Alto property owner
2018 SUVs/Trucks
height width width length
(w/o mirrors)(w/mirrors)
GMC Yukon 74.44 80.5 203.9
Chevy Silverado 78 81 258
Chevy Tahoe 74.4 80.5 204
Toyota Sequoia 77 80 205
Honda Odyssey 70 79 203
Cadillac Escalade 74 81 204
Jeep Grand Cherokee 69 77 191
Lexus LX 73 78 199
Ford Explorer 70 79 198
Ford Expedition Max 76.2 79.9 221.9
Ford F-150 Raptor (min)76 80 96.8 220 "How big is the Ford Raptor? Lighter, meaner,
Ford F-150 Raptor (max)79 86.3 251 and ready to prey on smaller, weaker trucks."
Mercedes GLE 70.7 76.2 189.7
Nissan Rogue 69 72 189
Nissan Armada 76 80 209
Chevy Suburban 74 81 224
17 Infinity QX80 75.8 79.9 210
Average (inches)73.91 79.49 210.62
Average (feet)6.16 6.62 17.55
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:craig <ckyana@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 4:03 PM
To:Council, City; Phillips, Peter
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Attachments:IMG_20171230_113841.jpg; IMG_20180209_103248.jpg
Dear City Council.
We have lived near the corner of Lincoln and Middlefield for over 20 years. We have seen a lot but recently it
has gotten seriously bad.
My son wrote a letter to the Weekly that I attach here; To the Editor of Palo Alto Weekly:
Hi, my name is Coleman and I am a student at Palo Alto High School. I am writing to express my
concern of the Lincoln and Middlefield intersection. Because of its proximity to Addison Elementary School, this intersection is extremely significant and must be fixed. Recently, there have been at least 13 car accidents at this intersection. The dates are listed as follows:
1. 9/28/15 at 6:30 pm
2. 11/12/15 at 1:50 pm
3. 5/26/16 4. 9/28/16 5. 8/24/17 at 5:00 pm
6. 9/24/17 at 3:00 pm
7. 12/30/17 at 11:35 am
8. 1/6/18 at 6:10 pm 9. 1/18/18 at 4:30 pm 10. 2/9/2018 at 7:45 am
11. 3/12/2018 at 9:00 am
12. 4/9/2019 at 6:00 pm, 4 cars
13. 4/19/2019 at 5:00 pm, 3 cars
There are probably many complex reasons to why this is occurring but one thing is clear: the frequency
of these accidents at this intersection has been increasing dangerously. Additionally, these accidents have been
happening during rush hours, which happens to coincide with school transit hours. One example was the
2/9/2017 car crash that took place at 7:45 am (see picture). Furthermore, in addition to being close to Addison Elementary, the intersection is on one of the biking routes used by Palo Alto High School students.
These accidents have been been occurring for as long as I can remember. However, they have usually
been mild fender-benders. Lately, they have been intensing in severity. On the 1/18/18 accident, a car jumped
the curb and broke Addison’s sign (see picture). Additionally, 3/12/2018 accident, at least two airbags were
opened and an ambulance as well as the fire department were called to assist one of the drivers who had hurt their neck.
The City of Palo Alto has made some minor changes to Middlefield, but they have not been enough. For
example in the most recent project, they decreased the size of the car lanes in order to slow traffic and also
painted reflective speed limits on the road. Nevertheless, these efforts have not been enough to reduce the
frequency of accidents.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:49 AM
2
One possible solution to this could be placing traffic lights at this intersection. While this may be costly,
it will prevent further accidents and injuries from happening.
May I add, there are also no stop signs between Channing and Middlefield on Lincoln, making this the prefered
'cut' across town for many mapping apps.
The cost of 2 pairs of stop signs for Lincoln (between Channing and Middlefield) and a light at
Lincoln/Middlefield cannot be greater than the potential loss of a school child's life.
Sincerely,
Craig Yanagisawa
..
'
. ..
' • •_A~-,.
'" -f .... ,
.,.,, ...
•• .. ., I
'
'
•'\'°" ' ' ~ ' '
l
-
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:33 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ryan Globus <ryanglobus@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 10:42 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
To the Palo Alto City Council,
I went to my first City Council meeting last night to add public comment on agenda item #10, "Connecting Palo Alto Rail Program Status Update and Initial Screening of Grade Separation Ideas for Further Study". I waited 4
hours to add my public comment, but the Council postponed the item. Here is what I wished to say:
Every single week, I drive my car, walk, ride by bike, and take Caltrain. As such, this issue greatly impacts me,
in addition to thousands of Palo Alto residents, employees who work in Palo Alto, and tens of thousands of daily Caltrain riders.
Please eliminate all the at-grade crossings in Palo Alto. I don't care if you choose to close the roads at the tracks,
elevate the road, create an underpass, or even build an expensive tunnel. The at-grade crossings are dangerous
and a nuisance to residents and riders.
When there is an accident at a crossing, it causes major delays for thousands of Caltrain riders while both or one
track is closed. In addition to being incredibly frustrating for commuters who need to get to work or go home to
make dinner, take their dogs out, and spend time with their kids, this added unreliability could cause train riders
to drive instead, worsening traffic.
Furthermore, these crossings are noisy. Although I live several blocks away from the tracks, I can hear the train
from my bed in the morning. When Caltrain electrifies in a few years, the trains will be much quieter. However,
for safety reasons, they will still have to blast their horn for at-grade crossings. If we eliminate the at-grade
crossings, the trains will be much quieter.
Finally, these crossings are very dangerous. Too many cars have been accidentally hit at these crossings,
destroying the car and endangering passengers and nearby pedestrians and bikers. Furthermore, there have been
many suicides near at-grade crossings on Caltrain. Studies show that reducing the opportunity for people with
suicidal thoughts to commit suicide can save lives, and eliminating the at-grade crossings would reduce such opportunities.
There are a number of plans on the table, and I am in favor of any which eliminates at-grade crossings. Doing
nothing, or just minor cosmetic upgrades, is not an option.
Thank you,
Ryan Globus
Palo Alto Midtown Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:22 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 13, 2018 10:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Middlefield/Embarcadero
Council Members:
What does it tell you when the city has to publish instructions on how to cross a street? Just look at the diagram to see
how complicated and UNsafe these changes are.
Pat Marriott, Palo Alto property owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:37 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:cathyjd@comcast.net
Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:More Employee Permits
May 15, 2018
To Palo Alto City Council Members
I live at Channing House. I want to let each of the members of our City Council know how
important it is to maintain the number of employee parking permits. Our employees are the
key to the lifestyle at Channing House. It takes a very large staff to care for residents at all
levels of care from the very ill to the independent residents of which there are about 200
residents in all.
Many of our employees live farther away each year as housing costs have driven them outside
of Palo Alto. I am imploring you to not to cut back further on the Employee Parking
Permits. Last year against its staff recommendations the Council reduced the number of
permits from the previous 1400. Another reduction of 1000 will make it very bare bones and
cause hardship.
Question: How do new employees get permits when a current employee leaves? Apparently,
there is no procedure for this, so some permits are not used. A solution will help to maximize
the permits’ usefulness.
Remember that employees bring tax dollars to the City with their support of local businesses.
RPP seems to be working in most areas to benefit the residents. There are many senior
facilities in the City who rely on the permits for care of the elders who are also Palo Alto
residents making this a very humane welcoming place in our City. Please keep that in mind as
you weigh the pros and cons on this very important matter. Your decision is key to the quality
of life here in Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Catherine Dolton
850 Webster St., Apt. 1009
Palo Alto
cathyjd@comcast.net
650‐324‐7397
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:59 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Finn <bckp@stanford.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 12:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Noise and pollution
Attachments:noise_stillagain.pdf
We regret the delay in preparation of our letter attached below. It concerns in our view an important and directly
relevant matter, and we both hope it will not be too late for this week’s Council Packet. We would like the letter to be
delivered to all Council members, and posted in a permanent way in the Council records,
to the extent that will be feasible.
Thank you, Ursula Schulte, Robert Finn
May 9, 2018
Palo Alto, CA
To Palo Alto City Council:
The endless discussion by city officials over petty details at the agenda item on airplane
noise last Monday evening, made it sadly clear to us why the FAA remains indifferent to our
pleas for quieter skies and cleaner air. The FAA sits back complacently in assurance that
city officials will remain occupied in petty debate among themselves, while the legal time
limits for meaningful protest pass by unnoticed.
There is a simple clear issue before us. Four years ago the FAA brought sudden and
ravaging noise and pollution to skies that earlier had been clear and almost silent. They did
so without asking our opinion, or even informing us that changes would occur. Nothing has
been done to address or even to explain the need for that change, which remarkably could
be reversed simply by reversing the action the FAA then took. That simple step would bring
the identical gain now as the loss suffered then.
The agency has yet to provide a convincing justification for its decisions that yielded the
2014 debacle. The explanation volunteered by the Select Committee was a joke by any
standards, but as far as we can make out, nothing further has been requested of them. The
FAA continues to (mis)lead us into interminable talk on fringe issues, which could yield at
best fringe improvements and perhaps even to worsenings of our plight.
The city is getting a classic runaround, which it indirectly fosters by its continued inaction.
The Council is betraying its electorate, to whom all candidates promised action during the
last campaign.
Two years ago the Council was called to account on issues of senior housing, and suffered
ignominious defeat at the polls. The Council has apparently forgotten that event, and is
again ignoring its sworn obligations to public interest.
There is an example before us of Phoenix, which has clearly displayed that resolute action
can yield relief from FAA indifference and rigidity. Similar conditions prevail here. Why
must the public wait interminably, for relief currently delayed only by the self-serving
unwillingness of the FAA to confess that it made a mistake?
Ursula Schulte, Robert Finn
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2018 9:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Oliver Oppers Aalami <aalami@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 9:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Petition in Support of CUP for First Baptist Church
Attachments:PP CUP for FBC.pptx
Please see attached file with over 250 signatories.
Thank you,
Oliver Aalami
CUP for FBC
A petition in support of a conditional use permit with reasonable usage
conditions for First Baptist Church of Palo Alto
Signed by more than 250 residents of 94301, 94303, 94306, and nearby
zip codes
CUP for FBC Signatures
94301
Alexa Aalami. Evan Aalami. Lauren Aalami. Oliver Aalami. Mehdi Alhassani. Brian Andersen. Kristen Andersen. Carolyn Anderson. Michelle Arden. Sandra Ben Efraim. Karin Bonnard. Katharina Borchert. Susan Bradley. Lisa Branson. Jeff Brown. William Bruner. Brooke Carson. Cindy Chen. Bryan Cho. Holli Cho. Amy Darling. Grant Dasher. Evie Davidson. Anna Dieck. Katarina Dieck. Martin Dieck. Ronald Dieck. Ingrid Donahue. Scott Doorley. Emily Drennan. Aleksandra Dudukovic. Adriana Eberle. Chris Eberle. Marius Eriksen. Sally Espinoza. Mariseth Ferring. Masha Fisch. Lindsey Forrest. James Forrest. Ryan Frick. Stephanie Frick. Jessica Galbraith. Leslie Goldman. Michael Greenfield. Alison Guan. Maria Haber. Jennifer Ibbotson-Brown. Patty Irish. Brett Johnson. Maria Karsner. Heelan Kim. David Ko. Dorcia Ko. Jennifer Ko. Caroline Kosaka. Susan Kramer. Tom Kramer. Cynthia Lee. JusokLee. Karen Lee. Josh Lehrer. Michelle Lepori. Stephen Levy. Libby Lungren. Patricia Marcello. Erin McGurk. Bryant McOmber. Erin McOmber . Hannah Mensing. Marcela Millan. David Moran. Carol Munch. Jacques Nicole. Nancy Palmer. Laurie Phillips. Nicole Pitman. Paula Powar. Laura Prentiss. Jochen Profit. Carin Rollins. Margaret Rosenbloom. Charles Rosenblum. Eric Rosenblum. Jessica Rothenberg-Aalami. David Shen. Rosalie Shepherd. Joy Sleizer. Kathleen Spillane. Gregory Stevens. Shamim Tong. Meghann Tovar. Melinda Tzeng . Elaine Uang. Debra Van. Janet Whitmer. William Whitmer. Michele Wong. Dandan Wu. Qing Xiao. Uri Zernik.
CUP for FBC Signatures
94303
Felice Ahn. Neali Armstrong. Chris Asing. Colleen Backstrand. Penelope Barrett. Annie Bedichek.
Margaret Boles. Maureen Bradford. Susan Chakos. Ashok Chandy. Jane Chin. Jin Chin. Michal
Cierniak. Jonathan Hammer. Philip Hayes. Mark Hoffberg. Mary Holzer. Thomas Holzer. Charlotte
Jackson. Tyler Johnson. Jayanthi Kalyanaraman. Gayathri Kini. Sanjay Kini. Patricia Kinney. Melissa
Kirven-Brooks. Murali Krishnan. Chloe Lee. HoChan Lee. Wendell Love. Elizabeth May. Piper May.
Alix Mayer. Leisa McNeese. Jeanette Mihov. Robert Mitchell. Randle Mixon. Veronica Montero.
Christine Moon. Christopher Murphy. Dana Nelson. Alexandra Olsen. Lara Otte. Amy Parigi.
Heejeong Park. Sarah Patanroi. Ellen Payne. Asawari RaoRane Agrawal. Geniveve Ruskus. Clea
Sarnquist. Mari Soberg. Jung In Son. Randy Stoltenberg. Aurelie Teyssier. Rex Watkins. Natalie
Watkins. Cheryl Weaver. LaRhee Webster. Janet Wong.
CUP for FBC Signatures
94306
James Albrecht. Audrey Alonis. Marcia Baugh. Heather Baum. Angelina Bena. Henny Bhushan.
Margaret Billin. Lindy Bunch. Dave Chou. Cristiana De Oliveira Costa. Toni Deser. Kathy Durham.
Addison Englhardt. Paolo Faraboschi . Joyce Farnsworth. April Foster. Kathryn Gillam. Hilary Glann.
Julie Good. Jane Huang. Ella Jackson. Alice Jacobs. Alisi Kaihau. Daniel Kaleba. Larry Kavinoky.
Roxanne Leung. James Lik. Elana Manson. Jonathan Manson. Mary Martinson. HoneyMeir-Levi.
Alicia Miao. Monika Nagy. McHale Newport-Berra. Collette O'Shea. Dorothy Reller. Jeffrey Salzman.
Eric Stietzel. Cari Templeton. Daniel Templeton. Sven Thesen. Ron Tuttle. Thelma Tuttle. Jared
Verzello. Alena Villari. Casper Vroemen. Hanna Vuornos. Charles Wang. Janet Wang. Katherine
Wang. Raziya Wang. Deanne Welch. James Welch. Jessica Wilkes. Danny Yee. Sue Yee. Jung Yoo. Cliff
Young. Helen Young.
CUP for FBC Signatures
Other zip codes
Irina Aganina. Megan Bernstein. Emilie Blasé. Gabriela Breton. Elizabeth Churchill. Shailaja Das.
Deborah Fishman. Jennifer Ford. Qin Gao. Marsha Genensky. Norma Grench. Ron Ho. Bryan Hwang.
Steven Ketchpel. Anna Khaydarova. Simon Klemperer. Mary Anne Kochenderfer. Laura Langone.
Judy Law. James McCann. Mala Mehta. Varun Mehta. Amy Moore. Debbie Mukamal. Laurie
Ostacher. Julie Pietrantoni. Ernest Rideout. Lesley Robertson. Priya Satia. Sumi Shin. Allison
Templeton. Maile Uohara. Judith Vacchino. Dominique White. Christina Wilner. Maureen Worry.
Miao Zhang.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:20 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Brian Strope <bpstrope@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 11, 2018 3:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:please fix ross road
Many of us are concerned about the dangers of the Ross Road work, and upcoming work on Amarillo Avenue
next to Ohlone. We’ve seen no evidence that the new projects are safe or effective, and see obvious risks to
bicyclists with the current designs that intentionally pinch bike lanes. We’re endangering our children. Please revert these changes now, and stop making more changes that pinch bike lanes. This is a key issue that will
motivate voting in the next city council election.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2018 9:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tony Carrasco <tony@carrasco.com>
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 10:32 PM
To:de La Beaujardiere, Cedric
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Grade separation options: Add Viaducts; Trenches too Costly; Engage in community
consensus bldg
Hi Cedric. I agree with you that a Viaduct may be our best option once we factor in costs and realistic revenue sources.
I also agree that we request Council and staff to include a Viaduct as an option.
Certainly from Churchill to the Menlo Park border.
TONY CARRASCO
Sent from my iPhone
On May 14, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Cedric de La Beaujardiere <cedric.bike@gmail.com> wrote:
Honorable City Council Members,
In your process tonight of narrowing down the set of options for grade separation, I am writing in
support of giving greater consideration of rail raised on a viaduct, as well as in support of engaging in a more fully informed process of community consensus building. I am gravely
concerned that the current community favorite of dropping the tracks into a trench has extremely high costs, and I do not believe the city residents as a whole has a fully informed
appreciation of the impacts of those costs on the city and on their own finances. As council
members you are entrusted with the long-term well being of the city, you have a responsibility to
see beyond the glamour and the clamor, and move forward for further considerations a set of options which may best meet all of our needs, functionally, financially, and aesthetically.
I believe Viaducts provide the greatest mobility benefits, at the lowest cost and with the least
disruption during construction, and may well be quieter than the current train and designed to
respect the privacy needs of those who live closest to the tracks. Despite these benefits, Viaducts have not been given the full consideration they deserve due to outdated policy and hidden assumptions.
Specifically, when Staff made their initial assessments of the options, they lumped all raised rail
options together and eliminated them for two reasons:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:22 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Sunday, May 13, 2018 4:08 PM
To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; Doug Vagim;
Cathy Lewis; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; nick yovino; huidentalsanmateo; Mark
Kreutzer; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mark Standriff; Mayor;
midge@thebarretts.com; info@superide1.com; Joel Stiner; Leodies Buchanan;
blackstone@blastfitness.com; popoff; Steven Feinstein; terry; beachrides;
bearwithme1016@att.net; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; kfsndesk; newsdesk;
rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; bballpod; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Raymond Rivas;
robert.andersen; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com;
shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; Chris Field; hennessy; Irv Weissman; igorstrav .; jerry ruopoli;
Jason Tarvin; leager; Tom Lang; mmt4@pge.com; nmelosh@stanford.edu;
russ@topperjewelers.com; yicui@stanford.edu
Subject:Re: NVDA: "Gaming remains the key catalyst". Wait till analysts see transportation!
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Sun. 5-13-2018
To all-
Small note, or maybe not so small. Citigroup has raised its PT for NVDA to $380 from $300. That
would be a 49.29% gain from the Friday, May 11, 2018 close of $254.53. These price targets are for what, a
year? 49.3% in a year is OK with me. But I'm thinking that $1,000 in will become $1 million over a decade or two, as happened with WM and Apple. What if I'm only partly right?
https://stocknews.com/news/nvda-citigroup-raises-pt-to-380-from-300/
To be further convinced, see their website, www.nvidia.com. Autonomous driving, data centers, medical imaging, robotics, gaming of course. Self driving is ridiculous? One big selling point is that it will be a
lot safer. That will sell SD cars. "My family will be safer in a SD car? Then I want one". We kill 30,000
people per year on the roads in the U.S. now and SD will cut that way down. And it will cut the death toll way
down all over the world.
Medical imaging: 12 Sigma in San Diego can do this with Nvidia AI: They look at CT scans of lung
cancer pts. and can see tumors a pathologist can miss. Google did the same thing with an optical microscope
looking at slides of prostate and breast biopsies and, again, the Nvidia AI can see tumors a pathologist might
miss. The beauty is that the NVDA AI can be trained. It can learn. They teach it with thousands of slides or CT
scans of lung, prostate or breast c. pts. And, they say, it can work with many different kinds of c. Who would have thought that a big advance in c. would come from artificial intelligence from Nvidia being able to better
detect the tumors?
The NVDA system can be used with existing CT scanners and optical microscopes in hospitals and
clinics all over the world.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:22 AM
2
About a year ago, Stanford showed that this approach, but not with tech from NVDA, can allow GPs
to spot skin cancer as well as Stanford's dermatologists can.
NVDA tech can spot drug interaction problems. It can allow drug companies to see which version of a
molecule is most effective.
A company in Israel, using Nvidia tech, can do this: You are a farmer and your crop has a disease or a pest. You take a photo of a plant or a leaf and hit "send". The Nvidia artificial intelligence comes back with a
diagnosis and a proposed treatment for your crop, with a percent estimate of the accuracy of the diagnosis. If it
is a low number, like 25%, you send again and experts at the other end get back to you in a couple of hours
with their diagnosis. This should produce higher crop yields.
Nvidia tech can improve the performance of data centers. At a billion dollars each, you want to
improve their performance if you can.
Just a few of the items shown on www.nvidia.com
On their website, try to see the Jensen Huang keynote at the Nvidia GTC developers conference in
late March, 2018. He talks for 2 hours, 25 minutes. Go to 1:37:00 where he starts to discuss Nvidia and
transportation. That runs to 2:12:00, so 35 minutes. If you watch the talk to the end then, it runs 48 minutes
total. After watching that, you may think, as do I, that Nvidia is a leader, or THE leader, in autonomous driving
tech. What they show there is fascinating.
Here is the keynote address by Jensen Huang:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95nphvtVf34
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:43 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Saturday, May 12, 2018
To all- Here is a good piece re Nvidia:
https://stocknews.com/news/nvda-wall-street-analysts-stick-by-nvidia-corporation-nvda-despite-
cryptocurrency/
NVDA won't die due to crypto. "Gaming remains the key catalyst". Nice going, you analysts on
Manhattan Island. Ever been west of the Hudson? Sure, gaming is still huge at NVDA, but see the miles of
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:22 AM
3
video re self driving cars on their website. After Jensen Huang shows it and it looks to be perfected now, he
says they will start shipping it in 2 or 3 years! They want it to be really perfected.
Will all of that tech, in which NVDA appears to dominate, do anything for revs and earnings when
they do start shipping? Well, duh. He said recently that Toyota has signed on to use NVDA in their self-
driving cars. The Audi-USA boss appeared with Huang at the developers conference in March for a long
discussion on-stage. They are on board. And, merely, Bosch has signed on to handle NVDA products. They
sell "to every car maker in the world". Elon Musk sat with Huang on stage for a 20 minute talk in 2017, I believe.
My question is "Where is GM, Ford, Mercedes, VW, Honda, Nissan"? They are working instead
with people with superior self driving electronics, superior to NVDA's? Who would that be?
Barclays has now raised its price target for NVDA from $280 to $300, matching that of B of A. I
think NVDA is another Apple, another WM, another Intel. I won't sell mine, no matter what. All the way to
crash and burn. I want to see that.
If that happens, I'll quit playing the market, because then the market will have been proven to be a
completely rigged scam, a giant Ponzi scheme, and Jensen Huang will have been proven to be another
Bernie Madoff.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2018 9:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keene, James
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 6:26 PM
To:Amy Darling; Mello, Joshuah; Council, City
Cc:Dave Shen; Shikada, Ed; Keith, Claudia; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle
Subject:RE: Thank you
Gladly. Josh thanks to you and your team for responding so quickly to the neighborhood.
James Keene | City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email –Thank you!
From: Amy Darling [mailto:amywdarling@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 12:07 PM
To: Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council,
City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Dave Shen <Dshenster@gmail.com>
Subject: Thank you
A huge THANK YOU for returning the scramble light for Walter Hays students. We greatly appreciate it. We had wanted to send a picture of the kids holding a big thank you sign, but sadly we aren’t allowed to do that due
to privacy issues.
Thank you, Amy
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2018 9:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cari Templeton <cari@caritempleton.com>
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 5:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Regarding the CUP for FBCPA and Staff Report ID # 8980
Attachments:PACC FBCPA Templeton Letter.pdf
Hi, please include the attached document in the City Council packet for this evening.
Thanks,
Cari
--
Carolyn "Cari" Bloodworth Templeton
Assembly District Elected Member (ADEM) of the California Democratic Party, AD-24 Communications Officer, Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Co-Founder, Bayshore Progressive Democrats
Club Representative, Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee
Emerge California, Class of 2018
(650) 796-8389 cari@caritempleton.com
Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council,
Thank you for reviewing the application for the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto’s (FBCPA)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate as a “community center.” As a 13year resident of Palo
Alto and a patron of one of the programs that is currently housed in the FBCPA, I am supportive
of any mechanism that allows the iSing program to continue use of the FBCPA for its innovative
and effective choral program for school aged girls. Fortunately, the amendments that the
Planning and Transportation Commission made to the CUP do just that.
Please vote to uphold the CUP as amended by the PTC.
●Extended hours . Most of our high school program has competing priorities with after
school activities. We have our late class from 7:308:30pm for them, so they can get
dinner first.
●120person capacity . iSing has more than one class simultaneously, and this makes
sense due to the size of the facility. With the noise abatement, even 120 people across
the two buildings will not be audible at the street.
●Outdoor use . The yard is part of the property, and occasionally breakout sessions (~5
minutes) or celebrations (ice cream breaks) may be held on the patio.
●Waived TUP fees . While Staff is recommending a cap on the number of events one can
have per year, the cost of application for a TUP is far too high for this scenario (~$1200).
Please consider incorporating a fee waiver into the CUP for any TUPs.
Regarding the Staff Report and the public comments, here is an analysis of the major issues for
your consideration.
●The scope of the problem itself as well as the number of complaints have been
overestimated.
○The report describes complaints of “ residents ,” but lacks proper context, and
therefore may be easily misinterpreted as a larger group than it actually is. The
count of unique complaining families is 18, while a comparable number of unique
supportive families (17) have also contributed feedback to the process. Count of
iSing families in 94301 is 45.
○The number of parking spaces (8) mentioned in the Staff Report are beside the
point, since as Commissioner Alcheck observed there is “abundant onstreet
parking available in the vicinity of this Church” (PTC April 11). On Page 5 of the
Staff Report, staff notes that “no additional parking should be required for the
community center.”
○Uturns and going through a bike lane to reach a parking spot are normal driving
behavior in residential areas. According to the DMV, you may legally Uturn in a
residential area. The way our bike lanes are between the main traffic and the
curbparking, all access to curb parking must go through bike lanes when bike
lanes are present. This is being positioned by neighbors as problematic, but it is
by design.
○Peak traffic was last measured 2 years ago at 85 trips per hour through the
intersection at N California and Bryant, giving the intersection a Service Level A
rating, the safest. Since this measurement was taken, traffic has reduced
significantly when a major tenant moved out. According to Staff, intervention by
City Engineers would not be warranted until Service Level E or F, or about 1000
trips per hour (PTC April 11).
○Paly and Jordan bike traffic along California and Bryant have largely dissipated
by the time iSing programs begin.
●The problems that started this dispute have been addressed.
○The traffic, parking, and noise issues were largely created by one bad tenant,
which is now gone and won’t be invited back.
○Current programs are improving the traffic by discussing safely dropping off
children, designating safe parking and unsafe parking, and providing parking
attendants during peak times.
○Carpooling efforts have reduced peak traffic significantly, such that street parking
spaces are not fully utilized.
○FBCPA facility improvements to windows (doublepaned, insulated) have
reduced noise and HVAC installation have eliminated the need to open windows.
●The neighborhood and city itself have been improved by the programs of the
FBCPA.
○As a result of the mission of the FBCPA and their early support of iSing, we now
have iSing available in our city. iSing is a positive enrichment program that
greatly adds to the quality of life for Palo Alto youth.
○Kids can walk and bike to programs housed at the FBCPA rather than take a long
trip to a nearby city.
○We must do what we can to keep programs local.
I hope that the Council will also consider Staff’s recommendation to revisit and modernize the
definition of a Church soon, as well.
Sincerely,
Carolyn “Cari” Bloodworth Templeton
13year Palo Alto resident, iSing parent, Ohlone parent, community volunteer
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:22 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gail Personal <gail.price3@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thank you
Dear Mayor Kniss and Palo Alto City Council members, Thank you for appointing me to the North Ventura Coordinated
Area Plan Working Group.
Best
Gail Price
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:21 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sea <paloaltolife@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 14, 2018 11:38 AM
To:rjett@starbucks.com; Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Council, City
Cc:60m@cbsnews.com; bjohnson@paweekly.com; jdong@paweekly.com;
gsheyner@paweekly.com; wsj.ltrs@wsj.com; nytdirect@nytimes.com;
letters@paweekly.com
Subject:This AM. My Civil rights UNPLUGGED at Starbucks in Palo Alto. 2000 El Camino Real.
Hi Richard and leaders of Palo Alto
This is Sea Reddy
Two violations today 1. Civil rights in city of Palo Alto
Starbucks violations
2. Taking photos inside Starbucks
3. If no soliciting allowed, how about job interviews, office campaigns etc
My alleged crime
1. Me Asking a person that does not look like me to sign on a write-in Senate campaign petition this morning around
9:15am
I came this morning to Starbucks and got some tea. I was also there to read a newspaper or two.
Around 8:45am I asked a lady waiting after her purchase for her drink, for a signature on a petition as a write in candidate. She listened, signed and we talked for about three minutes.
About 10 minutes later I asked a gentlemen, at the edge of the table away from me, if he would consider me for this petition signature.
This gentleman says he is working and busy.
As I was walking away he gives me a right act and says something about soliciting and it’s not allowed at Starbucks.
He goes into rage and points to Rosario the manager I have known for 3-4 years as I live close by on 747 Stanford Ave.
He asks her to call police and to escort me out.
I was enraged, called 911. I told them the story, I was told I needed to wait. I did, three Palo Alto policemen come to the
location; I voluntarily meet them outside. The conversation was somewhat heated as they thought I did I not know certain manners.
We got it straightened. I suggested my civil rights were violated as this gentleman begun to make threats to escort me out.
I asked them to talk to him. They did. He told them he told me three times. He did not. I have experience seeking
nomination papers as I have run three campaigns. He lied. The police didn’t know or care. They were telling me that once I approached I should back off. I did until he was taking further steps to demean me in front of people and community I
live in
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:21 PM
2
The police listened, were generally understanding one was calling me Reddy as my first name is Sea. It was ok. No action
requested.
I am gong to call CEO and Chairman office of Starbucks to complain. Additionally, taking photos without my consent is
a violation.
Rosario’s indifference was regrettable.
I am going to the city hall and speak about this tonight.
I have already called the city manager Jim Keene.
No way to live when my civil rights are violated in the city I live.
Respectfully
Sea Reddy 747 Stanford Avenue
Palo Alto, Ca 94306 650-465-3535
949-857-2000
Paloaltolife@gmail.com Aseareddy@gmail.com
Newportseaside@Gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 3:21 PM
3
> On Sep 1, 2015, at 10:03, Richard Jett <rjett@starbucks.com> wrote:
> > Thank you!
>
> I will follow up with the manager >
> Richard
> > Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Sea <paloaltolife@gmail.com> wrote: >>
>> Hi Richard >>
>> What does it take to turn the incorrectly positioned bathroom knob at 2000 El Camino Starbucks in Palo Alto?
>> >> A teenager just panicked that she was locked out if her bath room.
>>
>> Is it a $200 fix that you could do? >>
>> Other than that transition from Atul has gone great. The new manager Rosario is very capable.
>> >> Regards
>>
>> Sea Reddy >> A customer
>> 747 Stanford Avenue
>> Palo Alto >> 650-645-3535
>> 650-857-0240 >> 650-384-0060 >> 949-857-2000
>> Paloaltolife@gmail.com >> Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 8:59 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 1:29 PM
To:UAC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 05-02-18 UAC meeting, Item IX.1 -- AMI (Advanced
Metering Infrastructure)
Commissioners,
At your 05-02-18 meeting, Item IX.1 was about smart meters. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64810
Here's the staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64784
Below the "######" line is a transcript of this item, to which I have added my comments (paragraphs starting with "###").
Jeff
------------------- Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
PS: Here's a 83-page document that describes Chattanooga EPB's smart grid system, including its smart meters. https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub74732.pdf
On PDF page 19, it talks about how meters for premises that take FTTP services are connected by fiber and meters for other premises are connected wirelessly.
##########################################################################
05-02-18 UAC video:
http://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-2-2-2-2-2-2/
17:50:
Chair Danaher: So, on to new business. The first one has to do with the advanced metering infrastructure. Jeff, did you want to comment at this time? Is that on?
18:09:
Jeff Hoel: (unamplified) It is NOT on.
18:11:
Chair Danaher: Ah, here comes the -- the ...
18:13:
Jeff Hoel: (unamplified) OK. So, ...
18:14:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:00 AM
2
Chair Danaher: Wait a second here. Wait a second.
### Since the public's microphone wasn't working, I got to use a staff microphone.
18:30:
Chair Danaher: Thank you, Shiva.
18:32:
Jeff Hoel: (unamplified) OK.
18:34:
Dean Batchelor: So, Jeff -- Just put it --
### Shiva turns on the microphone.
Now you're good.
Jeff Hoel: OK. Um. I guess I won't say too much about this. I sent you all a message with lots of little comments in
it. Overall, I thought it was kind of not enough time for the public and for UAC to thoroughly understand the document before voting on it. But more recently, I've heard that apparently you're NOT going to vote on it today. You're going to
send it back to staff and reconsider it another time. So, that's good.
The biggest thing, I thought, was -- this latest version says AMI breaks even in 18 years. And last November, the staff said, it loses $17.3 million over the same time. And the difference is whether or not you count what residents save by
conserving. And my feeling is that the November way of doing it is the correct way. And it loses $7 million. And Commissioner Trumbull thought that was a bad deal. And if he were here, he might still say it's a bad deal.
Another point about the pilot. The time-of-use (TOU) rate that people get now gives the discounts at night, when EV
users usually want to have it, for charging their cars. But, in the future, I think we're all thinking about the possibility that solar will be a very important source of energy, and the TOU discounts ought to be in the daytime, when the sun is
shining. And the question is, what would EV owners say about that? They probably aren't all going to become night watchmen.
Finally, it came as a surprise to me that the water and gas meters are going to need batteries that can't be replaced, and
so you have to replace the whole unit. That's going to be a cost over time. It's going to be a nuisance over time. People are going to be disconnected from the system when their batteries go out. And so, the question is, how do you know that
that's happened, and can fix it quickly? There was talk that the number of samples such a meter would provide per day would be small, like two per day, rather than once an hour or once every 15 minutes. And part of the question with that is,
is that going to be enough information to persuade anybody to conserve? You know, how much better is that than once a month?
Another question I have is, what does the meter do that consumes power? For example, if it calculates 256-bit
encryption, does that waste a lot of power? And, if so, would you be tempted not to encrypt that? Which you shouldn't be tempted to do.
So, I think that's all I'll mention for now. Thank you very much.
21:54:
Chair Danaher: All right. Thank you, Jeff. Commissioners, Judith and I spoke with Dean and Jonathan and Ed on
Monday, in preparation for this. And we agreed -- subject to objections from here -- that this is such a meaty subject and such a big report that we'd have an introductory discussion of it today, and have more time in another session, giving --
allowing us more time in the meantime to study this.
And the other point that came out is -- and this goes back to the joint session we had with the Council, where we talked about, can we do a better job of communicating thoughts to the Council on this. And perhaps not out of today's
discussion, but when we are finished with recommendations on AMI, that may a point where we want to do a memo from
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:00 AM
3
the UAC, or some format where we can put forward thoughts in a more organized fashion. But I just wanted to leave you
with that thought.
Dean and Jonathan and Shiva, are you going to -- Who's presenting?
23:03:
Dean Batchelor: So, we'll go ahead and we'll start the discussion a little bit about this. So, just to relate from Chair Danaher. So, we made this decision that -- we thought that this report -- there's so much in the report portion of it that we
already set the date, softly, that we'll bring it back to you in August. So it will give you an opportunity to take a look at it, kind of understand it a little bit more -- to it. But tonight, we're going to do a short presentation on it. And Jonathan and
Shiva will be talking a little bit more about -- on the AMI system itself. And what's in this report. And we'll try to go through this somewhat quickly, and answer any of your questions at that point.
23:45:
Jonathan Abendschein: Jonathan Adbendschein, Assistant Director of Resource Management. Good evening,
commissioners. So, what you're seeing tonight in front of you -- we've agreed that it -- there's a lot of material here. And so we're going to take two meetings. But you may have the question of what -- ultimately, at that second meeting -- we're
going to be asking you to do. The recommendation is that we ask you to "accept" the report. And you may ask, what does that mean to us, if you do that. And I think the way that we're looking at this is -- this is an initial, high-level look at
the costs and benefits of AMI. And the -- maybe the ten-percent -- a high level and -- a high-level roadmap for the -- how we would actually implement, and do all the work leading up to the implementation. And so, your vote to "accept" this
report we would see as an early indication that we are heading in the right direction. With the understanding that there are multiple approvals -- budgets, contracts, policies, and procedures -- that are going to have to come back for Council
adoption over time. And this would -- this would -- so, this initial take would be steadily refined as we go through that process.
And so, I'll turn over to Shiva Swaminathan, to give you a quick overview.
25:24:
Shiva Swaminathan: Thank you, Jon. Commissioners, Council Member Filseth. So, this is a -- you have in front of you a
80-page report from our consultant, Utiliworks Consulting.
### The consultant's report (PDF pages 18-101 of the staff report) is 84 pages, if you count its final blank page.
They were here, if you recall, in November, giving an update to the commission at that time. They're not here today. But I'll try my best to answer any questions you may have on the report itself. But, more importantly, as part of our staff
report, we have a kind of -- synthesizing what the consultant's findings was, and what does it mean to us -- how do we want to go forward with. So, that's kind of the layout. As Jonathan said, we -- this is the first time you're seeing a thick
report. And we're glad that you all have -- would like to take more time to take a look at it. So, I'll cover it very quickly. In ten minutes, I'll just highlight the different areas. And then we'll open it up for questions, and see how far we go. OK?
26:24:
So, this -- to do this report and this assessment, there is a cross-section of people involved. Dave Yen, from -- people
from Engineering. Operations. It's a cross-section. IT. Jonathan Reichental from -- our CIO -- was part of this exercise. And how we're coordinating this work with other areas of technology for the Utilities.
So, I just want to touch upon -- So, this -- the technology plan -- recognizes that there are three major elements of
technology the project we're going to undertake in the next five years. The Customer Information System and billing system, the Enterprise Resource Planning system -- both are by SAP currently, but we are right in the midst of
interviewing our finalists, to who the vendor is likely to be. And that will take two to three years to implement that. The customer billing system.
So, AMI -- the third piece is the AMI. And so, we -- the plan kind of lays out, how does that mesh with the other
technology projects. Now, these are the top three. There are twenty others, which -- whether it's OMS or SCADA update or MUA upgrades -- which we don't talk at length in this report. But those are other projects ongoing. But when this three
projects get started in earnest, some of the other projects might have to be put on hold, or no new projects would come
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:00 AM
4
on, until these are completed. So, that's kind of the backdrop of ** plan through 2022-2023 timeline. And you see the
timelines in your report. So, that's the backdrop.
28:07:
And so, getting into the AMI discussion, the report kind of breaks it into nine different components, as you -- it's up there. Let me spend half a minute on each topic, just at a high level, which -- already it's part of the report. As we see,
the investment costs. The equipment and vendor costs, for installing and mana- -- and integrating the system is about $16.5 million. We have estimated additional staffing-related costs. Typically, on capital improvement projects, we
allocate existing staff to the projects, to capitalize them. We're estimating about $1 [million] to $2 million on that. So, the combined CIP we have in our budgets, which you will be examining for budget projection purposes and CIP projection
purposes, about $19 million. Broken, about $10 million for electric, $5 million for water, and about $3.5 million for gas. So, a total capital of $19 million. What that -- The component of that -- you have it in your report. Effectively, the
electric meter itself will be replaced. But the gas and water meter would not be replaced. Only the radios will go -- which go on it. And, as Jeff was mentioning, yes, the water and gas radios have a battery in them. And so, when the battery
runs out, you take out the radio and buy a new one. But the meter itself -- the meter body -- the metal -- will be there. That won't be replaced. So that's the $19 million. That's kind of -- the report talks about -- And the sources of
funds. As you all know, the Council and ...
29:44:
Chair Danaher: So, that works out to approximately $7 per residence -- $700 per residence? And an overall budget -- in that neighbor- -- ballpark?
29:52:
Shiva Swaminathan: Per resident?
29:53:
Chair Danaher: Per residence? We have like 26, 000 residences in ...
### Don't forget business customers.
29:58:
Shiva Swaminathan: Correct. So, $19 million divided by 26 [thousand] -- $700.
30:04:
Chair Danaher: Yeah.
30:04:
Shiva Swaminathan: Sounds about right. But it includes and gas as well.
30:07:
Chair Danaher: Yeah. OK.
30:09:
Shiva Swaminathan: So, it typically is done by number of meters. Average. So, these are like 7,200 meters we're talking
about. 72,000 meters.
### Yes. The staff report says (PDF page 43) there are 30,076 electric meters, 20,581 water meters, and 24,002 gas meters, for a total of 74,659 meters. I don't know whether this includes only the meters that will be replaced under this
smart meter program.
So that's -- $19 million -- that's about $300 a meter. Kind of. Count. Good. That's a good way to look at it.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:00 AM
5
### If anyone is interested, using the per-utility numbers cited above (28:07), it's about $10 million / 30,076 electric meters = $332.49 per electric meter, $5 million / 20,581 water meters = $242.94 per water meter, and $3.5 million /
24,002 gas meters = $145.82 per gas meter. Keep in mind that the staff report suggests various ways of allocating the networking cost among the utilities.
And, in terms of funding, we are proposing using the Electric Special Projects reserve, which was identified -- this is a
large, $50 million reserve we have -- allocated for special projects. Currently kind of tentatively identified for smart grid as well as the second transmission line project. So that would be a source of funds for the electric portion of the $19
million. And for the water and gas, it would be funded through ongoing -- We either capitalize it -- or, finance it. And finance it over a 20-year term -- or 10-year term, depending on how we want to do it. So, that will be from the general
electric -- and gas and water fund itself. So, those are the two sources of funds.
In terms of benefits and cost drivers, the major benefit drivers are -- so, we are looking -- when you look at this, we are looking at the cost and benefits separately. Benefits are driven primarily by reduction in meter reading costs. And
increased conservation related. So if we can save more, we buy less commodity from outside. So, less electricity purchases, less gas purchases, less water purchases. So those are the primary two benefits. And, in terms of -
- Financial benefits. So, we looked at financial benefits. We didn't look into areas where they were hard to quantify. Non-financially-quantifiable benefits. Like improved reliability, better customer experience, stuff like that. We
did not quantify it. But we -- the thought was, if this kind of made sense without it, with, it'll make better sense of it.
32:16:
As one of -- Jeff was mentioning, when we provided the update to you in November, the cost / benefit was assessed on a net present value basis. So, over the life of the project, what is the discounted cash flow of investment versus
revenues. And we thought it was a $7 million negative NPV over 18 years. So we looked at some of the numbers, and some of the -- two things changed. And, two -- The thought was, we'd have greater synergies in staffing, we might be
able to accomplish, compared to what the initial thought was. And the other one was, we -- there was greater confidence that we can utilize these devices for greater conservation. So, those two changes in assumption has now made it -- on an
expected basis -- break-even. But the results also talk about that -- sensitivity of the results -- that if those synergies don't materialize, then, yes, we will be negative. Maybe even up -- over an 18-year life of the project. So, that's -- we did the --
some sensitivities. And it's in the report.
33:31:
Now, assuming that the community wants to go ahead with this, and it's approved, there are a number of things we need to do before we launch a -- launch the installation. We have to look at our policies and procedures. For example, what do
we -- what additional risks does this new technology impose on our operations? What if there's a cyber attack, and we are unable to read it remotely? So, there are a number of policies and procedures, which have been identified in the
report -- the report, and summarized -- which we'll have to look at. There is a -- It's a citywide project. Staffing resources -- we'd have to look that organizational. It touches on the operations of the entire organization. And then, on -- in terms of
community input. So, this is formal way to pro- -- receive community input on this. And during the strategic planning process, there were a lot of community input on wanting to move ahead with technology-based systems, including
AMI. And this is an integral part of the Utility Strategic Plan, which identifies technology as a priority.
### For whatever reason, the Strategic Plan chose not to include FTTP within its scope.
34:44:
Moving on to item number six.
### That is, it's the sixth item within the first presentation slide for Agenda Item IX.1.
So, change management and communication is a key part of this project.
### "Communication" in this sense is how CPAU talks with customers -- not, for example, how meters talk with concentrators.
There are -- There will be -- For example, meter-reading staff will be impacted by this. So, there is a transition plan
being discussed and worked on. And, as it will change the work function of many of the utilities staff, there is a lot of
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:00 AM
6
concerted effort needs to go into organizational and change management ideas. And then, we'll have to select the
technology, which is kind of, in a sense -- many sense -- the easy part. The technology is mature. We are not ahead. We are kind of on the back end of things. So, on number seven, it's the more -- relatively easy part. And then,
implementation / operational risk management. So, we've identified -- what -- 35 risks, which we exposed -- it's in the report -- about five of them were identified -- called out. Some of the top five were making sure that we have sufficient
resources, given that we're doing CIS, AMI, and ERP all at the same time, that there are no staff "brown-out." Or, that there's sufficient staff, resources allocated. Insuring that the integration -- we have different -- we have the CIS system
talking to like ten other systems, whether it's OMS or our engineering drawing systems. Making all those pieces are integrated well. So there are -- it's in the report, what all that risk factors are.
36:21:
And then -- So, what's -- And then, bottom-line impact of this investment on the customer's utility bill and rates. So, we
looked at -- You have in your report, on a $19 million investment and allocation, across -- It's a winner, across the full utility. But then, we also looked at -- on an individual utility basis. OK? How do we allocate that $19 million to each
utility? What is the value? So, that's all at the back of the model. And so -- And on each utility, it is still a -- MPV-positive. And the overall impact on the residential customer -- on a bill basis -- is neutral.
### That is, rates are higher, per kWh, CCF, and therm. But customers are, in theory, empowered to conserve more.
So, that's the scenario. And there are sensitivities around it. In the worst-case scenario we've looked at -- it may be a
0.35 to 0.7 percent impact on bill if some of the costs are incurred, but the benefits are -- do not materialize as projected.
37:29:
So, that's kind of a quick summary of the report. In terms of next steps, So, we -- This is a start-up conversation. How the commission wants to continue this conversation, it's up to -- you ought to decide. But the tentative thought, as Dean
outlined, is, in the August timeline, we'll come back again, for further discussion. Formal. And then, we -- as Jonathan outlined -- we want -- And the reason we're having the discussion today is -- along -- because we're doing it along with
the rest of the budget. Some of these capital investments have already been budgeted into the CIP budgets, which you will be considering tonight. And so, we'll go -- After the UAC approval,
### Assuming UAC approves.
in September, we'll go to Council. And then we'll take a -- once the CIS and ERP implementation timelines are finalized,
by the end of the year -- and middle of next year -- it's expected to BEGIN implementation by summer of next year -- at that point, we can -- we'll have a little bit more certainty of how we want to position our implementation timeline with
respect to them. So, it will be fall before we finalize these plans. And we'll keep the commission informed as we go along.
So, that's all I have at this stage. Questions?
38:58:
Chair Danaher: (unamplified) Thank you very much. I'd love to hear questions and discussion **.
39:07:
Commissioner Schwartz: (unamplified) I've got a **
39:11:
Commissioner Johnston: So, I appreciate the fact that you -- you know, you've looked carefully at the risks that you see here. And I guess I had two questions along those lines. One is, you do a sensitivity analysis about the net present
value. And I see that in Table 5 on page 10. But I'm not quite sure where, from that, you come to the conclusion that the most likely net present value is basically zero.
39:43:
Shiva Swaminathan: Right. So, it was -- So, we made certain assumptions to begin with, not making any sensitivities
around it. So, we looked at industry literature about how much do you think there will be conservation with customer
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:00 AM
7
interface with AMI. So, we don't -- So -- And so, we looked at that literature and came up with assumptions. And the
assumptions were, about two percent incremental conservation, as a result -- Depends on the rate -- on the type of customer. Electric or gas utility, there are different numbers we have outlined in your report. So, we made that
assumption, number one, broad -- a driver for the value. The second -- So we made some assumptions, and then came up with a value. And then we changed the assumptions from that value, and came up with MPV. So it was -- Does it
answer your question? So, we ...
40:39:
Commissioner Johnston: Well, I guess what I'm saying is -- Is there any kind of more detailed analysis of how you got to the, basically, zero net present value? Other than the table on page 5, which basically says, well, here's what happens -
- Here's the cost if we don't achieve this savings, and here's the cost if we don't achieve that savings.
### Table 2 is on PDF page 7 of the staff report. I think Commissioner Johnston is asking for an explanation of why the conservation numbers hoped for in Table 2 are plausible. Shiva says (39:43) staff looked at "industry literature," but the
staff report doesn't cite anything specific. How do we know that the "industry literature" is talking about places like Palo Alto?
### On PDF page 80, the staff report says, "Palo Alto residents have taken great strides in water conservation. With
annual savings goals of .91% since 2013, Palo Alto has achieved savings of 1.54% and 1.96% in 2015 and 2016, respectively." Yes, but those strides were not guided by AMI, and shouldn't be counted among AMI's projected benefits.
### In the future, how will we know how much conservation by customers was inspired or motivated or enabled by AMI
and how much was inspired or motivated or enabled by something else? It would be inappropriate to count the latter as an AMI benefit.
41:05:
Siva Swaminathan: Right.
41:07:
Commissioner Johnston: But I don't see an assessment of the likelihood of -- the risk of not achieving each of these ...
41:16:
Shiva Swaminathan: Yes. So, you are right, commissioner. We don't have a probability. But how we derived those
numbers is based on Table 2 and 3. Table -- So, in terms of costs and values, there are -- We know with relative certainty the capital cost. So, we didn't change that around. We have -- Because it's nothing new. People have done
it. We had a good consultant who is doing it. Hopefully, if we get it done within the next five years, that's a relatively good number. What -- The greatest uncertainty that we have -- and it's a large uncertainty -- is the ongoing operation and
maintenance cost, and value we can harvest out of those systems. That's a big uncertainty. And we've laid out in Table 2, for example -- Here is a benefits projections. And the assumptions behind it. And -- So, this contributes towards that
MPV. If you lower these numbers by -- we made those assumptions -- hey, what if it -- these numbers of value of conservation is reduced by half, what would the MPV be? That's what you see. So, the -- it is the input which is modified,
and the output is what you see in that summary table. Does that answer your question?
42:52:
Commisioner Johnston: That's helpful. I guess I'm still -- would like to kind of see how the numbers play out. But -- So, just another question about the risks. In the report, there's a table. And it's categorized into kind of red, yellow, and
green, ...
43:13:
Shiva Swaminathan: Um hum.
43:13:
Commissioner Johnston: ... depending on the level of danger from the risks. One of the risks that you report as being a
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:00 AM
8
serious one -- and I agree -- is the risk that the systems won't talk well to each other.
43:31:
Shiva Swaminathan: Um hum.
43:31:
Commissioner Johnston: And I guess my question is, do we not -- is there not experience from other cities that have put
AMI into place that we can look to, to kind of minimize the risk that these systems won't interact the way we hope they will.
43:52:
Shiva Swaminathan: Right. So, yes. As -- There are many systems out there. So, there is -- So, that's probably a -- probably was identified as a low risk. That's why it didn't rise to the top five. But I think, in the CIS -- there's two. So,
AMI, that's less of a risk. For CIS -- because CIS talks to ten other systems, whereas AMI talks to a couple of systems, the CIS -- a couple of systems. They don't necessarily talk to all of the systems. So, I don't believe that rose to the top. It
was identified, probably, as one of the -- I think there is a risk of INTEGRATING with other systems. Integration risk. Not -- That we do a good job of integration. Not that it wouldn't happen. But, do it within budget, as planned. And within
expectations. Does that ...
44:56:
Jonathan Abendschein: One of the key ways of controlling that risk is going to be to hire an excellent implementer who's done this before, and worked with other utilities that have our -- you know, our sort of profile. And so, we're talking to -
- you know, we're looking at a few different avenues to make that work.
45:12:
Dean Batchelor: Yup.
45:13:
Commissioner Johnston: I mean, I appreciate the fact that other utilities may not have the same configuration of software and so on that we are hoping to have at the end of this project. But it -- given the importance of making sure that these
systems all do function well together, obviously, the more information we can get from others who have these systems in place, the lower the risk is. And I just think that's really important.
45:45:
Shiva Swaminathan: Thank you. Just to add on to what Jon was saying, part of this $19 million is a $1 million contract
with expert project managers who have done this multiple times, and continue to do it, day in and day out, as we speak. So, that's where we bring in the expertise. Who not only understand the industry but also understand US. So,
that's where most of that expertise is going to come from.
46:11:
Commissioner Johnston: And the -- these are consultants who are familiar with the CIS system that we have, and the ERP system that we have.
46:18:
**: (unamplified) Or will have.
46:18:
Commissioner Johnston: Or will have. Right. Thank you.
46:26:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:00 AM
9
Chair Danaher: (unamplified) **
46:28:
Commissioner Segal: Well, I just wanted to follow up on that with -- the consultant -- that $1 million contract -- that's just
for the AMI piece? Or is that also integration of CIS or the ERP piece at all?
46:41:
Shiva Swaminathan: So, the $19 million -- what we talked about -- is only for AMI. But it -- But AMI as it relates to integrating with the CIS. So it includes the CIS integration piece. Now the CIS project itself is different. That doesn't
have the budget to, say, integrate with the new AMI. That doesn't have that budget. This one has that budget -- to integrate with the CIS system. Because CIS system will be going first. And this AMI -- When this AMI project comes, the
cost of integration with the CIS is within the AMI budget.
47:18:
Commissioner Segal: (unamplified) **
47:24:
Commissioner Segal: Sorry. The implementation of the CIS piece will impact the ease of integrating AMI with CIS. So, presumably, some of the CIS implementation has to be anticipating ...
47:38:
Shiva Swaminathan: Yes.
47:38:
Commissioner Segal: .. the AMI system, right?
47:20:
Shiva Swaminathan: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. So, as we speak -- Yes. In fact, the consultant who is helping us with the
CIS and AM- -- ERP system has many -- several subcontractors helping us. So, one of the subcontracts -- they are employing AMI to understand the AMI integration piece -- is the same consultant as -- who kind of is part of this effort. So,
yes. So, there are tentacles across all these -- not betw- -- there is no direct connection or integration between AMI and ERP. Only between AMI and CIS. So, this cost and expertise we'll have to acquire -- to integrate CIS with AMI.
### A continuous noise appears in the background.
48:39:
Commissioner Ballantine: Um. Is it diesel-run Wednesday?
46:45:
Dean Batchelor: (unamplified) I think so.
48:46:
Commissioner Ballantine: I think so, too. Which relates to my question. It would be neat if you could humor me and add
a risk called -- if the elements of the infrastructure to support the excellent telemetry that you would create didn't have backup systems all the way through -- like the diesel that we're running right now -- then, in the event of a large
earthquake or other significant catastrophe that the Utility's trying to recover from, you might lose your entire telemetry network, and not be able to see all the meters, which would tell you exactly where the problems are, even though I know
it's not as good as having the telemetry to the transformers, that we have to deal with up at the distribution level. But if you had, you know, all these nodes, and if those are going to little data collection boxes per neighborhood, and those
have no backup power, and went out the moment the utility went out, that would be a disappointing result, I think, for the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:00 AM
10
whole project.
49:50:
Shiva Swaminathan: Correct. So, these -- they are called the collectors -- all of the collectors have backup batteries, ...
49:54:
Commissioner Ballantine: Right. But you probably want to assess, like, how long. And that needs to tie up with Utility
goals of how long outages would be, and things like that. Because I think the numbers we talk about for recovery from an earthquake are significantly longer than you're going to get from batteries. Just -- as a risk.
50:15:
Shiva Swaminathan: OK.
50:17:
Commissioner Ballantine: Thanks.
50:17:
**: (unamplified) ** talk about the **
50:20:
Jonathan Abendschein: I mean, one of the -- one of the feat- -- I mean, one of the features of the battery -- one of the
intentions of the battery is to pass on that last gasp of information from all of the node -- all of the meters out of the nodes. And so, as lon- -- If you have -- I'm sorry. From all of the meters. So that you get at least a snapshot of what the
system looked like when the earthquake hit. And then, part of the disaster recovery process is getting the collectors back up and running, and getting real time telemetry back up.
### I'm not sure it should be called a "last gasp" if it's designed to be operable for a significant time, e.g., days. But is
Jonathan saying that after a disaster event, the system would want to initiate a special sampling of all the meters as soon as possible, rather than just waiting until the "normal" time for getting the next updates? This might be a good idea, but it
would take a lot more bandwidth. So, is the network designed to provide all that bandwidth?
50:52:
Commissioner Ballantine: I could imagine being, though, kind of a little bit like, you know, the cascaded design that has to go into circuit breakers. Because if your main hub receiving the data doesn't stay up to get that blast of data, then you
lost it.
51:06:
Jonathan Abendschein: (unamplified) Right.
51:07:
Commissioner Ballantine: So, when I think of the little pieces of what goes into that risk design, I can think of a lot of -- It's not trivial.
51:17:
Shiva Swaminathan: Yeah. I'm not actually really understanding that. But we can have an offline conversation on that.
51:22:
Commissioner Ballantine: OK.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Edith Eddy <eeddy@me.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 09, 2018 6:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:transfer of 0.5 MGD water allocation to East Palo Alto
Thank you for taking this important and timely action.
Sincerely,
Edith Eddy
2579 Cowper Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/16/2018 7:37 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sea <paloaltolife@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 15, 2018 1:32 PM
To:Council, City; gsheyner@paweekly.com; wsj.ltrs@wsj.com; nytdirect@nytimes.com;
letters@paweekly.com; breakingnews@kron4.com; mdianda@dailynewsgroup.com;
mpodoll@dailynewsgroup.com
Subject:Tweet by Sea reDDy on Twitter
Sea reDDy (@SealamReddy)
5/15/18, 12:58
Palo Alto council OKs faith based Baptist Church to continue to operate with conditions. How sweet it is to
be part of community that believes Faith is important regardless what you are; Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Jain, Buddhist, atheist, other #PaloAlto #Faithful pic.twitter.com/weLb9z0vBK
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/14/2018 9:01 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cameron <cammocam2252@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 10, 2018 3:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Walking tunnel on University street towards bus station
I’m a daily commuter that works in downtown Palo Alto. The past year I have almost to very close by being hit with
people riding bikes inside the tunnel, them knowing that everyone has to dismantle bikes before entering the tunnel. I
today was so close and I told the bike riders that they can’t ride bikes inside the tunnel, but the cursed me out and kept
riding. I’m a grown adult and could get hurt by getting hit by a riding bike. But what if it’s a child or someone small. They
could get really hurt or maybe worse. I just wanted to let someone know about this. Hopefully maybe the city could
provide cameras so the people riding the bike is aware of the rules for citation. Email me back if needed. Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone
••
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Finance Committee
May 15, 2018
City of Palo Alto ,
MEMORANDUM
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING #4
5/15/2018
[X) Placed Before Meeting
[ I Received at Meeting
CMR ID# 9213: June 30, 2017 Actuarial Valuation of Palo Alto's Retiree
Healthcare Plan and Annual Actuarially Determined Contributions (ADC) for
Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020
Below is Table 3 with updated Fiscal Years:
TABLE 3: Actuarial Unfunded Accrued Liability
Citywide
Funded Ratio
General Fund
As of
June 30, 2015
$156,217
33%
$100,408
% Change from Prior Year Citywide
Attached you will find Attachment A which was
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER:
Attachment:
As of
June 30, 2017
153,509
37%
-2%
Projected as of
June 30, 2018
$143,926
44%
$94,127
-6%
Attachment A: June 30, 2017 Actuarial Valuation Contributions for 2018/19 & 2019/20
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
g I RTE L RETIREE HEALTHCARE PLAN
/l))l)CIJ\Tl). LLC -----------
June 30, 2017 Actuarial Valuation
Contributions for 2018/19 & 2019/20
Prepared by Mary Beth Redding, Vice President & Actuary
Deanna Van Valer, Assistant Vice President & Actuary
Michelle Shen, Actuarial Analyst
Bartel Associates, LLC
April 27, 2018
Topic
Benefit Summary
Implied Subsidy
Participant Statistics
Contents
Actuarial Assumptions Highlights
Actuarial Methods
Assets
Results
Results -Details
Sensitivity Analysis
Actuarial Certification
Exhibits
~ 0 \Cbcnts\C1l) of Polo AllD\Proiccts\OPEB\2017 Vol\Rcports\BA PoloAltoC1 18-04-27 OPEB 6-30-17 Fmol Rcsults.doc:x
Page
1
7
9
15
19
21
23
35
44
47
49
BENEFIT SUMMARY
• Eligibility • Retire directly from the City under CalPERS (age 501 and 5 years
of CalPERS service or disability)
•Medical • CalPERS health plans (PEMHCA)
Provider • CalPERS administrative fees paid by City
• Retiree Medical •GROUP 1: Retired <l /l/07(3/1/09forPAPOA)
Benefit for • Benefit = Full premium up to family coverage
Current
Retirees: • GROUP 2: Retired after GROUP 1 and before
5/1111 (12/1111 IAFF/FCA, 6/1112 PMA, 4/1/15 POA)
Hired< 1/1104 • Benefit = Same as above but premium limited to 2nd most
(111/05 SEIU, expensive Basic (non-Medicare) medical plan in the Bay Area
1/1/06 PAPOA) Region (Blue Shield in 2017, Anthem BC Traditional in 2018)
& • GROUP 3: Retired after GROUP 2
Did Not Elect
• Benefit = same amount as active employees, which may change
from time to time and in the future as bargaining agreements
into Group 4 change (valuation assumes no future changes to active benefits)
1 Age 52 for Miscellaneous New Hires under PEPRA
~April27,2018
BENEFIT SUMMARY
• Retiree Medical • GROUP 3: Currently active and did npt elect into Group 4
Benefit for • UTLM: 90% of premium up to 90% of Group 2 cap
Current • Any Mgmt/Conf & SEIU not electing Group 4: limited to flat
Actives: dollar caps same as active contribution
Hired < 111 /04
(1 /1105 SEIU,
1/1/06 PAPOA)
&
Did Not Elect
into Group 4
Single
2-Party
Family
2016 2017 2018
$ 743 $ 773 $ 804
1,485 1,544 1,606
1,931 2,008 2,088
• An irrevocable election was held for active employees of POA,
PMA, IAFF, FCA, Mgmt/Conf & SEIU to opt into Group 42
• Elections held at time of ratification of bargaining agreement
• All active Group 3 POA, PMA, IAFF & FCA elected into Group
4
2 At the time of the prior valuation, IAFF & SEIU elections not yet held so all Group 3 members assumed to elect into Group
4, same as PAPOA and PMA. Current valuation reflects actual employee elections.
~April 27, 2018 2
BENEFIT SUMMARY
• Retiree Medical • GROUP 4: Government Code §22893 "Vesting Schedule" (based
Benefit for on all CalPERS Service )4:
those: Years of Service %
< 10 0%
Hired ~ 1/1/04 10 50%
(1/1/05 SEIU, ! !
1/1/06 P APOA) 2:. 20 100%
&
Employees
Hired Before
These Dates
Electing into
Group 43
• 100% vesting for disability retirements
• Vesting applies to 100/90 formula amounts, which are the
maximum amounts payable by the City (retirees pay any difference
between these amounts and actual premiums):
2016 2017 2018
Single $ 705 $ 707 $ 725
2-Party 1,343 1,349 1,377
Family 1,727 1,727 1,766
• If have 20 years City service do not need to retire directly from
City
3 All currently active POA/PMA, IAFF/FCA are now Group 4. Some Mgmt/Conf and some SEIU remained in Group 3, and
some elected into Group 4.
4 Minimum S years City Service.
~April 27, 2018 3
BENEFIT SUMMARY
• Dental, Vision •None
& Medicare
PartB
• Surviving • 100% of retiree benefit continues to surviving spouse if retiree
Spouse Benefit elects CalPERS pension survivor allowance
• Waived Re-• Waived retirees/beneficiaries may re-elect coverage at a future
election date
• Summary of • Actual election for IAFF and SEIU Group 3 active members held.
Changes Since Prior assumption was all would move to Group 4. All IAFF did
the Prior move to Group 4, but some SEIU stayed in Group 3.
Valuation • New elections held for FCA and Mgmt/Conf Group 3 active
members to move into Group 4. All FCA moved to Group 4 but
some Mgmt/Conf stayed in Group 3.
~April 27, 2018 4
BENEFIT SUMMARY
• Pay-As-You-Fiscal Implied
Go ($000s) Year Cash Subsidy Total
2016/17 $ 9,713 $ 2,203 $ 11,916
2015/16 9,681 1,960 11,641
2014/15 8,995 1,916 10,911
2013/14 7,317 7,317
2012/13 8,766 8,766
2011 /12 8,165 -8,165
2010/11 6,216 6,216
2009/10 5,519 5,519
5
BENEFIT SUMMARY
. Monthly Benefit Cap Amounts
2017 2018
Group Single 2-~arty F3mily Single 2-Party
Group 15 $1,062.26 $2,124.52 $2,761.88 $1,371.84 $2,743.68
Group 2 1,024.85 2,049.70 2,664.61 925.47 1,850.94
Group 3 90/ I 0 922.37 1,844.73 2,398.15 832.92 1,665.85
Group 3 Flat Dollar 773.00 1,544.00 2,008.00 804.00 1,606.00
Group 46 707.00 1,349.00 1,377.00 725.00 1,377.00
% Decrease from Group 1 (assumes Group 1 is in most expensive plan)
Group2 4% 4% 4% 33%
Group 3 90/10 13% 13% 13% 39%
Group 3·Flat Dollar 27% 27% 27% 41%
Group4 33% 37% 50% 47%
5 No cap for Group 1. Amount shown is most expensive Non-Medicare Bay Area region premium.
6 Assuming 20 years of service/I 00% vesting.
~April27,201~ 6
33%
39%
41%
50%
Family
$3,566.78
2,406.22
2,165.60
2,088.00
1,766.00
33%
39%
41%
50%
IMPLIED SUBSIDY
• For PEMHCA, employer cost for allowing retirees to participate at active rates.
• Kaiser Bay Area plan:
Sl,600 ~-----------
Sl,400 +-----------
Sl,200 +----
Sl,000 1-------
SlOO
S· 2l JO Jl 40 4l lO ll 7l 10 RS
-.-Premium 780 780 780 710 710 710 780 316 316 316
4-Malc Cost b)· Age 2l7 210 336 420 l36 694 89l 3l7 383 311
..... Female Cost b) Age lOl WI 617 <.07 641 7l7 90S 320 340 339
• The City included the implied subsidy beginning with the June 30, 2013 valuation.
<I}4) April 27, 2018 7
IMPLIED SUBSIDY
This page intentionally blank
~April27,2018 8
PARTICIPANT ST A TISTICS
Particioant Statistics
6/30/097 6/30/11
•Actives
• Count 955 923
• Average Age 45.3 44.7
• Average City Service 11.2 10.8
• Average PERS Service 13.7
• Average Salary $103,602 $86,007
• Total Salary (OOO's) $98,940 $79,384
•Retirees:
• Count 710 860
• Average Age 67.2 67.0
• Average Retirement Age
o Service n/a 55.5 10
o Disability n/a n/a
7 From 1/1/09 Milliman report
8 Includes 68 waived retirees over 65.
9 Excludes all waived retirees over 65; includes 38 waived under 65 retirees.
10 All retirements included. Disability retirement data unreliable.
(ij4) April 27, 2018 9
6/30/13
948
45.2
10.8
11.7
$86,271
$81,785
968
68.2
57.8
45.3
PARTICIPANT ST A TISTICS
Historical Active and Retiree Counts11
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
6/30/09 6/30/11
•Active 955 923
• Retired 710 860
11 Retiree count is subscribers: retirees and surviving spouses
(ij4)April27,2018
6/30/13 6/30/15
948 955
968 1,007
10
6/30/15 6/30/17
955 967
45.3 45.6
10.8 10.9
11.9 11.9
$91,714 $90,739
$87,586 $87,745
1,0078 9599
68.9 68.9
57.7 57.7
45.6 45.9
6/30/17
967
959
•Actives
• Count
• Average Age
• Average Entry Age
• Average City Service
• Average PERS Service
• Average Salary
• Total Salary (OOO's)
• Retirees12:
• Count
• Average Age
• Avg Service Ret Age
• Avg Disability Ret Age
PARTICIPANT ST A TISTICS
Participant Statistics
June 30, 2017
Group 1 Group2 Group3
n/a n/a 133
n/a n/a 53.l
n/a n/a 32.8
n/a n/a 20.0
n/a n/a 20.3
n/a n/a $90,623
n/a n/a $12,053
500 302 117
74.5 64.6 60.3
57.6 57.8 58 .2
45.6 46.4 49.1
Group 4
834
44.4
33.9
9.4
10.6
$90,757
$75,692
40
57.1
56.9
44.3
12 Includes 38 retirees who have waived coverage and are under age 65. Excludes waived retirees over age 65.
®01 ':/-April 27, 2018 11
•Actives
• Count
• Average Age
• Average Entry Age
• Average City Service
• Average PERS Service
• Average Salary
• Total Salary (OOO's)14
• Retirees 15:
• Count
• Average Age
. • Avg Service Ret Age
• Avg Disability Ret Age
PARTICIPANT STATISTICS
Participant Statistics
June 30, 2015
Group 1 Group 2 Group3
n/a n/a 107
n/a n/a 52.0
n/a n/a 32.6
n/a n/a 19.4
n/a n/a 20.2
n/a n/a $129,385
n/a n/a $ 13,844
598 307 92
73.8 63.0 57.5
57.8 58.0 56.6
45.4 46.7 44.9
Group 413
848
44.5
34.8
9.7
10.9
$ 86,960
$ 73,742
10
62.3
60.0
50.0
Total
967
45.6
33.7
10.9
11.9
$90,739
$87,745
959
68.9
57.7
45.9
Total
955
45.3
34.5
10.8
11.9
. $ 91 ,714
$ 87,586
1,007
68.9
57.7
45.6
13 Includes Group 3 PAPOA & PMA (elected Group 4 benefits) and Group 3 IAFF & SEIU (assumed to elect Group 4).
14 Actual 2014115 pay paid for those hired < 7/1/14. New hire pay is annualized.
IS Includes retirees who have waived coverage, regardless of age.
~April27,2018 12
11
PARTICIPANT STATISTICS I , I
Data Reconciliation
6/30/2015 to 6/30/2017
Actives Retirees Disabled Benefic. Total
• June 30, 2015 955 728 180 99 1,962
• New Hires/Rehires 176 176
• Disabled (6) 6
• Terminated16 (105) (105)
• Died with Benefic.17 (1) (7) (1) 9
• Died, no Beneficiary (29) (6) (6) (41)
• Retired (52) 52
• Waived Ret. over 65 (26) (12) (30) (68)
• Retired ~ Disabled (3) 3
• Adjustment/Other _1 _1 __ 2
• June 30, 2017 967 716 171 72 1,926
16 All actives in June 30, 2015 valuation and not in June 30, 2017 valuation assumed terminated.
17 Retirees in the June 30, 2015 valuation not in the June 30, 2017 valuation assumed deceased.
~April27,2018 13
11
PARTICIPANT ST A TISTICS
11 I
Medical Plan Partici(!ation -June 302 2017
R,etirees 18
Medical Plan19 Actives <65 ;::: 65 Total
'l'tfiscellaneous/Safetv M s M s·-M s M s
Anthem Select 7% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Anthem Traditional 14% 4% 12% 12% 12% 6% 13%
Anthem EPO 1% [% 0% 0% -... Blue Shield 4% 2% 14% 14% 1% 8% 7% ·~12%
Health Net SmartCare 2% -~
Kaiser 56% 44% 26% 26% 35% 23% 31% 26%
PERS Choice 13% 1% 29% 29% 22% 1% 26% 20%
PERS Select 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% --
PERS Care 2% l'Yo 7% 7% 13% 3% 10% -6_%
PO RAC 0% 42% 1% 1_% 1% 49% 1% 16%_
UnitedHealthcare 1% 3% 7% 7% 28% 4% 18% 6%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
18 Under 65 only includes employees who retired on or after June 30, 2008; over 65 only includes retirees up to age 72.
19 All Blue Shield pre-Medicare retirees are assumed to switch to UnitedHealthcare when they reach Medicare age (there is no
Medicare Blue Shield plan offered).
~April27,2018 14
ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS HIGHLIGHTS
June 30, 2015 Valuation
• Valuation Date • June 30, 2015
• GASB 45 ARC for Fiscal Year
2016/17. ADC20 for Fiscal
Year2017/18.
(end of year)
• 1 year lag
• Funding Policy • Full Pre-funding through
CalPERS trust (CERBT) asset
allocation # 1
• Discount Rate • 7 .25%, net of expenses based
on CERBT Fund 1
• Payroll • Aggregate Increases -3.25%
·Increases • Merit Increases -CalPERS
1997-~011 Experience Study
20 Actuarially Determined Contribution
~April 27, 2018 15
June 30, 2017 Valuation
• June 30, 2017
• ADC for Fiscal Years
2018/19 & 2019/20.
(end of year) ·
• 1 year lag
• Same
• 6. 75%, net of expenses based ·
on CERBT Fund 1
• Aggregate Increases -3.00%
• Merit Increases -CalPERS
1997-2015 Experience Study
ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS HIGHLIGHTS
June 30, 2015 Valuation J une 30, 2017 Valuation
• Medical Trend Increase from Prior Year Increase from Prior Year
Year Non-Medicare Medicare Year Non-Medicare Medicare
2017-18 Actual Premiums 2015 Premiums
2016 Premiums 2019 7.50% 6.50%
2017 7.0% 7.2% 2020 7.50% 6.50%
2018 6.5% 6.7% 2021 7.25% 6.30%
2019 6.0% 6.1% 2022 7.00% 6.10%
2020 5.5% 5.6% 2023 6.75% 5.90%
2021+ 5.0% 5.0% 2024 6.50% 5.70%
2025 6.25% 5.50%
2026 6.00% 5.30%
2027 5.80% 5.15%
2028 5.60% 5.00%
2029 5.40% 4.85%
2030 5.20% 4.70%
2031-35 5.05% 4.60%
2036-45 4.90% 4.50%
2046-55 4.75% 4.45%
2056-65 4.60% 4.40%
2066-75 4.30% 4.20%
2076+ 4.00% 4.00%
~April 27, 2018 16
COWfJ IL J)HJING ,~'J. ) lS .
( ] p~ Before Me_enng
[~eceived at Meeung
Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency
.8uµ;);)W le p;)A!;));)~ [ ] I .8uµ;);)W ;)Jopg p;))etd [ ]
Niil:IH 1I::>Nno::>
Statement from Tom Francis, Water Resources Manager, About Proposed Action by the
City Council of Palo Alto to Transfer Half a Million Gallons of Water Per Day (MGD) to
the City of East Palo Alto for sustainable growth
May 7, 2018
BAWSCA is here tonight to voice our support for the recommended action, which when
combined with the previous action in 2017 by the City of Mountain View, would provide the
water necessary for East Palo Alto to move forward with its sustainable growth plans
envisioned in their General Plan to benefit its residents,
The Cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto are among BAWSCA's 26-member agencies, in
Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, Palo Alto's proposed transfer of water to
East Palo Alto demonstrates one of the major reasons why the California Legislature
established BAWSCA in 2002 -to provide an intergovernmental structure for "coordinated
planning and implementation of strategies for water supply, water conversation" and other vital
water needs, Approving this transfer illustrates that the legislative authority is working very
we IL
If approved, the transfer will serve as an example of a constructive, responsible and negotiated
inter-city action, The City of East Palo receives a voluntary solution to its urgent water needs
from a neighboring city who had excess water available within its Individual Supply
Guarantees (ISG) from San Francisco, the owner and operator of the San Francisco Regional
(Hetch Hetchy) Water System.
The recommended water transfer is made possible by the Water Supply Agreement (WSA),
which BAWSCA negotiated for its member agencies in 2009 with San Francisco. During the
discussions between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, BAWSCA provided independent counsel
and guidance with respect to contractual provisions in the Water Supply Agreement and water
supply issues.
Approval of the recommended transfer tonight, combined with the 1.0 MGD transfer by the City
of Mountain View in 2017, would enable East Palo Alto to consider approval of: a new Primary
School that would serve 500 local students, development of approximately 125 affordable
housing units at a city-owned site, and additional commercial development that would create
local jobs for City residents. This would get the East Palo Alto jobs-housing ratio closer to a
sustainable and balanced 1-1 ratio. Currently, East Palo Alto has 0.2 jobs per employed
resident, while surrounding cities have two and three jobs per employed resident. This
additional water supply would enable the City to meet the goals of its General Plan.
The transfer of this water between the City of Palo Alto and the City of East Palo would not
involve any cost to either party. This water agreement between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto
can bring both cities multiple mutual benefits, including coordinating their efforts to protect their
underground aquifers, increasing the region's production of affordable housing, strengthening
the local economy and workforce, and expanding their collaboration to address regional issues
such as traffic and multiple infrastructure projects spanning the two cities.
###
155 Bove! Road, Suite 650, • San Mateo, CA 94402 • ph 650 349 3000 • fx 650349 8395 • www.bawsca.org
POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE -TENTATIVE AGENDA
5/8/2018
UESDAY, March 21, 2018 POLICY AND SERVICES COMM. ME · ] Placed Before Meeting
[\["Received at Meeting
1. Recommendation That Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept
the Status Updates of the Audits for the Citywide Cash Handling and Travel Expense, Audit
of Cable Franchise and Public, Education and Government (PEG) Fees and the Continuous
Monitoring: Payments Audit
!CANCELLED -TUESDAY, April 10, 2018 POLICY AND SERVICES COMM. MEETING!
1. Update on ThinkFund Programming (formerly Bryant Street Garage Fund) (CSD) Move to
May 2018
2. City of Palo Alto's ~Aergy Risk MaAagemeRt Re~ort for tl:ie First aAel SecoAel Q1:1arters of
Fiscal Year 2Q18 (/\SD) Now going directly to Council
3. Disc1:1ssioA of tl:ie Boely Worn Cameras Policy (PD) Now goiAg elireetly to Co1:1Aeil Now going
directly to Council
!TUESDAY, May 8, 2018 POLICY AND SERVICES COMM. MEETINGj
1. Update on ThinkFund Programming (formerly Bryant Street Garage Fund) (CSD)
2. Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) -goals/criteria for a new NOFA.
3. Town Hall Community Meetings
!TUESDAY, June, 12 2018 POLICY AND SERVICES COMM. MEETING!
Public Works Green Purchasing-AUD
TBD
~UESDAY, August 14, 2018 POLICY AND SERVICES COMM. MEETINGj
TBD
If uESDAY, September 11, 2018 POLICY AND SERVICES COMM. MEETING!
TBD
lfuESDAY, October 9, 2018 PO L!ICY AND SERVICES COMM. MEETINGJ
TBD
If uESDAY, November 13, 2018 POLICY AND SERVICES COMM. MEETIN~
TBD
POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE -TENTATIVE AGENDA
lTUESDAY, December 11, 2018 POLICY AND SERVICES COMM. MEETINGj
TBD I•
To be scheduled and potential P&S agenda items
1. Council Referral -P&S to review revised language, options, and implications
associated with modifications to seismic compliance in the City's Municipal Code
2. Review economic analysis regarding the housing inclusionary program
3. Auditors Quarterly Report (AUD)
4. Audit status updates
5. Review and Acceptance of Fire Department Emergency Medical Services Future
Needs Assessment
6. City Policy and Procedures annual update
Informational Items
• ERP Replacement update
• Senior Programs update
• Fiber to the premises update
• Track Watch update
• Homeless Services including safe parking update
COUNCIL MEETING ~b-~nHBD @q\ \J)
Ofi&:ived Before ~eeting
· Received at Meetm
Deborah Fenton Shepherd
Applicant, Historic Resources Board
567 Hale Street
Palo Alto, Ca 94 301
347-834-1756
Debbie.f.shepherd@gmail.com
[ ] Pl~d efore Meeting
p{ Received at Meeting
I am a resident. of a Category 2 historic property in Palo Alto, and have a long
standing interest in and knowledge of American architecture and historic
preservation both as a homeowner and museum professional. I hope to represent
other property owners and Palo /\Ito residents as a member of the Historic
Resources Board.
Academic:
1991/92 audited courses in American architecture and historic preservation at
Columbia and Boston University
1981 Certificate in Museum Practice, Univ. of Michigan
1981 MA /\rt History, Univ. of Michigan (concentration American art)
1977 BJ\ Art History, Stanford University (coursework in American architecture)
Professional:
1978-199 l. Art museum administrator (assistant curator, assistant registrar,
exhibitions coordinator and corporate relations officer). Museums including
Stanford, Fine J\rts Museums of San Francisco, Detroit Institute of Arts, and National
Gallery of Art.
Community, volunteer and civic organizations:
2017-1 B Fellow, Leadership Palo Alto, Cham her of Commerce
2017-Present, Chair-F.lect, Membership Executive Council, Cantor/Anderson,
Stanford University
2012-1.7, Member, Membership Executive Council, Cantor/ Anderson, Stanford
University
1996-2001, Board member, Cow I lollow Association, San Francisco
(neighborhood organization seeking to represent homeowners in their property
rights while maintaining character of historic residential neighborhood)
Member SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research), PAST, Palo Alto
History Association, Palo J\lto History Museum, Stanford Historical Society, and
California Preservation Foundation
02
03
Jur1e
OReceived Before Meeting
fBReceived at Meetin
p •
. ~ :..u~XLJ4 E£FING ~ ffti:/t I B"
~ [J Plar Before M~eting
·;.1.f:l [ eceived at Meetmg
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 comm unity 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 fo r 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
others 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. [pause] My home that we bought six years
ago. Our major life1s investment [pause].
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.
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 is not the place where Democracy goes to die and cell towers
metastasize.
(···.,
. )
0
0
"
,
..
•
REMARKS TO THE PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
Rev. Randle (Rick) Mixon, PhD
Pastor, First Baptist Church Palo Alto
May 14, 2-18
cof'f?~ FTI~G
[ ] Placed Before Meeung
[ ~eived at Meeting
The First Baptist Church has served the city of Palo Alto for 125 years, 70 of those years
from the corner of North California and Bryant. Over the years, our footprint in the
neighborhood has waxed and waned. There have been times when there was less activity
and times when there was more activity than is currently the case (especially when the
church had 600 or 700 members). However, all those activities have consistently involved
not only worship and religious education, but also music, dancing, public education,
counseling, and community service. Everything that has been going on in our building
over the twelve years that I have been pastor fits well within the church's mission
statement-which includes not only worship but also education, service, and community
building. Our aim has been and continues to be, as the prophet Jeremiah encourages, "to
seek the welfare of the city."
The bottom line is that we just want to continue to function as the First Baptist Church of
Palo Alto as we always have. We are concerned that the efforts of the city to curtail our
activities comes dangerously close to violating our first amendment right to the free
exercise of religion. For this reason, we objected to the city's suggestion that we apply for
a CUP as a Community Center. We believe this process has been unnecessary, except that
the City Planning Department and City Manager insisted this was our only option. So, to
avoid heavy fines and ongoing conflict, we applied under protest.
We know that we are not here tonight to resolve the concern for an adequate code
definition for a religious institution operating in the city of Palo Alto in 2018, though we
continue to believe that needs to be addressed. We hope the CUP will function as a kind
of stop gap measure until the larger issue can be resolved.
That said, we want to be clear from the beginning that we want to be a good neighbor.
We have worked hard to address the legitimate concerns of some of our neighbors. These
are concerns, related to noise, traffic, and parking that we recognize and share. However,
that does not mean we feel a need to accede to every demand made by some of our
neighbors. Truth be told, from some of our neighbors -and I want to stress that it is only
some -we have experienced a rather vicious campaign of "garbage-pailing" every
conceivable rumor, half-truth, and misrepresentation imaginable, including spurious
personal attacks and anonymous flyers slipped under people's door mats throughout the
neighborhood. We have tried to stay above the fray and simply present our case in as
straightforward a manner as possible.
While we appreciate the efforts of the City Planning Department to come up with a
solution to a set of concerns that have now been blown up way out of proportion to
reality, we believe that the guidelines for the CUP that they presented did not address
adequately the reality of the situation. We appreciate the City Planning Commission for
amending the Planning Department's recommendation toward a resolution that's much
more workable for us.
To begin with, we have no interest in creating some mega community center or large
commercial enterprise at our site. We simply want to make it possible for a few
worthwhile organizations and activities that provide for the welfare of the city to share
our space. We have already made decisions to eliminate partners who are not a good fit
for us either for reasons of noise, size, or difficulty in management. We continue to be
open to partners that fit well with our mission, our space, and the ethos we value in the
building. Let me address some points in the CUP proposal, which has come to you, that
are important to us:
1. Hours of Operation: We have requested the hours, 9:00 AM to 10:00 PM on
weekdays and 9:00 AM to 11:00 PM on the weekends because these have always
been the church's hours of operation, they are consistent with the hours of
operation for other religious institutions in the city, and they meet the needs of
some of our partners. These hours are parameters, however. We have no desire to
keep something going in the building 24/7, but there may be some occasions when
an activity might reasonably extend into the evening.
I want to note that we have already added air-conditioning to our Fellowship Hall
at a cost over $20,000, generously underwritten by one of our near neighbors. We
have scheduled the installation of sound-reducing windows in the Hall for mid-
June at the cost of over $15,000 to the congregation. From observation, we believe
that this sound-proofing will be extremely effective and mitigate one of our largest
neighbor concerns.
2. Capacity: we have requested a maximum number of 120 in the building at any
given time because it reflects the reality of iSing Girlchoir's operation in the
building for one or two hours one or two days a week. Again, we are not interested
in filling the building to capacity on an ongoing basis. This would be much more
than we are able and willing to manage. Of course, there may be occasional events
that would use the facility to its actual capacity.
'
3. Events: And speaking of events, we have requested allowance of up to 12 events
per year on site. This number again reflects a parameter, probably more than the
number of events we have held in the building in any given year since I've been
pastor. We do request that the requirement for a Temporary Use Permit for these
events be eliminated. The base cost for TUP, if enforced, is $1200 and this would
make it impossibly expensive for the kind of small, non-profit group we favor to
utilize the space. Currently we charge only $315 to use our sanctuary for a four-
hour block of time and $160 for our Fellowship Hall.
4. We believe the restriction on amplified sound is unnecessary with the
understanding that the city already has enforceable decibel limits for our location
with which we must comply.
5. We are quite willingly to set up procedures for more closely monitoring what goes
on in the building -including a dedicated phone line on which concerns would be
raised, regular communication with the neighborhood about our calendar of
events, and on-site monitoring of parking and traffic, when necessary.
Again, let me say we simply want to continue to be the First Baptist Church, fulfilling our
mission on the corner of North California and Bryant and we want to be a good neighbor.
I hope I have made our case. If you have questions or concerns, I would be happy to try
to address them. Thank you for listening.
Before I sit down, I do want to acknowledge all those who have come out in support of
the church this evening.
Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council,
c~~9ZJ'~ING
[ ] Placed Before Meeting
[ ] Received at Meeting
Thank you for reviewing the application for the First Baptist Church of Palo Alto's (FBCPA)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate as a "community center." As a 13-year resident of Palo
Alto and a patron of one of the programs that is currently housed in the FBCPA, I am supportive
of any mechanism that allows the iSing program to continue use of the FBCPA for its innovative
and effective choral program for school aged girls. Fortunately, the amendments that the
Planning and Transportation Commission made to the CUP do just that.
Please vote to uphold the CUP as amended by the PTC.
• Extended hours. Most of our high school program has competing priorities with after
school activities. We have our late class from 7:30-8:30pm for them, so they can get
dinner first.
• 120-person capacity. iSing has more than one class simultaneously, and this makes
sense due to the size of the facility. With the noise abatement, even 120 people across
the two buildings will not be audible at the street.
• Outdoor use. The yard is part of the property, and occasionally breakout sessions (-5
minutes) or celebrations (ice cream breaks) may be held on the patio.
• Waived TUP fees. While Staff is recommending a cap on the number of events one can
have per year, the cost of application for a TUP is far too high for this scenario (-$1200).
Please consider incorporating a fee waiver into the CUP for any TUPs.
Regarding the Staff Report and the public comments, here is an analysis of the major issues for
your consideration.
• The scope of the problem itself as well as the number of complaints have been
overestimated.
a The report describes complaints of "residents," but lacks proper context, and
therefore may be easily misinterpreted as a larger group than it actually is. The
count of unique complaining families is 18, while a comparable number of unique
supportive families (17) have also contributed feedback to the process. Count of
iSing families in 94301 is 45.
a The number of parking spaces (8) mentioned in the Staff Report are beside the
point, since as Commissioner Alcheck observed there is "abundant on-street
parking available in the vicinity of this Church" (PTC April 11 ). On Page 5 of the
Staff Report, staff notes that "no additional parking should be required for the
community center."
a U-turns and going through a bike lane to reach a parking spot are normal driving
behavior in residential areas. According to the DMV, you may legally U-turn in a
residential area. The way our bike lanes are between the main traffic and the
curb-parking, all access to curb parking must go through bike lanes when bike
lanes are present. This is being positioned by neighbors as problematic, but it is
by design.
o Peak traffic was last measured 2 years ago at 85 trips per hour through the
intersection at N California and Bryant, giving the intersection a Service Level A
rating, the safest. Since this measurement was taken, traffic has reduced
significantly when a major tenant moved out. According to Staff, intervention by
City Engineers would not be warranted until Service Level E or F, or about 1000
trips per hour (PTC April 11 ).
o Paly and Jordan bike traffic along California and Bryant have largely dissipated
by the time iSing programs begin.
• The problems that started this dispute have been addressed.
o The traffic, parking, and noise issues were largely created by one bad tenant,
which is now gone and won't be invited back.
o Current programs are improving the traffic by discussing safely dropping off
children, designating safe parking and unsafe parking, and providing parking
attendants during peak times.
o Carpooling efforts have reduced peak traffic significantly, such that street parking
spaces are not fully utilized.
o FBCPA facility improvements to windows (double-paned, insulated) have
reduced noise and HVAC installation have eliminated the need to open windows.
• The neighborhood and city itself have been improved by the programs of the
FBCPA.
o As a result of the mission of the FBCPA and their early support of iSing, we now
have iSing available in our city. iSing is a positive enrichment program that
greatly adds to the quality of life for Palo Alto youth.
o Kids can walk and bike to programs housed at the FBCPA rather than take a long
trip to a nearby city.
o We must do what we can to keep programs local.
I hope that the Council will also consider Staff's recommendation to revisit and modernize the
definition of a Church soon, as well.
Sincerely,
Carolyn "Cari" Bloodworth Templeton
13-year Palo Alto resident, iSing parent, Ohlone parent, community volunteer
Soda Tax May Cut Sugary Drink
Consumption, New Study Fi
A tax in Philadelphia reduced soda drinking. Here's what
and how you can quit downing sugar-filled drinks.
By Jesse Hirsch
Last updated: April 12, 2018
Last year, Philadelphia-like Chicago, Oakland, and a
number of other U.S. municipalities-implemented a sales
tax on sugary beverages, often referred to as a "soda tax."
Drexel University, in Philadelphia, found that the tax
there led to a 40 percent reduction in daily soda
consumption among residents in the two months after it
took effect. The study, published in the American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, also found that there was a 38
percent drop in the total number of sodas consumed over
a 30-day period.
To get these figures, researchers conducted phone
surveys of almost 900 Philadelphia residents before the
tax was implemented, then conducted the same surveys
immediately afterward.
For comparison, the same survey was given to residents
519n OJ8 Soda Tax May Cut Sugary Drink Consumption, New Study Finds -Consumer Reports
of three nearby cities that did not put soda taxes in place. ..
There was a s1igbt increase in daily soda consumption in
the neighboring cities, according to Amy Auchincloss,
Ph.D., M.P.H., associate professor of epidemiology at
Drexel and one of the study's authors.
"It was not surprising that respondents from [the non-
Philly cities] did not change their diet patterns
significantly," says Auchincloss. "But we did not expect to
see such significant changes occur so rapidly in
Philadelphia."
Philadelphia's soda tax-1.S cents per ounce of sugary
beverage-applies to energy drinks and sugar-added fruit
juice beverages, as well as diet soda. The survey showed
an even greater 64 percent dip in daily energy drink
consumption, while daily fruit drink and diet soda
consumption remained fairly static.
Auchincloss speculates that consumers may i;i.ot have
realized that juice-based drinks were also subject to the
soda tax.
"Even though juice drinks can have similar-or more-
added sugar than soda, there is still a perception among
many people that they are healthy," she says.
Anthony Campisi, spokesperson for the Ax the Philly Bev
Tax Coalition (which is associated with the American
Beverage Association, an industry group) said, "Actual
sales data show a much different result-that this tax has
simply caused families to shift their shopping to the
https:f/www.consumerreports.org/soda/soda-tax-may-cut-sugary-drink-consumption-new-study-finds/
..
3/6
51912018 Soda Tax May Cut Sugary Drink Consumption, New Study Finds -Consumer Reports
suburbs to avoid the tax, harming Philadelphia's small
businesses and working fami1ies."
It is important to note, however, that the Drexel study
measured overall consumption of sugary drinks, not sales.
A Tool for Fighting Obesity
Sugary beverages currently contribute about 7 percent of
all calories consumed in the U.S., and those calories
provide very little nutritional value. The connection
between soda consumption and obesity is well-
documented, and the U.S. is the most overweight country
in the world, according to the international group the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
One question, Auchincloss says, is whether consumers
will revert to their earlier soda drinking habits after the
initial tax fanfare has died down. Auchincloss notes that
her team's study was conducted immediately after a huge
media blitz, during which many Philadelphia residents
were made aware of the new tax.
But Auchincloss says there is reason to believe the decline
may be longer-lasting. The researchers point to the impact
of Mexico's sugary beverage tax-there has been a
consistent drop in soda consumption in the two years
following its implementation.
And according to an analysis by the World Health
https:llwww.consumerreports.orglsodalsoda-tax-may-cut-sugary-drink-consumption-new-study-finds/ 416
5/912018 Soda Tax May Cut Sugary Drink Consumption, New Study Finds -Consumer Reports
Organization of the effect such taxes have on the intake of ~
junk foods and drinks, a 20 percent Jevy genera11y leads to
a lasting 20 percent decrease in consumption. The
Philadelphia tax adds an even higher percentage to the
price of a sugary drink, with some products increasing in
price as much as 40 percent.
The Drexel team is conducting a follow-up study with the
same survey respondents.
"We want to see if the same shifts in sugary beverage
consumption hold up after a year," Auchincloss says.
Changing Your Own Habits
Despite the significant evidence linldng sugary drinks to
obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and related health
concerns, kicking a soda habit can be tricky.
Nutritionist Stefanie Sacks, M.S., C.N.S., C.D.N., cautions
that you shouldn't just go cold turkey.
"It's smarter to gradually reduce how much soda you're
drinking, at a reasonable pace," Sacks says.
This can mean reducing your portions by 25 percent at a
time, or slowly reducing how often you consume these
beverages. This approach, Sacks says, gives you a better
chance of sticking with the change.
But what if you want something comparable to swap in
when you get that soda craving?
https://www.consumerreports.org/soda/soda-tax-may-cut-sugary-drink-consumption-new-study-finds/ 5/IJ
' ' : I j • .. ..
5/9/2018 Soda Tax May Cut Sugary Drink Consumption, New Study Finds -Consumer Reports
"You always hear, 'Just drink water when you crave a
soda,"' says nutritionist Dawn Jackson Blatner, R.D., "but
come on. If you're craving a hit of sweet, with bubbles
and maybe caffeine, drinking a glass of water won't fool
you."
To replace those flavors, Jackson Blatner suggests adding a
1.5-ounce shot of 100 percent fruit juice to a glass of
seltzer water. You get a little hit of sweetness and flavor, as
well as that familiar carbonation-without all the sugar. Of
course, you can always go for store-bought flavored
seltzer if making it at home doesn't appeal to you.
Both Sacks and Jackson Blatner agree that diet soda is not
the answer. These drinks may have fewer calories but
they still lack nutritional benefits and some research
suggests that they be linked to an increased risk of heart
disease and even weight gain.
( ) A 56 WIRELESS
l'.Clody ....
I SCCMA V.P. Community Health
t would greatly extend FCC's current policy of the mandatory irradiation of the public without
adequate prior study of the potential health impact and assurance of safety. It would irradi-
ate everyone, including the most vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation: pregnant
women, unborn children, young children, teenagers, men of reproductive age, the elderly, the dis-
abled, and the chronically ill." -Ronald Powell, PhD, Letter to FCC on SG expansion (7)
BRAVE NEW WORLD OF COMMUNICATION
The use of mobile wireless technologies continues to increase worldwide. A new faster Sfllgen-
eration (SG) telecommunication system has recently been approved by the Federal Communications
Commission(FCC) with new antennas already being installed and tested in Palo Alto and Mountain
View. While it may give us uber automation and instantaneous "immersive entertainment" a lot of
questions remain with regards to public health and safety of wireless devices. Will the adoption of
this new SG technology harm directly or indirectly the consumers and businesses it hopes to attract?
SG is the new promised land for wireless technology. It could connect us in our homes, work-
places and city streets to over a trillion objects around the world. (96) The Internet of Things (IoT)
is primed to give us self-driving cars, appliances that can order their own laundry soap, automa-
tion hubs that pay your bills, not to mention fast movie downloads and virtual reality streaming
from anywhere when you are on the go. Companies are already asking local cities and counties to
move forward to create "Smart Cities" which have comprehensive digital connectivity by installing
a massive wireless sensor network of almost invisible small cell antennae on light posts, utility poles,
homes and businesses throughout neighborhoods and towns in order to integrate IoT with IT. They
state it will improve services, the economy and quality of life. This communication network will
20 I THE BULLETIN I JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2017
form an expanded electromagnetic microwave blanket above each city
and county, ermeating the airspace and providing seamless connectivity
where people and things will exchange data.
Former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair Tom
Wheeler called this a "National Priorityn and thus ushered in approval for
the addition of this new pervasive network of high frequency short wave
millimeter broadband for commercial use first planned in urban areas.
DEVELOPING A "SMART" WORLD?
Engineers and physicists are busy working out the details of carrier
frequencies and the arohitecture of the new network. Manufacturing
industries are already developing commonly used products that feature
wireless integration that will connect to the densely clustered antennas.
Matketing companies are now pushing ads for "smartn devices for "smart"
people in "smartn cities. Even the healthcare industry is anticipating using
some of these wearable devices for patients with cardiac conditions or to
do remote surgery in other parts of the world. Opening up 5G Spectrum
access hopes to drive an explosion of new products. The economic oppor-
tunities are obvious and business will be booming in the tech industry.
Conc;erns continue to rise however about the basic safety of our cur-
rent use of wireless technologies not to mention adding layers of newer
microwave frequencies that have not been tested for short term or long
term safety. Important questions have not been addressed while industry
and government policy have already moved forward.
• Why is the FCC streamlining permitting of 5G high frequency
when they have not completed their investigation on health
effects nor updated safety limits for low-intensity radio frequency
radiation?
• Is the widespread "deploymentn of this pervasive higher
frequency small cell distributed antennae system in our cities
and on our homes safe for humans and the environment?
• Will it add to the burden of chronic disease that costs our nation
over a trillion dollars annually? (105)
• Are we already digitally over connected, outsourcing our grey
matter and becoming a dysfunctional addicted nation because of
it? (136,137,138)
• How will this affeGt our privacy, cyber security and tlie security
of medical records?
• Will we as physicians be able to recognize the emerging adverse
health effects of new millimeter technology and wearable
technology let alone that of current wireless devices?
A GOOD READ: FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SG
LETTERS
Letters to the FCC in 2016 responding to the 5G roll out with the addi-
tion of new high frequencies were mixed. Industry generally applauded the
FCC for its efforts and discussed the growing demand for this technology
along with a need for flexible regulation to implement it. Some expressed
concerns about interference with other satellite systems. Some felt there
should be maximum spectrum usage opening up even higher frequencies
that are only experimental now in order to help "the underservedn. Others
argued about opening this up to licensed versus unlicensed uses. Industry
did not mention any potential public or environmental health hazards re-
garding the use of these new frequencies.
RAISING A RED FLAG TO PUSH THE PAUSE
BUTTONONSG
Private citizens and Phd's, however did raise a red flag at the FCC,
recommending a halt to infrastructure plans and more testing for health
and environmental reasons. They questioned the current FCC standards
which are outdated and not protective of human health. They asked "How
will it affect children, pregnant women and the elderly who are the most
vulnerable in our population?" While scientists gave ample evidence that
precaution should prevail, I found the most compelling letters were from
those who describe their fear as electro-sensitive people in an already dan-
gerously high electromagnetic environment for them.
GIMME SHELTER: NO ESCAPE FOR
ELECTRO-SENSITIVE INDIVIDUALS
Linda K., a Michigan resident, explained how she became increas-
ingly sensitive to EMF after a cell tower was placed within 1000 feet of her
house.
Linda K. described her electrosensitivity with increased exposure to
wireless transmitters. In 1999, a cell tower was installed in her neighbor-
hood 1000 feet from her home. She began sleeping very poorly but did not
associate this with the cell tower. In 2008, when she turned on a new wire-
less computer, she became dizzy, nauseated, and couldn't think. Symp-
toms ceased when the Wi-Fi card was removed. When smart meters were
installed in her neighborhood in 2012 (but not on her home), she experi-
enced severe insomnia. A month later she put together that the cell tower
had been the cause of her earlier poor sleep. About two years later she
noted an intense, uncomfortable feeling when walking by a nearby house
and later identified a Wi-Fi hotspot on a wire going from the utility pole to
the house. She stopped walking near the house. She wrote about her con-
cerns and that the new frequencies may add to her symptoms and inability
to leave her house. (54)
In another letter Veronica Z. noted "This is a notice of survival. What
many of us deal with currently is trying to survive in an environment that
is hostile to us biologically. We have Jost all of our rights, our finances, our
homes, our ability to earn a living due to this ubiquitous exposure. We are
being tortured every second of every day and have been reduced to simply
trying to survive the moments we are alive. Others have been unable to do
so and have opted to not stay living on this planet of torture ... There is no
escape for people with severe sensitivities to this deadly radiation.• (55)
ASK NASA: IS ELECTRO-SENSITIVITY REAL
OR IMAGINED?
Are these people telling the truth? Is this just psychological? You may
wonder, however, more and more people from all ages, professions and
walks oflife are relating similar symptoms in the presence of wireless de-
vices. Some children reported these symptoms when their school adopted
WiFi.
Dr. Scott Eberle, a well respected Petaluma hospice physician, elo-
quently described his development of electro-sensitivity in the November
2016 issue of the SCCMA Bulletin. He goes to great lengths to continue his
profession, interact with his collegues and maintain a healthy existence.
(67)
We are exposed to increasing levels of microwave EMF in our daily
lives. More scientific evidence links biologic effects with increased reports
of health related effects including electrosensitivity. In 1971 Russian sci-
entists Gordon and Sadchikova from the Institute of Labor Hygiene and
Occupational Diseases described a comprehensive series of symptoms
which they called 'microwave sicknessn and presented this at an interna-
tional WHO meeting. (109)
In a 1981 NASA report, "Electromagnetic Field Interactions: Ob-
served Effects and Theoriesn microwave sickness was also described. The
symptoms recorded were headaches, eyestrain, fatigue, dizziness, dis-
turbed sleep at night, sleepiness in daytime, moodiness, irritability, unso-
ciability, hypochondriac reactions, feelings of fear, nervous tension, men-
tal depression, memory impairment, pulling sensation in the scalp and
JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2017 I THE BULLETIN I 21
brow, loss of hair, pain in muscles and heart region, breathing difficulties,
increased perspiration of extremities. {63)
l
THE SCIENCE OF ELECTRO-SENSITIVITY
Belpomme, in 2015, completed the most comprehensive study of elec-
trosensitivity, investigating 1216 people: 71.6% with EHS, 7.2% with CS,
and 2L2% with both. They found an elevation in several reliable disease
biomarkers-each occurring within a range of 23% to 40% of all cases-
which prompted their conclusion that these sensitivities can be objectively
characterized and diagnosed and "appear to involve inflammation-related
hyper-histaminemia, oxidative stress, autoimmune response, capsulotha-
lamic hypoperfusion and pathologic leakage of the blood-brain barrier,
and a deficit in melatonin metabolic availability" {68)
THE SCIENCE OF EMF BIOLOGICAL HARM
The scientific literature abounds with evidence of non-thermal cel-
lular damage from non-ionizing wireless radiation for several decades.
There are likely several mechanisms both direct and indirect. Oxidative
damage is one that has been well studied. Effects have been demonstrated
on cell membranes causing a shift in the voltage gated calcium channels.
Sperm studies have consistently found genotoxic, morphologic and mo-
tility abnormalities in the presence of cell phone radiation. DNA dam-
age, blood brain barrier effects,
grams in the Environmental Toxicology Program at the National Insti-
tute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and designer of the study
states, "The NTP tested the hypothesis that cell phone radiation could not
cause health effects and that hypothesis has now been disproved. The ex-
periment has been done and, after extensive reviews, the consensus is that
there was a carcinogenic effect." (124,125,126,127)
HEALTH EFFECTS OF MILLIMETER SG
WAVELENGTHS
The term "millimeter waves" (MMW) rerers to extremely high-
frequency (30-300 GHz) electromagnetic radiation. Millimeter Waves
(MMW) used in the next-generation of high-speed wireless technologies
have shallow penetration thus effect the skin surface, the surface of the eye
or on bacteria, plants and small life forms. Surface effects, however, can
be quite substantial on an organism as stimulation of skin receptors can
affect nerve signaling causing a whole body response with physiological
effects on heart rate, heart rhythm, and the immune system.
In a 1998 review article, Pakhomov (123) looked at the bio-effects of
millimeter waves. He reviewed dozens of studies and cites research dem-
onstrating profound effects of MMW on all biological systems includ-
ing cells, bacteria, yeast, animals and humans. Some effects were clearly
thermal as millimeter microwaves are rapidly absorbed by water which
is abundant in living organisms.
melatonin reduction, nerve cell
damage, mitochondrial disrup-
tion and memory disturbanaes
have been revealed. The Bioini-
tiative Report (139) has chroni-
cled these effects and a growing
wave of PEER reviewed studies
is building on that base daily. In
2011, the International Agency
for Research on Cancer classified
radiofrequency as 2B carcinogen
and "possibly carcinogenic to
"Over the past century, this
natural environment has sharply
changed with introduction of a
vast and growing spectrum of
man-made EM fields."
When microwaves are absorbed
the energy can cause tissue heat-
ing. Many of the millimeter fre-
quency studies however showed
effects without heating of tissues
and at low intensities. Research
was variable and showed both
regenerative effects and also
adverse effects depending on
frequency, power and exposure
time.
humans", the same category as
DDT, lead and other pestieides.
THE LATEST SCIENCE: NATIONAL
TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM STUDY ON CELL
PHONES AND CANCER
The most recent and compelling evidence has come from the 2016
National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program. Called the
NTP Toxicology and Carcinogenicity Cell Phone Radiation Study, the 10
year $25 million research revealed conclusively that there was a harmful
effect from cell phone microwave raaiation. (124,125 The frequencies
are similar to other wireless devices we commonly use. The studies were
robust, collaborative, well controlled and with double the number of rats
required to reveal a significant effect, if present. The preliminary results of
the study showed that RFR caused a statistically significant increase in two
types of brain tumors, gliomas and schwannomas. These were the same
two types of tumors shown to increase in human epidemiological studies
on long term use of cell phones. Dr. Lennart Hardell and others have dem-
onstrated a consistent pattern of increased incidence of ipsilateral (same
side) acoustic neuromas (vestibular schwannomas) and gliomas with each
100 hours of cell phone use. (112-118) Another telling finding was that
the control rats had much lower than expected cancer rates. It is believed
due to the fact the control rats were in a controlled faraday cage and not
exposed to normal ambient EMF that could contribute to cancer.
Ron Melnik, PhD, Senior Toxicologist and Director of Special Pro-
22 1 THE BULLETIN I JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2017
Adey (135)
ARRYTHMIAS
Chernyakov induced heart
rate changes in anesthetized frogs by microwave irradiation of remote skin
areas. Complete denervation of the heart did not prevent the reaction. This
suggested a reflex mechanism of the MMW action involving certain pe-
ripheral receptors.(28)
HEART RATE VARIABILITY
Potekhina found certain frequencies from 53-78 GHz band (CW)
changed the natural heart rate variability in anesthetized rats. He showed
that some frequencies had no effect (61 or 75 GHz) while other frequencies
(55 and 73 GHz) caused pronounced arrhythmia. There was no change in
skin or whole body temperature. (69)
TERATOGENIC EFFECTS
One study of MMW teratogenic effects was performed in Drosophila
flies by Belyaev. Embryos were exposed to 3 different GHz frequencies for
4-4.5 hours at 0.1 mW/cm2. He found that irradiation at 46.35 GHz, but
not at 46.42 or 46.50 GHz, caused marked effects including an increase in
morphological abnormalities and decreased survival. It was felt the MMW
disturbed DNA-protein interactions at that particular frequency.(65)
BACTERIAL AFFECTS AND ANTIBIOTIC
RESISTANCE
Bulgakova in over 1,000 studies with 14 different antibiotics showed
how MMW exposure of S. aureus affects its sensitivity to antibiotics with
different mechanisms of action. The MMW increased or decreased antibi-
otic sensiti iqr depending on the antibiotic concentration. (134)
Paimomov warns, "Regardless of the primary mechanism, the pos-
sibility of significant bio-effects of a short-term MMW irradiation at in-
tensities at or below current safety standards deserves consideration and
further study. The possioility of induction of adverse health effects by a lo-
cal, low-intensity MMW irradiation is of potential significance for setting
health and safety standards and requires special attention." Me called for
replication of studies especially long term effects ofMMW.
ltlis conclusions:
1. Individuals or groups in a population, which would usually be
regarded as uniform, may react to MMW in rather different or
even opposite ways.
2. There seem to exist unknown and uncontrolled factors that
determine the MMW sensitivity of a specimen or a population.
Irradiation could increase antibiotic resistivity in one experiment
and deGrease it in the next one.
3. Increased sensitivity and even hypersensitivity of individuals to
MMW may be real. Depending on the exposure characteristics,
especially wavelength, a low-intensity MMW radiation was
perceived by 30 to 80% of healthy examinees. (123)
CATARACTS
Prost in 1994 studied millimeter microwave radiation on the eye. He
noted that microwaves of different wave-lengths can induce the devel-
opment of cataracts. (13) His research found that low power millimeter
waves produced lens opacity in rats exposed to 10mW/cm2, a predisposing
indicator of cataracts.(74)
IMMUNE SYSTEM
Kolomytseya. in 2002. looked at the dynamics of leukocyte number
and functional activity of peripheral blood neutrophils under whole-body
exposure of healthy mice to low-intensity extremely-high-frequency elec-
tromagnetic radiation (EHF EMR, 42.0 GHz, 0.15 mW/cm2, 20 min daily).
The study showed that the phagocytic activity of peripheral blood neutro-
phils was suppressed by about 50% in 2-3 h after a single exposure to EHF
EMR.(131)
CHROMATIN EFFECTS
Gapeve in 2003 showed for the first time that low-intensity extremely
high-frequency MMH electromagnetic radiation in vivo causes effects on
spatial organization of chromatin in cells oflymphoid organs. Chromatin
is a complex of DNA and proteins that forms Ghromosomes within the
nucleus of eukaryotic-cells. He exposed"IDiceto11 single whole-body expo-
sure for 20 min at 42.0 GHz and 0.15 mW/cm2. (132)
GENE EXPRESSION
Habauzit in 2013 loolced at gene expression in keratinocytes with
60GHz exposure at upper limit of current guidelines and concluded "In
our experimental design, the high number of modified genes (665) shows
that the ICNIRP current limit is probably too permissive to prevent bio-
logical response. (73)
GAPS IN DATA FOR LAUNCHING SG
MILLIMETER DEVICES
Commercial production often precedes research on consumer pro-
tection and health effects. ·we have too many toxins that have escaped
premarket safety protocols for too long-lead, asbestos, smoking and our
modern unregulated nanoparticles to mention just a few. These affect our
long term and short term health in ways we do not even know. If we be-
come ill, we do not question or identify the daily or weekly chemical expo-
sures that could have contributed to that cancer or arthritis or lung disease
or Alzheimer's. We have too many toxins to sort it all out.
Research shows that wireless microwave radiation adds yet another
dose of toxic exposure to our daily lives. We cannot hear it or smell it or
feel it Yet it affects our biology and our wellbeing with perhaps subtle af-
fects. If we are electro-sensitive then we are more likely to avoid exposure.
Trees are even susceptible to EMF harm and they cannot move away. (128)
What about birds and bees and us?
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS: GOOGLE GLASS,
VIRTUAL REALITY AND WEARABLE
WIRELESS DEVICES
If we are concerned about putting a cell phone to our ears for long
periods of time after reading about the NTP study then why aren't we con-
cerned about other wearable devices? While very cool to use Google Glass
and Virtual Reality may have dangerous consequences to our eyes, brain
function or immune systems with long term use, especially to children.
What are the frequencies in these devices? 3G, 4G, 5G or a combination
of zapping frequencies giving us immersive connection and entertainment
but at a potentially steep price.
SG RESEARCH AND POLICY
Safety testing for 5G is the same as other wireless devices. It is based
on heat 'Fhis is an obsolete standard and not considering current science
showing cellular and organism harm from non-thermal effects. There is
a large gap in safety data for 5G biological effects that has been demon-
strated in older studies including military.
NEW RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROTECT
PUBLIC HEALTH
1. Do not proceed to roll out 5G technologies pending pre-market
studies on health effects.
2. Reevaluate safety standards based on long term as well as short
term studies on biological effects.
3. Rescind a portion of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 which preempts state and local government regulation
for the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental
effects so that health and environmental issues can be addressed.
4. Rescind portions of The Spectrum Act which was passed in 2012
as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act,
which strips the ability city officials and local governments to
regulate cellular communications equipment, provides no public
notification.or opportunity for public input and may potentially
result in environmental impacts.
5. Create an independent multidiSciplinary scientific agency tasked
with developing appropriate safety regulations, premarket
testing and research needs in a transparent environment with
public input.
6. Label pertinent EMF information on devices along with
appropriate precautionary warnings.
REFERENCES
A full list of references used in this article are available at
www.sccma-mgns.org. ~
JANUARY I FEBRUARY 2017 I THE BULLETIN I 23
• Auditory: earaches, tinnitus
• Cardiovascular: dysrhythmias
• Dermatologic: raslies, facial flushing
• Musculoskeletal: weakness, spasms
• Neurological: headaches, poor
concentration, sleep problems, fatigue
• Ophthalmologic: dry or itching eyes,
impaired vision
• Psychological: irritability. anxiety,
depression, panic attacks
.. Respiratory: cough, throat irritation
POSSIBLE PRECURSORS OF EHS
• Physical trauma to brain or spinal
cord
• Electro-trauma: electric shock,
lightning strike, acute or chronic
electrical ~osures
• Chemical trauma: CO poisoning,
exposure to toxic chemicals, metal
implants
• Biological sensitivities or allergies
• Iriipafred immune function: people
with autoimmune diseases, the
elderly, infants
tion in acaptable levels of radiowave exposure,
with several countries adopting the revised
limits. In 2009, the European Union parliament
voted to recognize EHS as a disability, again
with some countries following this lead. In 201 I,
the WHO's International Agency for Research
on Cancer classified radiofrequency EMFs as
possibly carcinogenic for humans. And in 2011,
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe adopted a report on EMF dangers rec-
ommending that "all reasonable measures" he
taken to reduce EMF exposures, especially cell-
phone use by young people, given their vulner-
ability to getting brain tumors.
In parallel with the above public policy
measures, a unified medical response has also
developed in several European countries; two
examples are worth highlighting. In 2008,
Swiss Doctors for the Environment (www.aefu.
ch) created a physician working group, "Elec-
tromagnetic Fields and Health," which serves
as the cumdinating and consulting center for
a nationwide network of physicians caring for
people with EMF health issues. Then in 2012,
the Austrian Medical Association published
detailed guidelines for diagnosing and treating
EMF-related health problems.[lJ
The United States has lagged far behind
Europe in addressing EMF exposure, both in
general understanding and in public health re-
sponse. Current American guidelines for safe
exposure are decades old and are based on stud-
ies measuring the intensity of radiowave radia-
tion needed to heat body tissue, analogous to
using a microwave to cook food. Many studies
have since demonstrated that nonthermal ef-
fects from EMF exposure can occur at much
lower levels. Leading researchers have advo-
cated that American public health guidelines be
based on nonthermal effects, describing the re-
cent evolution in understanding EMF exposure
as a shift in scientific paradigm.
In 2013, the American Academy of Envi-
ronmental Medicine sent a letter to the Federal
Communications Commission urging a marked
reduction in EMF exposure limits, more in line
with some countries in Europc.[2J Here's an ex-
cerpt from that letter:
It bcrnme dear to AAEM physicians
that by the mid-J990s patients were expe-
riencing adverse health reactio11s and dis-
ease as c1 rcs11/t of cxpos11re to clectrom<1g-
netic fields. In tlze last five years, witlz tlze
c1dt'ent v( wireless devices, there has been
an cxpo11ential increase in the 1111mber
of patients with mdiofreq11e11cy-induced
disease and hypersensitivity.
Numerous peer-reviewed, p11/Jlished
studies corrc/<1te EMF exposure with a
wide range vf hcaltlz co11ditio11s and dis-
eases. T71ese i11clude 11eurological a11d
ne11rodegencratil·e diseases -.rnc/1 as
Parki11son's Disease, A LS, parcsthesias,
dizziness, headaclzcs cmd sleep disruption
-as well as cardic1c, gastrointesti11al and
i1111m111e disease, rn11cer; devclop111c11tal
and reproducti1·e disorders, a11d electro-
magnetic se11sitivity.
Doubt and indifference still exist about
the growing body of literature concerning EMF
health effects. Arc the peer-reviewed studies
mentioned above of sufficient quality to give
us a definitive answer about the d;111gers? An
international panel of experts authored the
Biol nitiativc 2012 Report, a 1,479-pJgc review
of over 1,800 studies, and concluded that suf-
ficient quality research already exists and that
new safeguards should be implemented.[31 In
contrast, the American approach is to insist that
more research be done.
Our current public health policy runs con-
trary to "the precautionary principle," which
states that if an action or policy has a suspected
risk of causing harm to the public or the envi-
ronment, and no clear scientific consensus ex-
ists, then the burden of proof falls on anyone
initiatiating a potentially risk action or policy to
demonstrate that harm is not being done. Laws
of the European Union make the application of
this principle a statutory requirement (though
it's not always followed), while in the United
States no equivalent limitation exists.
Several factors serve as obstacles to the
U.S. taking this precautionary approach with
radiowave technology: the potentially offensive
agent is silent, invisible, and odorless; the tech-
nologies offered are ubiquitous and addictive;
and the telecommunications industry is wealthy
and powerful. Definitive future research will
likely confirm or deny suspected dangers. In
the meantime, we are condlKting a large-scale,
uncontrolled public health experiment that m<lY
have dire consequences for many people.
GUIDELINES FOR
PHYSICIANS
According to the American Acidemy of
Environmental Medicine, the number of EJ-IS
cases is on the rise. As a physician, how might
you help patients who come to you with EI-IS
symptoms?
I turn again to Europe for information and
guidance. l have been in regular contact with
two members of the aforementioned Swiss Doc-
tors for the Environment, both to receive con-
sultation about my own health situation and to
garner general advice for physicians caring for
patients with EHS. The following recommenda-
tions combine advice received from these ex-
perts, a review of the Austrian Medical Associa-
tion guidelines, and my own experience.
Take the patient's symptoms seriously.
Some people with suspected EI-IS will have a
contirmable diagnosis; some will have other en-
vironmental issues; some will have a psychiatric
or psychosomatic illness; and some will have a
combination of the above. R~gardless of which
category a patient falls into, a physician's sup-
port is vitally important.
Take a full history and physical. Diagnose
and treat other disorders where possible, while
also taking a detailed environmental hiotory
that explores not only electromagnetic issues,
but also chemical sensitivities, carbon monox-
ide, air pollution and mold. See the Austrian
Medical Association guidelines for an outline of
Websites With Information About EHS
• bioinjative.org: The full 1479-page report summarizing
research into the health effects of EMF.
• e!ectromagneticman.co.uk: UK site includes videos of people
withEHS.
• electrosense.com: European site with information about
making homes and offices safe.
• emfcenteLCOm: Website of a Sonoma County electromagnetic
field consultant.
• emfsafetynetwork.org: Sonoma County advocacy group with
links to other sites.
• lessemf.com: Online store for meters, shielding material and
related products.
• magdahavas.com: Dr. Havas is a leading researcher in the
health effects of electromagnetic fields.
• weepjnitiative.org: Canadian website with pamphlet "Living
with electro-hypersensitivity: a survival guide."
Health and Safety Fact Sheets
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS
DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND MEDICINE
Page 2 of24
Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation In Fire Department
Facilities from Base Stations for Antennas and Towers for the Conduction of Cell Phone Transmissions
The International Association of Fire Fighters' position on locating cell towers commercial wireless
Infrastructure on fire department facilities, as adopted by Its membership In August 2004 <1>, Is that the
IAFF oppose the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell
phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and Integrity on health effects of
exposure to low-Intensity RF/MW radiation Is conducted and It Is proven that such sitings are not
hazardous to the health of our members.
Further, the IAFF is investigating funding for a U.S. and Canadian study that would characterize exposures from
RF/MW radiation in fire houses with and without cellular antennae, and examine the health status of the fire fighters
as a function of their assignment in exposed or unexposed fire houses. Specifically, there is concern for the effects
of radio frequency radiation on the central nervous system (CNS) and the immune system, as well as other
metabolic effects observed in preliminary studies.
It is the belief of some international governments and regulatory bodies and of the wireless telecommunications
industry that no consistent increases in health risk exist from exposure to RF/MW radiation unless the intensity of
the radiation is sufficient to heat body tissue. However, it is important to note that these positions are based on
non-continuous exposures to the general public to low intensity RF/MW radiation emitted from wireless
telecommunications base stations. Furthermore, most studies that are the basis of this position are at least five
years old and generally look at the safety of the phone itself. IAFF members are concerned about the effects of
living directly under these antenna base stations for a considerable stationary period of time and on a daily basis.
There are established biological effects from exposure to low-level RF/MW radiation. Such biological effects are
recognized as markers of adverse health effects when they arise from exposure to toxic chemicals for example.
The IAFF's efforts will attempt to establish whether there is a correlation between such biological effects and a
health risk to fire fighters and emergency medical personnel due to the siting of cell phone antennas and base
stations at fire stations and facilities where they work. ·
Background
Critical questions concerning the health effects and safety of RF/MW radiation remain. Accordingly, should we
allow exposure of our fire fighters and emergency medical personnel to this radiation to continue for the next twenty
years when there is ongoing controversy over many aspects of RF/MW health effects? While no one disagrees
that serious health hazards occur when living cells in the body are heated, as happens with high intensity RF/MW
exposure Oust like in a microwave oven), scientists are currently investigating the health hazards of low intensity
RF/MW exposure. Low intensity RF/MW exposure is exposure which does not raise the temperature of the living
cells in the body.
Additionally, a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences panel designated power frequency
electromagnetic fields (ELF/EMF) as "possible human carcinogens." <2i In March 2002 The International
Association on Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization also assigned this designation to ELF/EMF
in Volume 80 of its /ARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. <3>
httn·//www.iaff.om:/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp 5/1/2017
Occupational Medicine Page 2of10"'
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRI
DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEAL TH, SAFETY
Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation In Fire Department Facllltles from Ba
The International Association of Fire Fighters' position on locating cell towers commercial wireless Infrastructure on fire department facilities, as adopted by its m
conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and Integrity on health effects of exposure to low-intensity RF/MW radiation It
Further, the IAFF is investigating funding fore U.S and Canadian study that would characterize exposures from RF/MW radiation in fore houses with and without cellular enter
there is concern for the effects of radio frequency radiation on the central nervous system (CNS) and the immune system, as well as other metabohc effects observed in prelim•
It is the belief of some international governments and regulatory bodies and of the wireless telecommunications Industry that no consistent increases in health risk exist from e:
positions are based on non-continuous exposures to the general public to low intensity RF/MW radiation emitted from wireless telecommunications base stations. Furthem
members are concerned about the effects of living direcUy under these antenna base stations for a considerable stationary period of time and on a daily basis There are estal
effects when they arise from exposure to toxic chemicals for example The IAFF's efforts will attempt to establish whether there is a correlation between such biological effE
stations and facilities whare they work.
Background
Crltlcal questions concerning the heallh effects and safety of RF/MW radiation remain. Accordingly, should we allow exposure of our fore fighters and emergency medical persc
While no one disagrees that serious health hazards occur when hving cells in the body are heated, as happens with high intensity RF/MW exposure (just hke in a microw
exposure which does not raise the temperature of the living cells in the body.
Additionally, a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences panel designated power frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF/EMF) as "possible human carcinogens.""'
ELF/EMF in Volume BO of Its /ARC Monographs on the Evalua~on of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Ill
Fixed anlGMlls used for wireless telecommunications are referred to as callular base stations, cell stations, PCS ("Personal Communications Service") stations or telephone 1
they are often located on towers, poles, water tanks, or rooftops. Typical heights for freestanding base station towers are 50-200 feet.
Some base stations use antemas that look like poles, 10 to 15 feet In length, that are referred to as "omni-dlrectionar antennas. These types of antennas are usually found 1
These antamas consist of rectangular panels, about 1 by 4 feel in dimension. The antennas are usually arranged in three groups of three antennas each. One antenna in eac
phones.
At any base station site, the amount of RF/MW radiation produced depends on the number of radio chamels (transmitters) per antenna and the power of each transmitter. Ty1
could be col'Wlecled to up to 21 transmitters fore total of 63 transmitters When omni-directional antemas are used, a cellular base station could theoretically use up to 96 Iran
since PCS carriers usually have a higher density of base station antenna sites
The eledromagnelic RF/MW radiation transmitted from base station antennas travel toward the horizon in relatively narrow paths. The individual pattern for a single array of s1
for exposure recommended by expert organizations and endorsed by government agencies responsible for heatth and safely. When cellular and PCS antennas ere mounted c
The telecommunications industry claims cellular antennas are safe because the RF/MW radiation they produce is too weak to cause heating, I.e., a ''thermal effect." They poin
claims of "safe RF /MW radiation exposure is harmless• rest on the fact that it is too weak to produce a rise in body temperature. a "thermal effect." J•1
There is a large body of internationally accepted scientific evidence which points to the existence of non-thermal effects of RF/MW radiation. The issue at the present time is nc
Internationally acknowledged experts In the f1&1d of RF/MW radiation research have shown that RF/MW transmissions of the type used in digital cellular antennas and phom
communities, not in the laboratory) of serious health effects at "non-thermal levels," where the Intensity of the RF /MW rad1Blion was too low to cause heating. They have found:
• Increased cell growth of brafn cancer cells "'
• A doubling of the rate of lymphoma in mice "'
Changes in tumor growth in rats m
An increased number of tumors in rats l&J
• Increased single-and double-strand breaks In DNA. our genetic material fDI
2 to 4 times as many cancers in Polish soldiers exposed to RF ''°'
• More childhood leukemia in children exposed to RF 1111
• Changes In sleep patterns and REM type sleep ""
• Headaches caused by RF/MW radiation exposure <131
• Neurologic changes"" including;
• Changes in the blood-brain-Oarrier l1S>
Changes In cellular morphology (including cell death) 1111
• Changes in neural electrophysiology (EEG) ''"
• Changes in neurotransmitters (which affect motivation and pain perception) 1181
• Metabolic changes (of calcium ions. for instance) "°'
• Cytogenetic effects (which can affect cancer, Alzheime~s. neurodegenerative diseases) 12111
• Decreased memory, attention, and slower reaction lime in school children 1211
• Retarded learning in rats indicating a deficit in spatial "working memory" '"'
• Increased blood pressure In healthy men 123>
• Damage to eye cells when combined with commonly used glaucoma medications 124>
Many national end international organizations have recognized the need to define the true risk of low intensity, non-thermal RF/MW radfation exposure, calling for intensive sci1
• The World Health Organization, noting reports of "cancer. reduced fertility, memory loss, and adverse changes in the behavior and development of children_· 1251
• The U. S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 126>
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 1271
• The Swedish Work Environmental Fund 1281
• The National Cancer Institute (NCI) <291
• The European Commission (EC) 130>
• New Zealand's Ministry of Health 131>
• National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (321
• Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization of Australia (CSIRO) 133>
• The Royal Society of Canada expert group report prepared for Health Canada (34)
• European Union's REFLEX Project (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from low Frequency Electromagnetic Field Elposure Using Sensitive in vitm Melt
http://www.iaff.org/hs/resi/celltowerfinal.htm 5/13/2018
Budget Change FY2018-2019 Headcount Change FY2018-2019
Department FY2018$M FY2019$M %Change %Change HC2018 HC2019 :J\ H .... ~ City Attorney $3.36 $3.29 -2.0% -9.1% 11 10 .:)
City Auditor $1.31 $1.27 -3.4% 5 5 I ~ ~
City Clerk $1.37 $1.29 -6.1% 6.23 5.45 ::s <.<. ~
ct> ct> ~
City Council $0.50 $0.49 -2.1% 9 7 ~' a. a. ........ t
City Mgr Office $3.16 $3.29 10.25 10.25 QI OJ 0\ ~CD ::t-3:0' 3 Sustainability Off $0.52 $0.42 1.96 1.75 ~ m ;ti _m
Admin Services $9.44 $9.52 42.16 41.71 !:!: 3: °"~ $27.57 $29.03 0 :::> CD
CSD 145 128.3 ~ IO ct> t"4
!:!: z DSD $12.54 $12.63 0.7% 40 40 :J en IO
Fire $31.77 $32.13 -9.9% 109.2 98.4 :n
HR $12.87 $12.75 -1.3% 18.2 17.96 --:..
IT $20.11 $21.13 -1.3% 37.1 36.6 ~
Library $9.45 $9.72 2.9% -1.6% 63.6 62.6 ~
Planning $8.46 $8.85 4.6% 31.6 31.6
Police $42.33 $42.35 0.0% 158.4 158.4
Public Works $137.50 $121.00 -12.0% -2.7% 179.8 174.9
Utilities $290.90 $301.30 3.6% -268 268
Non Dept $38.29 $37.45 -2.2%
Off Emerg Svcs $1.04 $1.52 45.8% -3.5 3.5
Total $652.50 $649.41 -0.5% -3.4% 1140 1101.42
Dept Budget($M) per HC Change
Department $MChange HCChange FY2018 FY2019 Increase
City Attorney -$0.07 -1 $0.31 $0.33 7.8%
City Auditor -$0.04 -$0.26 $0.25 -3.4%
City Clerk -$0.08 -0.78 $0.22 $0.24
City Council -$0.01 -2 $0.06 $0.07
City Mgr Office $0.13 -$0.31 $0.32 4.0%
Sustainability Off -$0.10 -0.21 $0.27 $0.24 -Admin Services $0.08 $0.22 $0.23 1.9%
CSD $1.46 $0.19 $0.23 19.0%
DSD $0.09 $0.31 $0.32 0.7%
Fire $0.36 $0.29 $0.33 12.2%
HR -$0.12 $0.71 $0.71 0.4%
IT $1.02 $0.54 $0.58 6.5%
Library $0.28 $0.15 $0.16 4.6%
Planning $0.39 $0.27 $0.28 4.6%
Police $0.02 $0.27 $0.27 0.0%
Public Works $0.76 $0.69 -Utilities $1.09 $1.12 3.6%
Non Dept
Off Emerg Svcs $0.30 $0.43 45.8%
Total -$3.08 -38.58