Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180226plCC 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: 2/26/2018 Document dates: 2/7/2018 – 2/14/2018 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. • CITY OF PALO ALTO TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Beth Minor, City Clerk February 12, 2018 APPROVAL OF ACTION MINUTES FOR THE JANUARY 29, 2018 COUNCIL MEETINGS -CORRECTION TO ITEM 11 An error in the Minutes for the January 29, 2018 City Council meeting, Item 11, has been noted. The agenda title incorrectly shows approval of Resolution Numbers 9735 and 9736. The final action taken for that item did not include approval of a Resolution. Therefore, the Resolution numbers should be removed from the final minutes. Please find the agenda title with the proposed correction and the final vote below. 11. Adoption of a Resolution 9735 Entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Amending the Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program (RPP) by Adjusting the Number of Employee Permits and Making Clarifying Modifications;" and a Resolution 9736 Establishing a Two-hour Parking Restriction in the Commercial Zones Adjacent to 1515 El Camino Real and 1681 El Camino Real (Continued from December 11, 2017). MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Mayor Kniss to: A. Re-assess the pilot program at the end of six months; and B. Direct Staff to return to Council as soon as possible with a Resolution adding Southgate RPP parking along the west-side of El Camino Real and clarifying the language on re-parking; and C. Forward the Resolution to CalTrans to authorize the addition of the parking and, upon approval by CalTrans, an additional 15 employee permits will be released; and D. Direct Staff to explore options to reduce the bunching of employee parking MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 We request this change be incorporated in Council's approval of these Action Minutes. Thank you, ~ / ~J)/Vt!V Beth Minor, City Clerk TO: CI TY 0 F PALO ALTO FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Beth Min or, City Clerk AGENDA DATE: February 12, 2018 COUNCIL MEETING ~ 02/12/2018 4 "!!!!!'IZl""'"Re-c-ei-ve"'°!d""'"B .... ef-or_e_M_e-et-in-g SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF ACTION MINUTES FOR THE JANUARY 29, 2018 COUNCIL MEETINGS -CORRECTION TO ITEM 11 An error in the Minutes for the January 29, 2018 City Council meeting, Item 11, has been noted. The agenda title incorrectly shows approval of Resolution Numbers 9735 and 9736. The final action taken for that item did not include approval of the Resolutions. Therefore, the Resolution numbers should be removed from the final minutes. Please find the agenda title with the proposed correction and the final vote below. 11. Adoption of a Resolution 9735 Entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Amending the Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program (RPP) by Adjusting the Number of Employee Permits and Making Clarifying Modifications;" and a Resolution 9736 Establishing a Two-hour Parking Restriction in the Commercial Zones Adjacent to 1515 El Camino Real and 1681 El Camino Real (Continued from December 11, 2017). The correct agenda title should be: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program by Adjusting the Number of Employee Permits and Making Clarifying Modifications, and a Resolution Establishing a Two hour Parking Restriction in the Commercial Zones Adjacent to 1515 El Camino Real and 1681 El Camino Real (Continued from December 11, 2017) MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Mayor Kniss to: A. Re-assess the pilot program at the end of six months; and B. Direct Staff to return to Council as soon as possible with a Resolution adding Southgate RPP parking along the west-side of El Camino Real and clarifying the language on re-parking; and 1 of2 CITY OF PALO ALTO C. Forward the Resolution to CalTrans to authorize the addition of the parking and, upon approval by CalTrans, an additional 15 employee permits will be released; and D. Direct Staff to explore options to reduce the bunching of employee parking MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 We request this change be incorporated in Council's approval of these Action Minutes. Thank you,~ ~ • Beth Minor, City Clerk 2 of2 CITY OF 7 PALO ALTO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK FEBRUARY 12, 2018 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7-Review of Fiscal Year 2018 Mid-year Budget and Approval of Budget Amendments in Various Funds, amend the Table of Organization by reclassifying 1.0 Manager Accounting to 1.0 Manager Finance, and amend the salary schedule for Managers and Professional Employees. Please note that the title for this item has been expanded to include amending the Table of Organization by reclassifying 1.0 Manager Accounting to 1.0 Manager Finance, and amending the salary schedule for Ma gers and Professional Employees. Beth D. Minor City Clerk 1of1 lOA TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2018 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10A -Review and Accept a Proposed Housing Work Plan for 2018-Refer Specific Elements to the Planning & Transportation < Commission for 2019 and Preparation of Related Zoning Ordinance(s) . 1 1 --: ·-- . ·- On February 5, 2018 Council continued the Draft Housing Workplan to its February 12, 2018 meeting. Below is the motion that was made on February 5th and will be used as a starting point on February 12th. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to: A. Direct Staff to: i. Complete ongoing projects and initiatives designed to stimulate the production of affordable and workforce housing; and ii. Develop and adopt one or more zoning amendment Ordinances with prov1s1ons designed to encourage production of a diversity of housing types in appropriate locations; and iii. Prepare the economic analyses necessary to prepare and consider Ordinances increasing inclusionary requirements from 15 percent to 20 percent for new development, applying inclusionary requirements to new rental housing, and requiring payment of in-lieu fees or off-site replacement if existing units are removed from the housing stock resulting in a net loss of units; and iv. Use the City's affordable housing funds to stimulate the rehabilitation and development of new affordable housing; and v. Partner with other agencies and organizations to meet the needs of underserved members of our community and to engage in community conversations about the use of publicly-owned land for affordable housing; and vi. Add an item to the 2018 Ordinance to increase housing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real areas; 1 of2 B. Refer Work Plan Items 2.1 through 2.6 to the Planning and Transportation Commission for input on the preparation of a 2018 Housing Ordinance and a recommendation for consideration by the City Council; and C. Refer Work Plan Items 3.1 through 4.2 to the Policy and Services Committee for input on possible policy changes and on the use of City housing funds. This Agenda Item continued to ebruary 12, 2018. Beth D. Minor, City Clerk 2 of2 tft\ ~ CITY OF PALO ALTO TO: FROM: CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Item# 11 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AGENDA DATE: 2/12/2018 ID#: 8719 SUBJECT: NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN KICKOFF Attached is an updated proposed North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan boundary map, revised as follows: 1) to reflect a recent property line modification along Acacia Avenue; and 2) to include five additional properties located adjacent to the project area's southwestern boundary, near the intersection of Portage Avenue and Ash Street. The Acacia Avenue expansion reflects a recent lot line merger to incorporate a narrow parcel into the larger adjacent parcel, creating a more useable lot. This now larger parcel is also owned by the Sobrato Organization. Robert Wheatley Properties, the owner of the second largest number of properties within the project area, has expressed interest in participating in the effort and in including the five additional properties near Portage Avenue and Ash Street. Staff asks that the City Council consider expanding the project boundary to include the additions as proposed in the attached map. Similar to the boundary changes originally proposed by staff in the report, the expanded boundaries are all located within a block of the original boundary, adjacent to the priority development area borders. The expansions would enable a more comprehensive planning effort. The Council may wish to consider additional additions/modifications. Director Planning and Community Environment Attachment II u l i i s .. ~ f 11 H ]i r ,i n u :~ .:it u I I ~' "-, I ~ ~ "'d (")(ii ~3 ~ ; e 0 "' ....... -"'O "ti (ii Proposed 0 n !!!. "' 0 "'O ~ 8. NVCAP Boundary >~ 0 15 ...... ~-0 en Q, ...... .., g. 0 Cl> ~I ~~ ........................................................... liiiiii ...... liiiiiiiiil ................ . City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2018 4:52 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ng, Judy Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 4:51 PM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Sartor, Mike; Bobel, Phil; Arp, Ron; Muir, Chuck; Perez, Lalo; Nose, Kiely Subject:2/12 Council Agenda Questions for Items 7 & 8       Dear Mayor and Council Members:     On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries  made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the February 12, 2018 council meeting agenda.     Item 7:  FY 2018 Mid‐Year Budget Report & Budget Amendments ‐ CM Tanaka  Item 8: Contract Approval for Household Hazardous Waste Services ‐ CM Tanaka     Item 7:  FY 2018 Mid‐Year Budget Report & Budget Amendments Q. 1.  There is a pay increase from Accounting Manager ($131,851/year) to Finance  Manager ($141,918/year). Is there anybody being promoted in this way? If so, is  there resource impact?    A. 1. No, there is no current incumbent in this position which has been vacant for  over one year as recruitment has been unsuccessful to date. Item 8: Contract Approval for Household Hazardous Waste Services  Q. 1. What neighboring cities have this same program? How much are they paying?    A. 1.  All of Palo Alto’s neighboring cities utilize a Household Hazardous Waste  (HHW) collection program operated by the County, instead of a City run  program.  These County Programs are substantially  less frequent than Palo Alto’s  1‐2 times per week; and involve greater driving times. For the City of Mountain View, in FY17, the cost per participant was $81.74 to  participate in the Santa Clara County HHW Program.  The San Mateo County cost  per participant was $80.67.  The cost per participant in the Palo Alto HHW Program  was $49.85/participant; substantially less.     Q. 2. If the HHW Program received a grant from CalRecycle to make many key  improvements to the HHW Programs, including creating the new HHW Station why  does Palo Alto need to give them additional funds?    A. 2. The grant money to improve the HHW station was a one‐time award in 2011  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2018 4:52 PM 2 and this funding is not available to cover ongoing operational costs.  Going forward,  the additional services amount of 10% of the proposed base contract will only be  used for unforeseen or out of scope work. An important example is a spill of a  Hazardous Material on a City street.      Q. 3. How much did the city pay for the last contract for HHW?    A. 3. The proposed agreement is for a three year term and totals $990,000. The last  HHW contract was also for three years, and the total was $1,138,500.       Thank you,  Judy Ng          Judy Ng   City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329‐2354  Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org                       City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:13 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Monday, February 12, 2018 10:15 AM To:Council, City Subject:housing work plan I write in support of moving forward on the housing work plan. I support the increase in FAR in selected areas as proposed in the motion from the last meeting. I would add two items to the economic analysis: --examine the financial implications of the retail preservation ordinance in selected areas and for selected types of housing projects. The evidence from the Wilton Court project is that it could be an impediment to project viability. --examine a broad range of options for reducing parking requirements including the concept of shared parking (for example, different people needing spaces at different times of the day). Stephen Levy 365 Forest Avenue City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:14 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 11, 2018 5:16 PM To:Council, City; board@paloaltoforward.com Subject:In support of the Housing Workplan for your Monday agenda To Palo Alto City Council We strongly encourage you to accept staff’s recommendation to begin work on their proposed 2018 ordinances in the “housing work plan”. This set of recommendations encompasses many items that are clearly worth studying:  Removal of constraints for multi-family housing in our densest, most transit-friendly districts  Reduction of parking requirements to potentially reduce cost of housing formation  Revise permitted uses and use mix (e.g., allow 100% residential w/ retail) Nothing in this workplan says that you have to adopt the final recommendations. However, these are items that should be non-controversial to begin staff work. Staff put considerable care in choosing these near-term, high priority items. At the same time, we recognize that there are longer term (2019 and beyond) items that may require further discussion about whether or not to devote staff resources. All-in-all, we are encouraged by the energy that this Council has put into housing-related issues this year; this workplan is a chance to take on our issues even more systematically. Please direct staff to kick off this work. Sincerely, Eric Rosenblum President, Palo Alto Forward City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:14 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Randy Mont-Reynaud <rmontreynaud@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 11, 2018 5:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Seniors? Age before...?Say YES to proposed 2018 ordinances in the “housing work plan”. Can we please see some action on behalf of seniors, affordable BMR purchase? ? -- With warmest regards, Randy Mont-Reynaud, PhD ISAIAH 58: ""Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?" 650 858 1558 (cell) Our 501 c-3 is "If Pigs Could Fly - Haiti" Visit us here: www.ifpigscouldflyhaiti.org And here is my blog: http://www.haitinextdoor.com/ And https://www.gofundme.com/IfPigsCouldFlyHaiti City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:17 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Joy Sleizer <joy.sleizer142@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 10, 2018 12:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Housing Work plan Dear Council Members, I strongly encourage you to accept staff's recommendation to begin work on the proposed 2018 ordinances in the "housing work plan? I have just read the proposal & think it's an excellent way to start to solve the problems we have with too little housing & too many cars. Thank you for your service. Best regards Joy Sleizer 850 Webster Street #706 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 11:15 PM To:editor@paweekly.com Cc:Court Skinner; Council, City; joe; jthorwaldson@paweekly.com; gsheyner@paweekly.com; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto Subject:opinion on teacher housing Last week's PA Weekly showed virtual unanimity among community groups about the importance of teacher housing, with one voice--yours--reminding us that teachers aren't the only ones in need of housing. Perhaps that mild dissent could lead us to a better solution. While it's undeniable that we wouldn't have a Palo Alto--or any city in the world--without teachers, we already have land which could hold housing for all the teachers; not only publicly owned but owned by the school district itself, so much acreage that PAUSD was cavalierly selling off school sites until the city stepped in to preserve them. In addition to the school sites, we have the Administration building site. There is enough land to house all our teachers, every one, buffered from the neighborhood by its own obligatory open space. Then there's the NIMBY problem. Palo Alto used to have a unique and economical public housing program: people who were self-supporting but too poor to afford local rentals provided do-it-yourself shelter in their cars, while the city provided a parking place and bathrooms, at Cubberly, and the neighbors closed it down. But teachers get a pass from being valued by material wealth because even the most callous and uncaring voter understands that whether an aggressive child becomes a drug dealer or a Captain of Industry is often the human investment provided by his teacher. So we could erect a fourteen story residence for teachers, like 101 Alma, rivaling Versailles in magnificence, because it's symbolic of our society, and adds to the aura of wealth in the neighborhood, where it wouldn't be tolerated for poor people, no matter how deserving or how many obstacles they have overcome just to stay alive. Economics is even more important. School districts have investments, like other public entities. What better investment could there be than essential rental housing, for what is effectively a captive market for renters whose jobs and income you also have control over? Why should the hard-pressed taxpayers pour out money to be automatically sucked up by the wealthiest of private entrepreneurs? A publicly owned residential building is almost unknown: teacher housing would afford a unique opportunity for multi-unit housing innovation, for example, housing in which every unit, every story, would have a large outdoor balcony on which the residents could grow fruit and flowers. Schools thrive on money, so the thrust of our city's governance is to improve taxable property values, and to this end, in the '50s they converted foothills land from residential zoned to industrial zoned, simultaneously raising the value of undeveloped land, but also the already developed, because by decreasing the number of potential homes they raised the value of the existing ones. BUT that meant they had to pay the teachers more in order for them to be housed. We need to convert part of teachers' compensation from money, which continuously declines in value through slavishly worshipped "growth" (inflation), into use of space, which continuously increases in value, so as to break out of the vicious cycle in which the more we increase the property value the more we have to pay the teachers. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:24 AM 2 Our best paid teachers now make $129,000 a year and that's more than enough for them to live in Palo Alto, because they bought their homes twenty years ago, but it won't be enough for the teachers of tomorrow. A public acceptance bonus would be that the popular public service uses currently housed at Cubberly, child care, dance and art studios, could all continue as the ground floor of a teacher residence, oriented so as not to disturb the private residential quality of the apartments. Similarly, using the Santa Clara County land by the Court House for housing city and county employees would be most helpful in the future, when, we are learning, the cost of retirement will double our employee expenditure. For every job we will have to pay double, because the retired employee is paid almost as much as the new employee. But we could convert retirement money compensation into housing compensation; many retirees would find it worth-while to relinquish egregious pensions imprudently based on the employee's final salary instead of the average, which also assumed an out-size housing cost, and falsely assuming (because of Prop. 13) that the employee's property tax would rise a great deal, for the privilege of being allowed to live, or continue to live, in high quality, low cost housing built for public employees, in the community where they have built their lives around children, friends and support professionals, rather than take their winnings to build a new life in Scottsdale, Arizona, where they know nobody. We're in the process of building a new fire station, and the Council is hell-bent on building a new police station. Why can't there be apartments for police and firemen above those buildings, especially for firemen, whose duties require that they be present at the job site several nights a week? Haven't disabled veterans earned the right to be housed on unused military bases? Shouldn't Social Security recipients, having been taxed their entire working lifetime on the promise that in retirement the government would return the taxes to support them, have land bought with federal funds on which modest retirement suites their pensions could afford could be built? We hear dire warnings that federal social service money is going to be drastically cut to balance the new tax law's cuts to subsidize the making of wealth. Shouldn't we save the dwindling HUD money for poor families who have no other claim on public funds? Stephanie Munoz 101 Alma, apt. 701, Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 248-1842 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 4:12 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <skeehn2012@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 12, 2018 3:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda 2/12 To the Palo Alto City Council,     Two very important issues are on the agenda tonight.  Both need community input and  education.  Neither one has  been given the time it needs for the public to have their questions and concerns discussed and  answered. It seems  to me that this Council is rushing to get through two very large items, which should not be  hurried. They are too  important to our community.  Apparently the City Manager mentioned the Work housing Plan  at the beginning of  the retreat, but that is not enough to communicate and publicize the issues and there are  many.  For some reason the Fire Department and the Police Department have been cut.  We don't  have enough officers  for traffic enforcement, this is a big safety issue.  Developers must provide at least 25 % of  BMRs.  Please do not  rush this through.     The second one dealing with the Ventura/Fry's site, will very much impact the surrounding  neighborhoods.  The  advisory committee need an application to apply for this committee, and be totally  transparent.  We need the  majority of this committee to be made up from the local neighborhoods because that is where  the traffic and  congestion impacts.  We have had a lot of business, office development, it is time for the City  to invest in our  community.     What do the citizens of Palo Alto want this site to be used for? It is time for a long‐term  investment for the  community:  We could consider many proposals that would enhance South Palo Alto and the  City as a whole.     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 4:12 PM 2 We no longer have the correct ratio of parks in P.A.  so how about a large 10 acre park?  A swimming pool  A community center, with a gymnasium     What is high priority for the Parks and Recreation Department?     Something that benefits all of us, not just a few of us.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:29 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 07, 2018 5:31 PM To:Council, City Cc:North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Subject:Re: City Council Meeting on North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan I received notice from the City Clerk’s office that Council will be discussing the NVCAP at next week’s meeting. I am glad to see that the project is moving forward and would like to state once again my interest in becoming a member of the working group. I have lived with my wife on Park Blvd in the Ventura neighborhood since 1992 and we reared our two children here. I support context-sensitive, pedestrian-scaled development and enhanced connectivity for bicyclists. Easy access to the California Ave shopping district is one of the reasons I am glad to live where I do. Unfortunately I will be out of town on February 12th and will not be able to attend the meeting at which you discuss this. Thank you for your support of this important effort. Ken Joye On Feb 6, 2018, at 3:51 PM, Chitra.Moitra wrote: […] The City is beginning the process of developing a Coordinated Area Plan for the North Ventura area  (NVCAP).  The City Council will have a hearing on Monday, February 12, 2018 on this item.  The City  Council will review the preliminary goal/objectives, schedule and revised boundary; give authorization  to the City Manager to execute the grant agreement; provide direction to staff regarding the working  group members and approve a budget amendment to reflect the grant that was awarded for this  project. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 4:12 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <skeehn2012@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 12, 2018 3:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda 2/12 To the Palo Alto City Council,     Two very important issues are on the agenda tonight.  Both need community input and  education.  Neither one has  been given the time it needs for the public to have their questions and concerns discussed and  answered. It seems  to me that this Council is rushing to get through two very large items, which should not be  hurried. They are too  important to our community.  Apparently the City Manager mentioned the Work housing Plan  at the beginning of  the retreat, but that is not enough to communicate and publicize the issues and there are  many.  For some reason the Fire Department and the Police Department have been cut.  We don't  have enough officers  for traffic enforcement, this is a big safety issue.  Developers must provide at least 25 % of  BMRs.  Please do not  rush this through.     The second one dealing with the Ventura/Fry's site, will very much impact the surrounding  neighborhoods.  The  advisory committee need an application to apply for this committee, and be totally  transparent.  We need the  majority of this committee to be made up from the local neighborhoods because that is where  the traffic and  congestion impacts.  We have had a lot of business, office development, it is time for the City  to invest in our  community.     What do the citizens of Palo Alto want this site to be used for? It is time for a long‐term  investment for the  community:  We could consider many proposals that would enhance South Palo Alto and the  City as a whole.     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 4:12 PM 2 We no longer have the correct ratio of parks in P.A.  so how about a large 10 acre park?  A swimming pool  A community center, with a gymnasium     What is high priority for the Parks and Recreation Department?     Something that benefits all of us, not just a few of us.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2018 2:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Winter Dellenbach <winterdell@earthlink.net> Sent:Wednesday, February 07, 2018 5:20 PM Subject:Buena Vista news to delight and inform you Attachments:PastedGraphic-3.pdf Board of Supervisors Pres. Joe Simitian looks on as BV Board Pres. Erika Escalante introduces him. Dear Friends of Buena Vista ~ I want to share with you a happy event from yesterday as seen in the photograph above. You likely know that our County Supervisor and great friend to Buena Vista, Supervisor Joe Simitian was elected this year as President of the Board of Supervisors. In that capacity he delivered the annual State of the County address and asked Buena Vista's longtime Board President, Erika Escalante to introduce him. (site address for video of introduction and State of County address, below. Erika begins around "7" if you want to slide forward) http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/VideoScreen.aspx?MediaID=25895&Frame=None As her parents and brother watched with pride, Erika spoke to a standing room, overflow audience of mayors, county and state officials. Having grown up at Buena Vista and as a leader she embodied a great lesson learned from the effort to save Buena Vista - broad partnerships with city and county governments and agencies, community and faith groups, current and former officials, schools and BV residents can prevail when seemingly impossible barriers stand in the way of progress. Supervisor Simitian message was of such partnerships as a proven way to progress in times when the federal government makes it difficult and the State government is in a time of change. His message was challenging yet attainable, practical and positive while delivered with good humor and of the right length to be interesting to the end. I encourage you to watch the video. What Supervisor Simitian has to say will be of interest to you and is important to us in Santa Clara County. There were friendly faces from Palo Alto - some City Council members, an attorney from the Law Foundation that represents BV residents, and the Executive Director of the Housing Authority which now owns BV. Many others greeted Erika afterwards, knowing her or of her, having followed the Buena Vista saga over the years. It was a wonderful event and a reminder that Buena Vista not only was saved but has importance and resonates beyond its 4 acres. All else at BV goes well. Plans are being worked on for upgrading the property as was promised. Residents are getting on with their lives. The Homework Club is a most welcome new undertaking. The future unfolds. Winter Dellenbach Friends of Buena Vista City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:47 PM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:David Recht <david.recht@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:42 AM To:Council, City Cc:Sarah Burgess; Laura Seitel; Bonnie Flanagan Subject:Comment on Fwd: Comment on 17PLN-00015 Dear Council: I am forwarding an email I had previously sent to Claire Hodgkins of the Palo Alto Planning Commission relative to the activity at the First Baptist Church on North California Avenue. I believe the points made in my email are still as valid today as they were then (please see my email below). Additionally, I can only stress that the large flow of people, drop-offs, pick-ups, etc. continue on and, thus, continue to present a dangerous situation for children, and others, in this residential neighborhood. The church has almost no parking (I have not counted them myself but understand there are only 8-12 parking spaces to service the location. This necessarily means that all additional traffic from church bound uses (church or for- profit businesses at the church) is forced onto public residential streets that were not designed for this activity. The church itself was not designed for everyday use by dozens (hundreds?) of cars. Making matters more dangerous is the recent “upgrade” of North California road striping for cars (no striping) and bicycles (one bike lane on each side of the street) and the fact that Bryant Street is the city’s main bicycle thorough fare (with plans to emphasize biking even more in the future?). Because of these two factors and the fact that we have Bryant bicyclists merging with a large flow of Jordan Middle School bicyclists (think of typical 6th, 7th and 8th graders who do not pay enough attention to their bicycle riding and typically ignore bicycle rules), this intersection is a dangerous place. The fact is I see a church that was never intended to be a community center (in the sense of weekday/everyday use) in an area that is extremely ill suited to handle large amounts of activity on an everyday basis. Surely there must be other locations much better suited to handling constant community activities than the location of the First Baptist Church (as an example, First Congregational on Louis has an ideal parking situation for handling large numbers of pickups and drop-offs). Please consider returning the First Baptist Church to its intended use by denying a larger community center role and also removing the for profit businesses that involve large amounts of everyday activities. This will help lower the risk of life threatening accidents to the many bicycle youth that have to use this area and would also preserve the residential character of our neighborhood instead of creating a commercial center. As a reminder the Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.76.10 (c) relative to conditional use permits states that a permit shall NOT be granted if it is: "1. Detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2. Not conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning)." City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:47 PM 2 Thank your for your consideration. David Recht david.recht@gmail.com 415-706-1521 ============ Photo sites: davidrecht.net www.instagram.com/david.recht/ https://500px.com/drecht https://www.flickr.com/photos/drecht/DavidRecht plus.google.com/+DavidRecht/photos http://drecht.zenfolio.com Begin forwarded message: From: David Recht <david.recht@gmail.com> Subject: Comment on 17PLN-00015 Date: February 10, 2017 at 4:41:02 PM PST To: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Hi Claire: My wife and I live at 252 Washington, one house from Bryant street just north of California and very close to the Baptist Church. We have been a bit unaware of the full extent of the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit at the church for the Mozart School of Music. However, the notice we received from the city in the mail prompted us to want to comment. We have lived at our address for 29 years so we have experience with the church and have, over the many years, have been inconvenienced by church activities that fill the neighborhood with cars, etc. While it can be an imposition when either we or our guests are unable to park in front of or near our house, we have largely been accepting of this church activity as it was usually not a constant occurrence and, frankly, was often for a good cause. However, hearing that there is an actual business (and maybe not just the only business) operating at the church a year or so ago and seeing the flood of cars, students, mothers and fathers doing drop offs and pick ups, we would like to oppose granting this conditional use permit. The mailer specifies only the number of classrooms but does not specify the possible number of students that would be on site at the church. We can only guess at the total number but even at 10-20 students per classroom that would manifest in 100 to 200 students, if not more. That could easily translate into 200-400 drop offs and pickups or the parking of between City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:47 PM 3 50 and 100 cars in the neighborhood. This would add greatly to the congestion at an already busy intersection - an intersection that is also along one of Palo Alto’s designated bike boulevards. Parking issues are significant based on these projections (especially if other business are, in fact, operating at the church). But, maybe even more importantly, California Avenue is a major thorough fare for Jordan Middle School students on bike. To me the combination of an existing busy intersection, a major city bike boulevard and the student biking population presents a serious safety hazard to all involved - especially young middle school students who already demonstrate reckless biking traits. In addition to the above, I also wonder why a church would be allowed to host an actual for profit business in an area that clearly was not intended to be a commercial area. This raises questions about zoning as well as the tax exempt status of the church. Please do not allow this conditional use permit. We believe it goes against what we all cherish in Palo Alto which is peaceful and safe neighborhoods. Best regards, David Recht david.recht@gmail.com 415-706-1521 ============ Photo sites: davidrecht.net plus.google.com/+DavidRecht/photos http://drecht.zenfolio.com https://www.flickr.com/photos/drecht/DavidRecht City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:34 PM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 12, 2018 9:38 PM To:stephanie@dslextreme.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; chuckjagoda1 @gmail.com; Letters@sfchronicle.com; bhushans@aol.com; judyblueeyes1@gmail.com; grchippendale@yahoo.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; dprice@padailypost.com; trudy@myrrh-art.com; cherrill@slac.stanford.edu; burdlady@gmail.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City Subject:Don’t judge Persky sentence in a vacuum Attachments:Aram James (DJ-7.7.2016).pdf Sent from my iPhone ing some, if not all, of the maximum prison time they could have received at the time of the original sentencing. In Turner’s case, this means if he violates probation he could well end up serving a prison sentence of three to 10 years, or more — hardly a slap on the hand. Given the infamous cause celeb sta- tus that this case has achieved, Turner is now one of the most reviled defendants in American. He will undoubtedly be closely scrutinized on probation. Turner will be on a very short leash. A defendant on probation is spared prison only so long as he agrees to se- vere limits on his freedom. The terms and conditions of probation define the quality and limits of a defendant’s freedom. Even a minor violation — e.g., failure to report to your probation officer, even on one occasion, or a one- time violation of a no drug or alcohol condition — can result in the revocation of probation and imposition of a previ- ously suspended prison sentence. So what does three years of formal probation really mean in the context of the Brock Turner case? Based on the nature of Turner’s convictions, the terms and conditions of his probation are multiple, complex, restrictive and appropriately oppressive. As an example, while on probation, Turner was ordered by Persky to par- ticipate in and complete an approved sex offender program, of not less than one year, and up to the entire three- year term of his probation. His failure to complete this program, or for that matter any other program ordered by the court, would trigger a revocation and a potential prison sentence. As part of the sex offender program, Turner will be required to submit to polygraph exams to monitor and ensure compliance with the program. As a further public safety measure, Turner will be required to waive his psychotherapist-patient privilege, al- Former Stanford student and po- tential Olympic swimmer Brock Turner, a 19-year-old freshman at the time of this incident, was con- victed in March of three felonies: assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person, sexual penetration of an intoxicated person, and sexual penetration of an unconscious person. The victim was a 22-year-old female college graduate, from another university, who attend- ed the same alcohol-fueled Stanford fraternity party as Turner. On June 2, Judge Aaron Persky of the Santa Clara County Superior Court — after reviewing and considering a very detailed probation report prepared by a senior female member of the Santa Clara County Probation Department, including statements from the victim and defendant, and numerous letters attesting to Turner’s good character — sentenced Turner to six months in the county jail, with three years of formal probation. The sentence imposed by Persky — the same judge who presided over the trial — was entirely consistent with the probation officer’s recommen- dation. Turner had no prior record. The perceived leniency of Persky’s sentence set off a near public lynching of both Turner and Persky. A media and social media lynching that were witnessed by the entire nation. Calls for Persky to resign or face a recall election over the case continue to this day. Before retiring as a career public defender I handled hundreds, if not thousands, of felony probation viola- tions. I can attest to the fact that young offenders, closely supervised on felony probation, frequently fail to make it through formal probation unscathed. The numerous potential pitfalls of formal probation are an important rea- son why the six-month initial county jail sentence cannot be viewed in a vacuum. To understand the severity of the punishment, one must understand the part probation plays in the overall sentencing scheme. Defendants, who may have initially received what appears to be a light, or restorative-justice inspired sentence, for a serious crime, often end up serv- Don’t judge Persky sentence in a vacuum LOS ANGELES & SAN FRANCISCO THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2016 www.dailyjournal.com Reprinted with permission from the Daily Journal. ©2016 Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved. Reprinted by ReprintPros 949-702-5390. By Aram B. James maximize public safety and protect us from truly violent predators. The sentence in the Turner case more than adequately balances both the public safety and the rehabilitative purposes of probation. Many of the same progressive voices who have spoken out long and passion- ately against over incarceration, mass incarceration, the disproportionate sen- tences imposed on the poor and people of color, are now doing an about face in the Turner case. They are shouting out that more of the same cruelty and barbarism should have been handed down in the Turner case. The same mentality that has brought us to our current failed state of mass incarceration. Instead of blindly demanding that a white male elite be sentenced to prison for his first offense, the better logic is to demand the same measure of justice and mercy, for similarly situated defen- dants of color and the poor. We must look to rehabilitation and restorative justice first, and harsh and unforgiving prison sentences, only where absolutely necessary. The vengeful model of sentencing has proven over and over again to lead to recidivism, overcrowded prisons, and little or no true comfort or safety, for the victims. We should support Persky’s rehabil- itation-motivated sentence, as an ex- tension of the progressive movement’s call, for an end to our country’s failed mass incarceration policies. Aram James is a retired Santa Clara County deputy public defender and a cofounder of the Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project (ACJP), a grassroots le- gal advocacy organization located in San Jose. lowing his therapist to speak directly to Turner’s probation officer re his progress or lack thereof. Turner must register annually as a sex offender for life, and each time he changes his residence. He must re- register within a few days of moving. Failure to register in a timely manner would be both a new crime, allowing for the potential of new charges and a separate prison sentence, and a viola- tion of his current probation. Turner must submit to drug and al- cohol testing to ensure he is complying with the terms of his probation, that he not consume alcohol or drugs, or frequent places where alcohol is sold or consumed as a primary business. He must waive his Fourth Amend- ment rights, to be free of illegal and warrantless searches, and thus submit to random searches and seizure of his person, vehicle and place of residence, at any time. Upon an alleged violation of pro- bation, Turner, would be returned to court to face a hearing. Unlike with a new offense, there is no right to a jury trial when charged with a probation violation. A judge sitting alone hears the matter. To find a violation the judge need only determine that the evidence proves the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as required at a jury trial. If the judge, after hearing evidence of the alleged violation, concludes that Turner has in fact violated his proba- tion, the judge can then sentence him to the maximum sentence, he faced at the time of the original sentencing. In my experience, judges assigned to hear probation violations are some of the most putative jurists on the bench. Need I say, that given the media attention and wave of vitriol directed at Tuner, he will be the closest watched probationer in America. Given the dizzying probationary maze faced by Turner, it is hard to quarrel with Persky’s initial sentence. As a society ruined by the scorch of over incarceration, it is critical that we have judges who have the discretion to encourage a rehabilitative model-first approach, while at the same time impos- ing severe conditions of probation that ARAM JAMES Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project PERSPECTIVE If he violates probation he could well end up serving a prison sentence of three to 10 years, or more — hardly a slap on the hand. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Laura Seitel <lseitel@mac.com> Sent:Sunday, February 11, 2018 9:21 PM To:Council, City Cc:Owen, Graham; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan Subject:First Baptist Church: Please Deny CUP Dear City Council Members, I am writing to ask that you deny the First Baptist Church’s CUP application for community center status. The church is in a location singularly unsuited for the level of activity this would permit at the site. Unlike other such institutions in Palo Alto, the First Baptist Church is separated from its nearest neighbors by a mere 13 feet on one side and 37 feet on the other (The 37-foot-space includes the church driveway and its eight parking spaces.) The level of noise, car traffic, foot traffic and parking congestion that has been the norm at the church for many years has turned a tranquil residential area into a commercial free-for-all and has profoundly disturbed the peace and tranquility of all citizens living nearby. My husband and I bought our home next to the church in 1983. We carefully observed the level of activity at the church at that time and generally found it to behave in a way that respected the fact that it had close neighbors. Sunday mornings were, of course, busy with those attending services and a few other non-intrusive events were occasionally held during the week. But the neighborhood was relaxed and friendly and it remained possible to enjoy tranquility in our homes. About a decade ago, this peaceable coexistence began to disintegrate: the church now operates an all-day, deep-into-the-night commercial enterprise. Church spaces have been rented to well over forty organizations which has resulted in a constant stream of car and foot traffic, parking congestion, loud noise and littering. Renters keep doors and windows of the church annex open during rock concerts, parties, dance and singing events, loud political meetings, etc. Often these events spill out of the annex to the church lawn and neighborhood sidewalks. Events start early in the morning and end after 11 PM at night. My husband and I regularly hear noisy cleanup from parties and performances, sometimes as late as 12:30 A.M. In addition, there is no one from the church monitoring these activities whom neighbors can contact. Needless to say these events at the church have disturbed the peace of neighbors for many blocks around it. The wider Palo Alto community is also affected. Students bicycling to and from Jordan Middle School on North California Avenue and to and from Palo Alto High School on Bryant Street are endangered by the steady stream of cars brought into the neighborhood. This is particularly troubling since the city has designated Bryant Street a bicycle-friendly route and has recently created bicycle lanes along North California Avenue. On dark, rainy evenings, we often observe cars parked and double-parked for blocks near the church along with many other cars slowing in the darkness to spot a particular child or a parking space opening up. Car movement and doors opening into the bicycle lane under conditions of low visibility are dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians trying to cross the street. The few newly-designated spots for short-term parking along the church curb are an ineffective band-aid for this problem. The parking regulations are not observed or enforced, the amount of traffic overwhelms their efficacy and residents of the neighborhood have even fewer places they can park. In sum, the particular geography of the residential neighborhood surrounding the First Baptist Church makes it especially unsuitable for both it’s current out-of-compliance activities and the increase of activity that community center status would allow it. I hope you will vote to restore a reasonable level of tranquility and safety in our neighborhood by denying the church’s CUP application. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:15 AM 2 Respectfully yours, Laura Seitel Loy D. Martin 170 Glenn Way, #11 San Carlos, CA 94070 loymartin@icloud.com www.loymartinfurniture.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:48 PM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bill Whitmer <bill.whitmer@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2018 12:30 PM To:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James Subject:First Baptist Church Permit Application Dear Council Members, We urge you to approve the application of First Baptist Church for a conditional use permit to operate as a community center. The church has provided space for many organizations which improve service to the broad Palo Alto community and should be encouraged to continue to do so. We've lived about a block from the church for forty years and have felt that they have consistently operated in an appropriate and considerate fashion. While occasional minor traffic issues occur, they have never, in our opinion, been an inconvenience worth attention. Noise has never been an issue. We believe the conclusions presented by SaveResidentialNeighborhoods@gmail.com misrepresent the situation. We find the apparent rise of NIMBYism in our community a serious potential threat to the character of the community we joined many years ago. Please do what you can to preserve the character of our wonderful community by supporting community service organizations who are so important to our vitality. Respectfully, Jan and Bill Whitmer City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:35 PM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 12, 2018 4:32 PM To:Kamhi, Philip Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Keene, James Subject:Re: Follow up questions from Southgate RPP meeting Thanks Philip, I do have some clarifying questions. 1) What do you mean by "...measured practical supply based on how the block is utilized, and not based on strict set-back laws (5 ft from driveways, etc...). Illegal parking was not included." What is block utilization? What is the size of the parking spaces they used? What is "practical supply"? You state that illegal parking was not included but also say that it's not based on set-back laws. Those seem to contradict themselves. This response if extremely vague and doesn't really answer the question. One of the issues we have had in the past is that cars park close to driveways and also behind driveways on the opposite side of the street. Given the narrowness of the streets, a car cannot back out of their driveway. For a visual representation, see page 30 of 42 of the Southgate RPP petition. Also, the reason given at the council meeting does not make sense. Even if we add in the 59 spaces on El Camino and Churchill that were claimed to have not been counted originally, the numbers still don't work out. Before any occupancy numbers are given to council in the future, I would like to see a detailed count of some of the blocks on Southgate. Again, we've gone out and hand-measured the streets and our numbers are far different than what is being provided. I believe we are entitled to some due diligence on the calculations. 2) You state that you are correcting signage to clarify where the RPP begins. There's nothing to correct. There is no signage on ECR adjacent to 1681-1691 ECR. My question then, is why was it continually stated in the meeting that that area WAS part of the RPP? 6) I think we're looking at different photos. Photo on the right side of page 14 of the presentation shows "Escobita Ave, January 24, 2018 (with RPP)" That seems to have been taken by staff and is of Manzanita looking west from Castilleja. 7) Yes, I agree the video is part of the neighborhood which is part of the Southgate RPP. But, you must agree that the video is extremely misleading given that the topic of the meeting was to look at additional permits which would affect the entire opposite corners of the neighborhood. I find it hard to believe that staff felt that the area in the video was the best way to represent the current situation of the streets most affected by an increase in permits. It is similar to giving neighborhood-wide occupancy numbers instead of focusing on the areas that will actually be affected. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Kamhi, Philip <Philip.Kamhi@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Keith, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:35 PM 2   1. The contractor measured practical supply based on how the block is utilized, and not based on strict set‐back laws  (5ft from driveways, etc.). Illegal parking was not included.  2. Yes, Southgate begins approximately 200ft North of Park Blvd, and Evergreen Park‐Mayfield is on the South side of  this.  We will be correcting signage to clarify this, and are currently working with our contractor on this.    3. We will review this red curb adjacent to 1681 El Camino Real. 4. Thanks for this comment, we will use it for our next data collection effort. 5. Thanks, you are correct , stickers should not have been included.   6. Thanks for your correction. I copied the photo of “Escobita Ave” from the original resident petition, where it was  listed as such (page 40 of attached). 7. The video is of a part of  the neighborhood and is part of the Southgate RPP.    From: Keith Ferrell [mailto:ferrell.keith@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 12:52 PM To: Kamhi, Philip Cc: Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Keene, James Subject: Re: Follow up questions from Southgate RPP meeting Hi Philip, I haven't received a response yet on this past email. I did see that it went in as a public records request and I received the data on the block by block occupancy and also the slides from the presentation. I still haven't received information on how spaces were calculated or clarification on El Camino north of Park. Some other comments: 1) How were the number of available parking spaces calculated by the contractor? Their numbers are still too high. Staff's original number was 478 spaces. (Residents counted 470). The new count done in January 2018 is 581. You stated at the council meeting that the discrepancy was due to not counting El Camino or Churchill as they were on the outer parts of the neighborhood. Just to note, the resident count DOES include those blocks. So, according to your explanation, if we take the original 478 and add the spaces on El Camino and Churchill, we should get the 581 spaces counted in January. However, there are 59 spaces on the January count on those two blocks. I would argue that even that number is too high. But, we'll continue with those numbers. Taking the 478 and adding the 59, we arrive at 537 spaces, which is still 44 spaces short of the 581. A quick calculation, which took me about 2 minutes to get the numbers, would have told you that your explanation of the variance was incorrect. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I've stated that staff needs to provide better and more honest information to council to make their decisions. It only causes confusion and frustration with everyone involved. There is no reason to state something as fact when you know it is not true. Once again I will ask that you provide me with the method used to calculate the number of City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:35 PM 3 available spaces. I've reviewed the backup for the latest count and the numbers are all too high. Unless they are using smaller parking spaces, or not leaving enough room for cars to get out of their driveway, there's no way those numbers are an accurate reflection of the available parking spaces. If you would like, I can walk you down some of the streets and we can measure how many actual spaces fit on one of our blocks. Please let me know if you would like to take me up on the offer. I might even be able to get enough cars to fill the block to the capacity provided in these counts and we can see if anyone can get out of their driveway without hitting another car. Again, let's provide realistic numbers if we're looking for realistic solutions. 2) With regards to El Camino Real from Park going north, if this is, in fact part of the RPP as stated multiple times in the meeting, when can we expect a) signs to go up stating that and b) enforcement? If this is not going to happen then it needs to be removed from the RPP and further reference to it being part of the Southgate RPP can stop. There needs to be an official declaration of this so there is no confusion in the future. 3) There is a curb adjacent to 1681 El Camino that used to be red (for visibility and safety) and has recently been painted over. Was this done by the city or by someone else? (see two photos in original email. One with red curb, one without) 4) In the original and subsequent meetings on the Southgate RPP, staff shows the original occupancy data. Those numbers were taking during the last week of school, when seniors were no longer in school and the school was NOT enforcing parking permits. We mentioned this at the time the survey was taken, but staff did not seem to care or take that into consideration. The real numbers were actually much higher than what is shown in that study. 5) Looking at the presentation slides, on page 6 it shows 562 Resident Permits for Southgate. That's incorrect. According to the file given to me by the city, and feel free to confirm, Southgate residents have 220 stickers and 142 hangtags (plus 112 scratchers which we are not counting, otherwise, employee permits would total 100 if we're being consistent). This will affect other numbers on that slide. Please note that 25 permits in Southgate would put the percentage of employee permits compared to the available parking spaces higher than that of downtown. Does it make sense for a residential neighborhood to have a higher percentage of employees occupying parking spaces than a downtown area? 6) Right picture on page 14 is NOT Escobita Ave. It is Manzanita looking west from Castilleja. 7) The video that was shown in the meeting is horribly misleading. That portion of the neighborhood is on the complete opposite end of the neighborhood from where the impacts will be felt from any additional employee permits. It was irresponsible of you to show that video and not at least mention that it was taking in an area that had nothing to do with what was being discussed. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:35 PM 4 Would love to get a response on these items. Thanks Keith Ferrell On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Phillip, I had a few follow up questions and comments from last night's meeting that I'm hoping you can help me with. 1) Can I get a copy of the slides you showed at last night's meeting? I'm most interested in the block by block occupancy and the comparison of neighborhood permit percentages. 2) Can I also get a detail of how the parking spaces in Southgate were determined? The May 2017 survey counted 478 spaces. In January 2018, the count was 581 spaces. In the meeting last night you mentioned that the difference was due to not counting El Camino and, I believe, Churchill, is that correct? Jim McFall and I hand counted spaces in 2017 and counted 470, including El Camino and Churchill. The number of spaces along El Camino and Chuchill totals 50 spaces. So, even using the 478 spaces and adding 50, we still are over 50 spaces short of the 581 being quoted. Given that there is a block by block occupancy, there must also be a block by block availability. Can you send me a copy of that? 3) Staff continues to stick to that 30% showrate. Before the Southgate RPP goes back before council at the six-month mark, I request that a count be done of the showrate of Southgate RPP employee permits. 4) Staff mentioned that the Southgate RPP includes ALL of El Camino Real from Churchill to Park. While that might be how it shows in the city's parking map, there is a gap in the RPP north from Park for approximately 250 feet. There is no signage in that area, and there are cars parking there without permits. In addition, there was a red curb that has since been painted over with white paint (see photos below). The third photo merely shows a lack of RPP signage. I don't see any of this as being an issue, as it allows 1681 employees that ability to park and does not interfere with any residences. However, I feel staff should refrain from calling this out as part of the RPP when, in fact, it is not being enforced as such. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:35 PM 5 5) There seems to be a fair amount of confusion as to the specifics of the Southgate neighborhood. It would be a good idea if residents, businesses and staff (including council members) to take a tour of the area so everyone is on the same page. It is frustrating to be in the audience of a council meeting and hearing staff and council make statements that are not correct and can be easily clarified/corrected. Thanks Keith Ferrell Red Curb outside 1681 El Camino (Sept 2017) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2018 2:55 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Reichental, Jonathan Sent:Wednesday, February 07, 2018 5:52 PM To:jfleming@metricus.net Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Council, City; Keene, James Subject:FW: Update from Palo Alto's United Neighbors Dear Ms. Fleming:    While my name is listed as a representative of the City of Palo Alto on the Joint Venture’s Steering Committee on  Wireless Communication, I want to let you know that I have never attended any of their meetings. This is simply an  uncompensated, volunteer opportunity for which, to date, I have not participated in.    In addition, I am not involved in any way with the cell towers your email below cites. To my knowledge this is being  handled by our Planning and Utilities Departments.    I will be requesting to have my name removed from the Joint Venture’s Steering Committee on Wireless Communication  as it is unfair for me to be associated with something I have never been involved in.    Thank you.    ____________________________________________________________  Jonathan Reichental, Ph.D. :: Chief Information Officer :: City of Palo Alto :: @PaloAltoCIO  Assistant: jeanny.weatherford@cityofpaloalto.org :: 650‐329‐2182      From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net]   Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 2:49 PM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Update from Palo Alto's United Neighbors    We at United Neighbors thought you might be interested in this email we recently circulated. Dear Neighbors,   The Architectural Review Board (ARB) will not be holding a hearing this month to consider Verizon’s resubmitted plans to install its first 15 cell towers in Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. Verizon has asked to submit yet another set of plans (we’ve lost count of how many resubmissions this makes), and the Planning Department tells us that once they’ve received and reviewed these materials, they will schedule the ARB hearing. The Planning Department also tells us that the “shot clock” on these installations, which was set to expire on February 14th, will be set back to a date after the ARB hearing. As you may remember, the reason this matters is that if the shot clock expires before the City has reached a decision on the proposed cell towers, the cell towers are deemed to have been approved. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/8/2018 2:55 PM 2 On a related front: Have you ever heard of an organization called Joint Venture Silicon Valley? Neither had we, until we learned that Palo Alto’s Chief Information Officer and Chief Technology Officer, Jonathan Reichental, serves on Joint Venture’s Steering Committee on Wireless Communication. This matters because Joint Venture is funded in part by the same telecom firms that are pressing Palo Alto to allow cell towers to be installed next to residents’ homes.   Not only that, serving on the Steering Committee with Dr. Reichental are, among other telecom industry players: 1) William Hammett, President and CEO of Hammett & Edison, an engineering firm hired by Verizon to assist in Verizon’s current effort to install cell towers here; 2) Patti Ringo, President of the California Wireless Association, a telecom industry lobbying group; and 3) Randall Schwabacher, Manager of Small Cell Deployment NorCal at AT&T Wireless, who oversees AT&T’s current effort to install cell towers in Palo Alto.   This Steering Committee, of which Palo Alto’s Chief Information Officer and Chief Technology Officer is a member, formally supports the telecom industry’s efforts to revive SB649, the bill vetoed by Governor Brown that would strip municipalities such as ours of any right to control what a telecom company installs in a public right of way. To remind you, the City of Palo Alto’s official policy on SB649 has been to oppose it. At the very least, it is improper for Dr. Reichental to serve on a board: 1) funded and controlled by the telecom industry; 2) filled with senior representatives of companies with applications to install cell towers currently pending in Palo Alto; and 3) committed to goals at odds with the interests and policy of the city that employs him.   United Neighbors has filed a Public Records Act request with Palo Alto for all correspondence to or from Dr. Reichental related to the subject of telecommunications. We will let you know what more we learn when the City responds to our request.   We have also requested City Manager James Keene’s correspondence on the same subject. Mr. Keene is on the Board of Directors of Joint Venture, and there is reason to believe that he, too, has a substantial conflict of interest with respect to the Verizon and AT&T applications that are currently before the City.   That’s what’s happening. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued concern about the telecom industry’s plans to litter our residential neighborhoods with now 125 large, ugly, radiation- emitting cell towers.   We’ll keep you posted.   Jeanne, Jerry & Jyo for United Neighbors City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:27 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Janet Cook <janet.teazel.cook@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 11:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: In support of CEDAW please note…… Begin forwarded message: From: Janet Cook <janet.teazel.cook@gmail.com> Subject: In support of CEDAW Date: February 8, 2018 at 11:12:44 AM PST To: hrc@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org Greetings to the Human Relations Commission, Pay Equity is one of the biggest issues facing women of today. Palo Alto National Organization for Women conducted a campaign in the 1980s and early 1990s to gain pay equity for Palo Alto employees. Today we have a chance to take that work a step closer to fruition…..by supporting CEDAW. I sincerely urge the Human Relations Commission of Palo Alto to recommend that the City Council pass an ordinance based on the Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), a UN treaty signed by President Carter, but never reported out of committee by the U.S. Senate. Since the U.S. has not passed the ordinance, cities and counties around the country are passing resolutions and ordinances to implement the provisions of CEDAW. Other California cities and counties that have passed such an ordinance are San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Clara County, San Jose and Berkeley. Palo Alto has a resolution supporting CEDAW. Now is the time for Palo Alto to pass an ordinance that would implement the sentiments in the resolution. Please support the ordinance. Thank you. Janet Cook City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:27 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:stevendlee@gmail.com on behalf of Steven D. Lee <stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu> Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 9:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:League of Women Voters of Palo Alto Letter of Support for HRC February 8 Agenda items IV 1 and 2 Attachments:LWVPA LTR HRC-CEDAW.docx FYI. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: HRC <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:45 AM Subject: FW: February 8 Agenda items IV 1 and 2 To: "Van Der Zwaag, Minka" <Minka.VanDerZwaag@cityofpaloalto.org> Another letter.     Minka van der Zwaag Manager, Office of Human Services 4000 Middlefield Rd. T2 | Palo Alto, CA 94303 650‐463‐4953 | minka.vanderzwaag@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you     From: LWV of Palo Alto [mailto:lwvpaoffice@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 4:24 PM To: HRC Subject: February 8 Agenda items IV 1 and 2 Dear Chair Stinger and Commissioners, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:27 AM 2 Attached please find our letter regarding Agenda items IV 1 and 2. Thank you, Bonnie Packer President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto 3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 February 7, 2018 Valerie Stinger, Chair Human Relations Commission 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: February 8, 2018, Agenda items IV 1 and 2. Dear Chair Stinger and Human Relations Commissioners, The League of Women Voters, at its national, state and local levels, believes that no person or group should suffer legal, economic, or administrative discrimination, and that due process should be afforded to all persons, including the right to a fair hearing, right to counsel, right of appeal and right to humane treatment. The League of Women Voters also supports the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). In December of 2016, the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) urged the Palo Alto City Council to adopt Resolution No. 9653: Reaffirming Palo Alto’s Commitment to a Diverse, Supportive, Inclusive, and Protective Community, which the City Council did. Accordingly, LWVPA supports the recommendation to forward to the City Council the consideration of a local CEDAW ordinance as described in the Ad Hoc CEDAW Committee Memo. Thank you. Thank you, Bonnie Packer President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PALO ALTO 3921 E. BAYSHORE RD., SUITE 209 • PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 • 650-903-0600 • www.lwvpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:54 PM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nancy Martin <nancy.martin@mac.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:49 PM To:jmordo@losaltosca.gov Cc:elewis@ci.atherton.ca.us; Mike wasseman Scc Gov; Council, City; mlbernald@saratoga.ca.us; gcwaldeck@losaltoshills.ca.gov; awengert@portolavalley.net; Scharff, Greg Subject:Legal action -FAA for NextGen Attachments:attachment 1.pdf; attachment 1.pdf Dear council member Mordo, I have been following the work of Sky-posse, stopjetnoise and other grass roots groups working to overturn the Next Gen decision for the past couple years. I am as frustrated as they are. As I sit here writing this, two very loud airbuses have already roared over our house in Los Altos, and will continue to do so until at least 2:00 a.m. We can’t step outside of our house without hearing the sound of an aircraft within a minute or less. If it’s not an whining Airbus or a 777 from Tokyo headed to SFO, then it’s a private jet or a prop plane flying out of Palo Alto or San Carlos. Los Altos and Mt. View are positioned in a vortex of flight paths for SFO, Palo Alto and San Carlos and It will get worse when the new SFO Terminal One expansion opens in 2020, I have attached a couple screen shots from Flightradar24. I hope you are familiar with the app. It shows how the FAA violates their own 8,000 ft altitude rule every day. I’m speaking up because it’s very clear that the FAA has no intention of changing NexGen’s flight routes. They are trying to wear us out and hope we will eventually give up, but how can we when we’re reminded of it with constant noise 20 hours a day? Next Gen was a poor decision made by a small group of people that is affecting hundreds of thousands, not just in our area, but all over the United States. The FAA is not going to change anything unless we, as a collective, initiate legal action as the city of Phoenix did back in June 2015. The city manager sent a very straight forward letter threatening a petition for judicial review of the FAA’s actions. Amazingly, the FAA responded that very day. I have attached a copy of that letter if you haven’t seen it already. Phoenix confronts the FAA with their empty promises and blatant disregard for “The intolerable levels of noise inflicted on residents never given a voice in the very process that has destroyed their quality of life.” City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:54 PM 2 The FAA had the opportunity change Next Gen three years ago and they didn’t. Why would they now? I am proposing we follow in the footsteps of the Phoenix City Manager and send a letter of intent to sue to the FAA. If every city on the peninsula filed a suit against them, we may finally get something done about this disaster. This is why I’ve copied the others on this email. We need their leadership to make this happen. This is my request to all of you reading this letter..... Please get your city attorneys on this and let’s escalate the case. If we don’t see progress after sending a letter of intent to sue, then we need to file individual city suits and overwhelm them. There is power in numbers. I’m sure if all our local city attorneys came together, they would come up with the right course of action. Never underestimate the power of the group mind. I know the city of Los Altos has a top-notch city attorney and I’m hoping you will lead the way and have her begin by composing the first letter similar to the Phoenix letter. We need to make it uncomfortable and costly for the FAA to ignore us before they will truly consider sending the planes back over the coast and out of our neighborhoods. I look forward to hearing from you. Please feel free to contact me at (650) 515-5498. Thank you, Nancy Martin Los Altos City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:54 PM 3 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:16 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Keri Wagner <keriwagner@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 10, 2018 4:12 PM To:Keene, James; Council, City Cc:Keri Wagner Subject:Love the Ross Rd Bike Improvements! Dear City Council Members and Mr Keene — My husband and I just spent this sunny February afternoon cycling around  Palo Alto.  I am a rather new cyclist. The new roundabout at Ross Rd and Meadow works beautifully, our two bikes and a  couple of cars circled through easily.  We continued north on Ross Rd to enjoy the safety improvements with plenty of  space for our bikes and passing cars.  Before the improvements, Ross Rd was so wide it invited cars to speed. Ross Rd is  much safer now and more pleasant to cycle with cars traveling at a reasonable speed.      Thank you for continuing to improve our bikeways in Palo Alto.  I can’t wait until the Wilkie Way improvements begin!  Sincerely,  Keri Wagner  Edlee Ave, Palo Alto  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:18 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Friday, February 09, 2018 8:41 PM To:Council, City; cityofpaloalto@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Medicine Hat is doing it Council Folks, This is worth a look. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/world/canada/homeless-canada-medicine-hat-housing-first.html Roberta Ahlquist, WILPF Low Income Housing Sub-committee City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:27 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Joan Sommerfield <jsommerfield@earthlink.net> Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 11:44 AM To:Council, City Cc:Beth Fuller Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page Dear Mayor and City Council Members,    As a resident of Palo Alto living on Arbutus Avenue, I have watched with dismay the "bike road" you have made of Ross  Road in the last few weeks.  I have been  told that you are making this mess with the support of the residents of the city,  but I have not spoken to one resident living on Arbutus who is in favor of it, nor have the Ross Road residents I spoke to  liked it.  Ross Road used to be wide road with plenty of room for cars and bikers; now it is so congested that it is  dangerous.  You certainly did not get the support of the neighborhood before starting the work. I  have spoken to  several people who attended the meetings who said they were ignored when they raised objections and were assured  "people" supported it.  Ross Road does not go far enough to be a useful bike road, especially ending in Oregon as it  does, and local residents were aware of that, including the bikers.    I drive home along Ross, since it is the most direct way to Loma Verde and Alma, and this week three bikers (adults)  crossed in front of me to try to squeeze through the narrow space between two planters by the YMCA.  The road bump  has a space in the middle so they tried to go through that area.  I had to come to an almost complete stop to avoid  them.  How is that safer than all of us sharing a wide road?  There is barely enough room for two cars to get through that  space, much less bikers.    Today I learned that  you are planning to build a traffic circle at Louis and East Meadow as well.  The one at Ross and  East Meadow is already a problem since it is such a small intersection.  One doesn't need both a circle and stop signs at a  normal traffic circle as anyone who has driven in Europe knows.  Once again it is making the road less safe, since the stop signs were clear and everyone knew what was expected, which  they don't seem to know now.    PLEASE do not make another traffic circle at Louis, and do not even think of another bike route on Louis!!!!   Leave us  one road to travel in South Palo Alto that is not full of unnecessary obstacles.    I beg you to listen to the residents of the neighborhood, not people who think to themselves, "Oh, that would make a  nice bike street," without any idea of the impact on the local residents.     Thank you for listening,  Joan Sommerfield  3532 Arbutus  February 8, 2018        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Friday, February 09, 2018 8:36 AM To:Reichental, Jonathan; Clerk, City; Council, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Open response to Jonathan Reichental Dear Dr. Reichental: Thank you for your email below. I appreciate hearing from you directly. I hope you will be kind enough to clarify some of the statements you made. Specifically: 1. You say “I will be requesting to have my name removed from the Joint Venture’s Steering Committee on Wireless Communication.” Does this mean you are resigning from the committee or not? And, more fundamentally, may Palo Alto’s residents take this as your pledge to fully dissociate yourself from the committee and from Joint Venture Silicon Valley’s Wireless Communications Initiative? … I ask because, as you know, Verizon, AT&T, Vinculums, Crown Castle and Hammett & Edison—companies that together provide substantial financial support for Joint Venture Silicon Valley—all are parties to applications currently before the City of Palo Alto to install cell towers here.   2. In your letter, you state that you have received no compensation from Joint Venture Silicon Valley for your membership on the Steering Committee on Wireless Communication. To be clear, are you saying you have never received any compensation from Joint Venture Silicon Valley whatsoever, or only that you have not been been compensated for your membership on the Steering Committee for Wireless Communication?   3. How about travel expenses or other perquisites? Have you, for example, ever attended an out-of-town conference or meeting of any sort where any or all of your expenses were paid by either Joint Venture Silicon Valley, a company in the telecom industry and/or a telecom industry-sponsored organization? For example, did Joint Venture Silicon Valley and/or a player in the telecom industry, either directly or indirectly, pick up all or part of the tab for your trip to Dubai? If not, who did pay your expenses? And who will be paying for you to attend the conference in Israel that you are going to later this month? 4. You also say Joint Venture’s Steering Committee on Wireless Communication is “something I have never been involved in.” Yet in an email last August, Jim Fleming, Manager of Telecommunications in the Palo Alto’s Utilities Department, wrote to Assistant Director of Planning Jonathan Lait: “A couple of years ago, JVSV [Joint Venture Silicon Valley] started its Wireless Communications Initiative. ... Jonathan Reichental is on Wireless Initiative’s advisory board and I attend the meetings [bolding added].” I would appreciate it if you would explain what’s going on here. It certainly sounds as if Mr. Fleming (no relation to me) is attending these meetings in your stead or at your behest. At the very least, he appears to be attending with your knowledge and approval. Moreover, this email makes it clear that Palo Alto’s Manager of Telecommunications believes your position on that Board is meaningful, and not as nominal as you say. (Let me know if you would like a copy of Mr. Fleming’s email.) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:24 AM 2 5. In your email to me, you state that “I am not involved in any way with the cell towers your email below cites.” But how could you not be? How could Palo Alto’s Chief Technology Officer not be involved in the major buildout of telecommunications infrastructure that Verizon, Crown Castle, At&T and now Mobilitie are proposing? In this regard, I take note that you are part of the ConnectedCity coalition at City Hall (as is Mr. Fleming). Plus you publicly champion “smart cities” and 5G, the next generation of broadband that is the telecom industry’s raison d’etre for wanting to install dozens and dozens of cell towers next to people’s homes here. Are you suggesting that, even though your public statements make it clear that you enthusiastically endorse the sort of buildout Verizon proposes, the people Palo Alto has hired you to advise—City Staff and City Council—are not aware of and guided by your views? Again, thank you for contacting me. On behalf of the United Neighbors of Palo Alto, I look forward to your response to the issues I’ve raised. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151   From: Reichental, Jonathan [mailto:Jonathan.Reichental@CityofPaloAlto.org]   Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 5:52 PM  To: jfleming@metricus.net  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City  <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: FW: Update from Palo Alto's United Neighbors    Dear Ms. Fleming:    While my name is listed as a representative of the City of Palo Alto on the Joint Venture’s Steering Committee on  Wireless Communication, I want to let you know that I have never attended any of their meetings. This is simply an  uncompensated, volunteer opportunity for which, to date, I have not participated in.    In addition, I am not involved in any way with the cell towers your email below cites. To my knowledge this is being  handled by our Planning and Utilities Departments.    I will be requesting to have my name removed from the Joint Venture’s Steering Committee on Wireless Communication  as it is unfair for me to be associated with something I have never been involved in.    Thank you.    ____________________________________________________________  Jonathan Reichental, Ph.D. :: Chief Information Officer :: City of Palo Alto :: @PaloAltoCIO  Assistant: jeanny.weatherford@cityofpaloalto.org :: 650‐329‐2182      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:24 AM 3 From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net]   Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 2:49 PM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Update from Palo Alto's United Neighbors    We at United Neighbors thought you might be interested in this email we recently circulated. Dear Neighbors,   The Architectural Review Board (ARB) will not be holding a hearing this month to consider Verizon’s resubmitted plans to install its first 15 cell towers in Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. Verizon has asked to submit yet another set of plans (we’ve lost count of how many resubmissions this makes), and the Planning Department tells us that once they’ve received and reviewed these materials, they will schedule the ARB hearing. The Planning Department also tells us that the “shot clock” on these installations, which was set to expire on February 14th, will be set back to a date after the ARB hearing. As you may remember, the reason this matters is that if the shot clock expires before the City has reached a decision on the proposed cell towers, the cell towers are deemed to have been approved. On a related front: Have you ever heard of an organization called Joint Venture Silicon Valley? Neither had we, until we learned that Palo Alto’s Chief Information Officer and Chief Technology Officer, Jonathan Reichental, serves on Joint Venture’s Steering Committee on Wireless Communication. This matters because Joint Venture is funded in part by the same telecom firms that are pressing Palo Alto to allow cell towers to be installed next to residents’ homes.   Not only that, serving on the Steering Committee with Dr. Reichental are, among other telecom industry players: 1) William Hammett, President and CEO of Hammett & Edison, an engineering firm hired by Verizon to assist in Verizon’s current effort to install cell towers here; 2) Patti Ringo, President of the California Wireless Association, a telecom industry lobbying group; and 3) Randall Schwabacher, Manager of Small Cell Deployment NorCal at AT&T Wireless, who oversees AT&T’s current effort to install cell towers in Palo Alto.   This Steering Committee, of which Palo Alto’s Chief Information Officer and Chief Technology Officer is a member, formally supports the telecom industry’s efforts to revive SB649, the bill vetoed by Governor Brown that would strip municipalities such as ours of any right to control what a telecom company installs in a public right of way. To remind you, the City of Palo Alto’s official policy on SB649 has been to oppose it. At the very least, it is improper for Dr. Reichental to serve on a board: 1) funded and controlled by the telecom industry; 2) filled with senior representatives of companies with applications to install cell towers currently pending in Palo Alto; and 3) committed to goals at odds with the interests and policy of the city that employs him.   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:24 AM 4 United Neighbors has filed a Public Records Act request with Palo Alto for all correspondence to or from Dr. Reichental related to the subject of telecommunications. We will let you know what more we learn when the City responds to our request.   We have also requested City Manager James Keene’s correspondence on the same subject. Mr. Keene is on the Board of Directors of Joint Venture, and there is reason to believe that he, too, has a substantial conflict of interest with respect to the Verizon and AT&T applications that are currently before the City.   That’s what’s happening. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued concern about the telecom industry’s plans to litter our residential neighborhoods with now 125 large, ugly, radiation- emitting cell towers.   We’ll keep you posted.   Jeanne, Jerry & Jyo for United Neighbors City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:16 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Art Liberman <art_liberman@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 11, 2018 2:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking Fees on SRP developments and traffic from the VA construction Council - I believe you are now beginning to address the source of the traffic congestion woes that have increasingly affected Palo Alto. It is drivers from out of town, nearly all driving alone, who come into Palo Alto to work. While I support the proposal that would increase fees according to the number of new car trips new developments are projected to generate, the staff proposal would reduce fees to new developments in the Stanford Research Park (SRP); this is a mistake! I think you should go one step further; the important factor is to reduce traffic from those developments, not just mitigate it. You would not reduce trips by single driver cars in the SRP even if you were to increase those fees to the developers. If you really want employees to use alternative methods of transportation, you should compel employers in the SRP to have their employees pay for parking on their sites (exemptions for car pooling, etc). Stanford University has a policy that requires permit parking for employees on the university campus, and this has reduced the number of single driver vehicle trips. The SRP (or their landlord, Stanford University) ought to implement a similar policy, or the City should require this as part of any new business development project, and even consider making it retroactive to existing projects as part of SRP's traffic management program. One more point - traffic increase from a very large new development project in the City of Palo Alto has not been discussed at all. This is expansion of the PA Veteran's Hospital. In recent years, the VA has undertaken a very large construction project. A number of new buildings have sprung up on their campus in the past few years, several are in the middle of construction and more are on the drawing board. In just the past three years, the VA has built two large multi-story parking garages, a 600 stall garage and a 750 stall garage. While you are not able to require the Federal Government to abide by municipal policies and regulations, you should at least include the growth of the VA workforce and its patient community in projections of traffic just as you have included the traffic impact of the new Stanford Hospitals. Arthur Liberman 751 Chimalus Drive City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:26 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Susan C <teachinator@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 4:40 PM To:HRC; Council, City Cc:Forster Mike; Susan Cole Subject:Please do not spend city funds on becoming a CEDAW Dear City Council and HRC members, In the interests of fiscal responsibility, I ask you to vote NO on any proposed ordinance that would result in forming a "gender equality task force" in Palo Alto. I believe this would be an extremely poor use of taxpayer money. Women as a class in Silicon Valley have money, legal rights, a social atmosphere that tends to be open to complaints about gender inequality, and abundant access to public platforms to inform others of any abuses that may exist. A city-funded task force would be redundant and wasteful. Sincerely, Susan Cole teachinator@gmail.com 420 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:26 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Kerstin Johnsson <kbjohnsson@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 4:15 PM To:HRC; Council, City Subject:PLEASE VOTE NO on tonight's ordinance authorizing a gender equality task force to conduct analysis to study gender equality issues affecting Palo Alto Ladies and gentlemen,     I'm sure you've heard of the site called Nextdoor, where neighbors share information.  Well, the other day, a  neighbor posted a notice indicating that there was a vote coming up (tonight apparently) for the following:    "Human Relations Commission will consider asking City Council to adopt a local ordinance implementing principles of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The ordinance would authorize a gender equality task force to conduct an analysis to study the gender equality issues that affect the City of Palo Alto and propose policy and programmatic change, if needed." In case you are not aware,  there has been a lot of discussion on Nextdoor since this was posted, mostly by those of us who find this an  enormous waste of our tax dollars.       Personally, I've lived in Palo Alto for over 20 years, most of that time as a single woman in high tech. I have  rarely encountered even the slightest amount of sex discrimination, and when there was even a hint of it, I  addressed it immediately. That is how I, and many of my neighbors, believe sex discrimination (or any form of discrimination) should be handled, not by throwing our tax money at a group of people bent on searching it out.   As I said on Nextdoor, if this were such a huge issue in Palo Alto, do you really think women in this area  wouldn't be tweeting, Facebooking, and blogging about it?  Do you really think women wouldn't go to the  papers with this information?  Do you really think smart women like us wouldn't take people and companies  to court over it?      We don't need this "help", and we certainly don't want our precious tax money spent on this nonsense.      Thank you,  Dr. Kerstin Johnsson  2170 Princeton St,  Palo Alto, CA 94306    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Reine Flexer <reine13@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 10, 2018 8:47 PM To:bpa-issues@googlegroups.com Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: [bpa-issues: 1545] Current Project Critique I agree with Richard that this is a huge amount of money, the city is bleeding money to contractors. We see that all the time. In the meanwhile the question of the animal shelter has not been resolved: the animal shelter is still in limbo because the city (manager) is not willing to assign a dollar value to it.. We need to have a shelter for our animals, the city needs to decide to either pay PetsInNeed to upgrade the facility and run the shelter, or the city should take care of the shelter itself, fixing it and hiring the needed employees: none of the employees who have left have been replaced. There are pros and cons for each choice, I don't want to debate it here, but something must be done and yes, this too will cost money no matter what. So save money on the bridges etc and provide for our pets. On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net> wrote: February 10, 2018 To: Palo Alto City Council Subj. Upcoming projects Dear Council Members: I am writing to weigh in on several upcoming projects. I hope you will pay attention to these remarks, as I consider them my input to projects that will have major consequences on our city, some good , some not so good, and all very expensive. My overriding concern is that the city is said to be facing serious budget shortfalls. This issue needs to be addressed and resolved before we undertake more expensive projects. They are in order: 1. The Arastradero Reconstruction Project 2. The bike/pedestrian bridge over Highway 101 3. The Current Ross Road Project 4. The proposed El Camino Real “Grand Boulevard” project 1. Arastradero Project As I understand this project, the goal is to rebuild the roadway from Foothill Expressway to Fabian Avenue. In addition, the present stripping which essentially reduces most of this road from the original four lanes to two, with some exceptions, will be made permanent with curbing and landscaping. The budget for this project is about $10 million. I believe this is a gross misuse of our city’s capital budget for these reasons: a) the roadway is in acceptable condition and does not need reconstruction. A road that seriously needs resurfacing is Churchill, not to mention a number of other City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:15 AM 2 streets in the downtown area that are close to third world condition, based on my experience in such countries; b)worse, the temporary stripping has proven beyond any doubt, that the experiment has been proven to be a failure. The traffic jams every weekday in the morning and in the late afternoon are horrendous. I have read letters from time to time pointing out this situation to city officials. Moreover, the current thinking amongst local residents that I have read or heard about are opposed to this project. I think before proceeding, it would be wise for council to order staff to engage in comprehensive meetings with the local community before committing to this very expensive project. 2. The Highway 101 Bridge I do not contest the need for this bridge. However, I call to your attention that the city of East Palo Alto is about to construct a similar bridge over Highway 101 that appears from the drawings to be much longer than the proposed Palo Alto bridge. That city’s bridge is budgeted for $8.6 million. Ours, according to recent input from one city council member, is now budgeted for $20 million. Please explain to me and to the rest of Palo Alto’s citizens, why East Palo Alto can build such a bridge for far less than half of what we plan? In my opinion, this discrepancy in cost of the two bridges amounts to malfeasance on the part of our city government in the use of taxpayer’s dollars, regardless of the source of those dollars. 3. The Ross Road Project I have several issues with this project. I have compared this project as it is being built (having driven its entire length the other day) with the recent reconfiguration of the lane structure on Middlefield Road (Which I use twice a week going to and from my teaching assignment at Seton School.) This change works. The same intent to slow traffic and improve the bike paths seems to being achieved by using sturdy plastic bollards to define bike path from roadway. Cars access to side streets is controlled by forcing cars to line up with the road before turning right, allowing the adjacent bike lane to proceed to make the right turn without entering into the car lane. Cars making left turns do not pose a safety problem. On Ross road, instead of relatively inexpensive bollards to effect lane control, the project is using very expensive concrete bulb-outs to achieve the same effect of bike lane separation for cars making right turns onto side streets, with one dangerous exception. Here, as the bike lane approaches the side street, the lane necessarily merges directly into the car lane with about a two foot width. This is because the concrete bulb out does not allow for a bike lane to continue onto the side street without leaving the lane. Drive the road yourself to see what I mean. I don’t recall what the Middlefield project cost, but I’m told the Ross Road project is in excess of $8 million. Finally, driving down East Meadow going East, which I do on regular basis to visit friends, I discovered that a roundabout is being installed at the Ross Road intersection. This is also a concrete structure about half way competed, I would guess. I had to negotiate around the structure very slowly to make the curve. Note that I drive a full size Jaguar, so it is a long car. If I had trouble, how in the world is a fire truck to get around this curve? Note that there is a fire station at the corner of Middlefield and East Meadow. Has this been tested? What possible reason is there for this unnecessary impediment? 4. El Camino Real What is the thinking going on here? Has the council suddenly succumbed to “Paris Envy”. Please City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:15 AM 3 get real. ECR is a major constantly busy highway at all hours of the day and well into the evening. Standing on the sidewalk, the noise is all but unbearable. Sidewalk cafes, what with noise and fumes, will simply not work. Moreover, unless you intend to eliminate all parking, bicycles using ECL is tempting terrible accidents. As it is now, bikes on ECR is extremely unnerving for the driver, not to mention the danger to the cyclist. And again, you are talking about spending more millions of planning, and even more to implement any ill founded grand design. Improve the street landscaping and require some landscape setbacks for all new construction and you will achieve a better look and safer highway. Thank you for your attention to this letter. I hope it brings some common sense and more important, budget sense to your thinking and decision making. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard C. Placone Chimalus Drive Palo Alto -- This email list is maintained by the Barron Park Association. Join or renew your BPA membership, or get more email list information, at bpapaloalto.org. Need to check membership status? Contact barronpark.paloalto@gmail.com. Disclaimer: Any viewpoints in this message are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent those of the Barron Park Association or the BPA Board. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barron Park Association: Issues" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpa- issues+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpa-issues@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 09, 2018 1:48 PM To:Kamhi, Philip Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Keene, James Subject:Re: Follow up questions from Southgate RPP meeting One quick follow-up I notice, looking at the parking survey that they break out how many employee permits there are at each interval. Given the penchant for staff to hold fast to the 30-40% showrate, I'd like to present this city-funded survey as proof against using that number. According to the survey the number of employee permits in Southgate are as follows: Jan 10 9am - 10 employee permits 100% showrate Jan 10 12pm - 9 employee permits 90% showrate (someone must have gone to lunch) Jan 10 3pm - 9 employee permits 90% showrate (long lunch) Jan 11 9am - 6 employee permits 60% (late to work) Jan 11 12pm - 10 employee permits 100% showrate Jan 11 3pm - 11 employee permits 110% showrate ( 1 must be EP/Mayfield permit) Given this data, I request that staff change their Southgate showrate to reflect actual figures and use a 90% showrate. Keith Ferrell On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Philip, I haven't received a response yet on this past email. I did see that it went in as a public records request and I received the data on the block by block occupancy and also the slides from the presentation. I still haven't received information on how spaces were calculated or clarification on El Camino north of Park. Some other comments: 1) How were the number of available parking spaces calculated by the contractor? Their numbers are still too high. Staff's original number was 478 spaces. (Residents counted 470). The new count done in January 2018 is 581. You stated at the council meeting that the discrepancy was due to not counting El Camino or Churchill as they were on the outer parts of the neighborhood. Just to note, the resident count DOES include those blocks. So, according to your explanation, if we take the original 478 and add the spaces on El Camino and Churchill, we should get the 581 spaces counted in January. However, there are 59 spaces on the January count on those two blocks. I would argue that even that number is too high. But, we'll continue with those numbers. Taking the 478 and adding the 59, we arrive at 537 spaces, which is still 44 spaces short of the 581. A quick calculation, which took me about 2 minutes to get the numbers, would have told you that your explanation of the variance was incorrect. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I've stated that staff needs to provide better and more honest information to council to make their decisions. It only causes confusion and frustration with everyone involved. There is no reason to state something as fact when you know it is not true. Once again I will ask that you provide me with the method used to calculate the number of City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:19 AM 2 available spaces. I've reviewed the backup for the latest count and the numbers are all too high. Unless they are using smaller parking spaces, or not leaving enough room for cars to get out of their driveway, there's no way those numbers are an accurate reflection of the available parking spaces. If you would like, I can walk you down some of the streets and we can measure how many actual spaces fit on one of our blocks. Please let me know if you would like to take me up on the offer. I might even be able to get enough cars to fill the block to the capacity provided in these counts and we can see if anyone can get out of their driveway without hitting another car. Again, let's provide realistic numbers if we're looking for realistic solutions. 2) With regards to El Camino Real from Park going north, if this is, in fact part of the RPP as stated multiple times in the meeting, when can we expect a) signs to go up stating that and b) enforcement? If this is not going to happen then it needs to be removed from the RPP and further reference to it being part of the Southgate RPP can stop. There needs to be an official declaration of this so there is no confusion in the future. 3) There is a curb adjacent to 1681 El Camino that used to be red (for visibility and safety) and has recently been painted over. Was this done by the city or by someone else? (see two photos in original email. One with red curb, one without) 4) In the original and subsequent meetings on the Southgate RPP, staff shows the original occupancy data. Those numbers were taking during the last week of school, when seniors were no longer in school and the school was NOT enforcing parking permits. We mentioned this at the time the survey was taken, but staff did not seem to care or take that into consideration. The real numbers were actually much higher than what is shown in that study. 5) Looking at the presentation slides, on page 6 it shows 562 Resident Permits for Southgate. That's incorrect. According to the file given to me by the city, and feel free to confirm, Southgate residents have 220 stickers and 142 hangtags (plus 112 scratchers which we are not counting, otherwise, employee permits would total 100 if we're being consistent). This will affect other numbers on that slide. Please note that 25 permits in Southgate would put the percentage of employee permits compared to the available parking spaces higher than that of downtown. Does it make sense for a residential neighborhood to have a higher percentage of employees occupying parking spaces than a downtown area? 6) Right picture on page 14 is NOT Escobita Ave. It is Manzanita looking west from Castilleja. 7) The video that was shown in the meeting is horribly misleading. That portion of the neighborhood is on the complete opposite end of the neighborhood from where the impacts will be felt from any additional employee permits. It was irresponsible of you to show that video and not at least mention that it was taking in an area that had nothing to do with what was being discussed. Would love to get a response on these items. Thanks Keith Ferrell On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Phillip, I had a few follow up questions and comments from last night's meeting that I'm hoping you can help me with. 1) Can I get a copy of the slides you showed at last night's meeting? I'm most interested in the block by block occupancy and the comparison of neighborhood permit percentages. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:19 AM 3 2) Can I also get a detail of how the parking spaces in Southgate were determined? The May 2017 survey counted 478 spaces. In January 2018, the count was 581 spaces. In the meeting last night you mentioned that the difference was due to not counting El Camino and, I believe, Churchill, is that correct? Jim McFall and I hand counted spaces in 2017 and counted 470, including El Camino and Churchill. The number of spaces along El Camino and Chuchill totals 50 spaces. So, even using the 478 spaces and adding 50, we still are over 50 spaces short of the 581 being quoted. Given that there is a block by block occupancy, there must also be a block by block availability. Can you send me a copy of that? 3) Staff continues to stick to that 30% showrate. Before the Southgate RPP goes back before council at the six-month mark, I request that a count be done of the showrate of Southgate RPP employee permits. 4) Staff mentioned that the Southgate RPP includes ALL of El Camino Real from Churchill to Park. While that might be how it shows in the city's parking map, there is a gap in the RPP north from Park for approximately 250 feet. There is no signage in that area, and there are cars parking there without permits. In addition, there was a red curb that has since been painted over with white paint (see photos below). The third photo merely shows a lack of RPP signage. I don't see any of this as being an issue, as it allows 1681 employees that ability to park and does not interfere with any residences. However, I feel staff should refrain from calling this out as part of the RPP when, in fact, it is not being enforced as such. 5) There seems to be a fair amount of confusion as to the specifics of the Southgate neighborhood. It would be a good idea if residents, businesses and staff (including council members) to take a tour of the area so everyone is on the same page. It is frustrating to be in the audience of a council meeting and hearing staff and council make statements that are not correct and can be easily clarified/corrected. Thanks Keith Ferrell Red Curb outside 1681 El Camino (Sept 2017) City of Palo Alto I City Clerk's Office I 2/12/2018 11:19 AM ~i~ilt:-. ,.~ \'"I'll!'~ Curb painted white outside 1681 El Camino (Jan 2018) No RPP signage El Camino j ust n01th of Park 4 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:17 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Greg M. Bell <gxbell@me.com> Sent:Saturday, February 10, 2018 12:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: gas to electric-powered leaf blowers. I’d like the City Council to explore this option. I’ve got an idea. Gas leaf blowers pollute our air - our law is not being enforced. Small gas engines don't have the high-level pollution control equipment as cars and they have no smog-check requirement, as cars do. As gas blowers age, they pollute more than when new. I personally smell gas most times when passing by a gas blower in use. Reality is leaf blowers are not going away, they haven’t regardless of the law. Further, maintenance workers are not going to use rakes, they are simply too slow. Battery electric blowers are the best choice, but low income maintenance workers cannot afford new battery-electric blowers. Here’s the idea. Let’s offer financing and/or subsidies for battery electric blowers for pro gardeners. I'd like the Council to explore funding replacing gas leaf blowers (for pro gardener service) with all battery- electric blowers. Let's take the gas blowers out of service like old 1970's clunker cars, high polluting cars. Battery electric is the technology leap we need to take. There are battery electric blowers available today, Palo Alto workers use them now. Make this financing or subsidy idea your greener city priority. I look forward to your report and action. Gregory M Bell Palo Alto Resident https://sustaintimes.net —— I type less and talk more by phone. Greg M. Bell LinkedIn Profile Facebook Connection SustainTimes.net Sustainable Actions Made Easy! —— City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Dee Lee <dlee3659@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Ross Rd Bike Blvd Dear City council !  I am living 3659 Ross Rd since 1986. I am very concern about this Ross Rd Bike Blvd project especially Ross at E Meadow  design.  They are round bouts, which is very very narrow road plus have to circle for turn. Your members – all – should come out  with your car check how it is before they are complete.  My most concern is fire engine, ambulance, moving and big construction material truck passing. There is no way they  could make left turn at all.  Please for citizens safety, make them change their design.  Thank you    Dong Lee    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:56 PM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Christy Moision <cmoision@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 14, 2018 9:25 AM To:Council, City; Ctymgr@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Ross Road Bike Boulevard Dear City Council and Mr. Keene, I am writing in support of the Ross Road bike improvements. I live on Louis, but I use Ross as a biking route quite often. Even with the construction, I find Ross to be an enjoyable route and I’ve noticed that the cars are slowing down because of the new features. I rarely rode a bike as an adult before my family moved to Palo Alto four years ago. I was immediately struck by the number of kids riding to school, adults commuting to jobs, and older people riding around town. I’d never seen a bike boulevard before, but I found that even being new to riding I felt comfortable on the calmer streets. I now try to do as many of my local errands as I can by bike. My whole family commutes by bike and we value safe and pleasant routes. I appreciate the measures that the City of Palo Alto is taking to improve our bike network. I am looking forward to the completion of Phase I of the project and the other improvements coming to Charleston/Arastradero. Thank you for continuing to support improved bike routes! Christy Moision Louis Road -- Christy Moision 626-390-0343 (cell) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:25 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Larry and Zongqi Alton <lalton@pacbell.net> Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 8:14 PM To:Council, City Cc:christy; Ron; Ryan and Mayra Alton; rick panian; karen elaine panian brooke blake; debbie alton; Kathy Wen; Benjamin Chen Subject:Save the egg- it is our most meaningful art piece Keep and Maintain Digital DNA (Save the Egg!) Keep and Maintain Digital DNA (Save the Egg!) Unveiled in 2005, Digital DNA is very arguably the most popular and culturally significant work of public art th... Larry Alton City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:45 PM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Amy Christel <amymchristel@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:27 AM To:Palo Alto Airport; Council, City; Swanson, Andrew Subject:Screenshot 2018-02-13 at 8.20.11 AM Just now, 8:16 am, Feb 13, 2018, over 769 Rosewood Dr. What is going on? Publish these flight paths which are establishing over PA neighborhoods! Transparency instead of hiding behind excuses. Killing our quality of life with these horrendous noise machines. Don’t tell me there was traffic over the Bay preventing the takeoff to the right. Clearly, not the case. At least they could fly along the already noisy freeway. Amy Christel 769 Rosewood Dr Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:45 PM 2 Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:38 PM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 12, 2018 10:05 PM To:stephanie@dslextreme.com; cherrill@slac.stanford.edu; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; grchippendale@yahoo.com; judyblueeyes1 @gmail.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; allison@padailypost.com; emibach@padailypost.com; Letters@sfchronicle.com; trudy@myrrh-art.com; bhushans@aol.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; burdlady@gmail.com; Council, City; dprice@padailypost.com Subject:Stephanie-here is my piece on the Pesky controversy that allows you and others to post your own response http://archives.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2016/07/28/brock-turners-probation Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:25 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:michelle higgins <mich_higgins@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 5:41 PM To:HRC Cc:Council, City; Laura Prentiss; John Fitton; Keri Wagner Subject:Support for HRC recommendation for City of Palo Alto to adopt of CEDAW We urge the Human Relations Commission to support the adoption of a local ordinance implementing the principles of  the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).    We write to you as a group of Palo Alto parents who have been deeply involved in collaborative work with PAUSD to  address the pervasive problem of sexual harassment in our schools.   This work, and the multiple school‐based incidents of sexual harassment that have made it necessary, have served to  reinforce our personal commitment to changing the cultural norms and beliefs that lead to not only sexual harassment  but all forms of gender discrimination.   It is vital that we take stock of the way women and girls in our community are impacted by gender discrimination,  including but not limited to pay equity, sexual harassment (in our workplaces, colleges and schools), intimate partner  violence and sexual assault. The formation of a gender equality taskforce ensures that these issues can be brought into  the light and, most importantly, we can begin to develop effective policies and programs to address them.   In our view, the adoption of CEDAW and the formation of a gender equality task force is long overdue. We hope that the  Human Relations Commission recommends that the City of Palo Alto stands with other cities in implementing the  principles of CEDAW for the good of all in our community.    Sincerely,    Michelle Higgins, Laura Prentiss, John Fitton and Keri Wagner    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:27 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Shrout, Kate Berlitz <kshrout@BuckleySandler.com> Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 11:08 AM To:HRC Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for Proposed CEDAW Gender Analysis Hello,    I’m a Palo Alto resident and attorney advising clients on cultural compliance issues, including how to  identify/prevent/address harassment and discrimination in the work place.  I support the proposed CEDAW Gender  Analysis work and related Task Force.  Cultural compliance is a critical issue, impacting companies and organizations  across the spectrum.  As a leader in innovation, Palo Alto should also be a leader in supporting equality and fairness  among its employees and businesses.  If passed, I welcome the opportunity to discuss how my law firm might be able to  support this initiative.    Best,    Kate Berlitz Shrout  Counsel  Buckley Sandler LLP  555 California Street, Suite 4925  San Francisco, CA 94101  T (415) 619‐3445  M (202) 812‐5283  kshrout@buckleysandler.com  www.buckleysandler.com  www.infobytesblog.com    This email message (including any attachments) is only for use by the intended recipient(s) and is presumed confidential. It also may be subject to the attorney- client privilege or other confidentiality protections and may constitute inside information. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its contents. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message (including any attachments) from your system immediately. Any unauthorized reading, copying, distribution, or other use of this message or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:27 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Temnee Wright <temneekwright@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 1:05 PM To:HRC Cc:Council, City Subject:Support for Review and consider ad hoc committee report to Council on an ordinance related to CEDAW Dear Human Rights Commission, I am writing to support the the first item of business for the first item on the HRC’s Regular Meeting tonight (February 8th) : Review and consider ad hoc committee report to Council on an ordinance related to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women – Chair Stinger – Action (60 minutes). As noted in the staff report, CEDAW advocates for the rights and opportunities of women in all areas of society. To date, 187 of the 193 UN member states have ratified CEDAW. Although the United States (US) is one of the few countries who have not ratified the treaty, its premise and principals are important enough for individual cities to priortize. The city of San Jose and Santa Clara County both passed the CEDAW-type ordinances in December 2017. I hope that Palo Alto is next. Respectfully, Temnee Wright -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse brevity & typos. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:46 PM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:34 AM To:James Aram; swebby@da.sccgov.org; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; jbeiers@smcgov.org; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (external); dangel@da.sccgov.org; JReifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Bullerjahn, Rich; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Watson, Ron; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Perron, Zachary; swagstaffe@smcgov.org Subject:Tasers - Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 2/13/18, 11:28 AM @rjPAPD Baby cribs to strollers both have caused deaths and injuries recalled or taken off the market #Tasers are unregulated #Remington firearms American icon files #Chapter11 Reported deaths and injuries. Difference? #ATFE regulated facebook.com/PAFreePress/po… @rjPAPD Police remain mute! pic.twitter.com/1ptSTztK5A Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:56 PM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 14, 2018 9:37 AM To:WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Albert Cobarubias Justice Project; Paul George @ PPJC; Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group; dprice@padailypost.com; Council, City Subject:Town Crier story on MV RV meeting last week https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/sections/news/201-traffic-development/57159- This is Bruce Barton's write up of the Mountain View RV meeting of last week. Chuck Sent with Mailtrack City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 13, 2018 4:30 PM To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; CAC-TACC; ConnectedCity Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 02-07-18 UAC meeting -- Item IX.5 -- Fiber Utility Update Commissioners, On 02-07-18, UAC considered a discussion item -- Item 5, "Fiber Utility Update." 02-07-18: UAC agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63221 02-07-18: Staff report: Fiber Utility Update: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63216 Please see (below the "######" line) a transcript of this item, with my comments (paragraphs beginning with "###"). Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ############################################################################### Video: http://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-2-2-2/ 1:29:42: Commissioner Schwartz (acting Chair): For Item number 5, I have a card from Jeff. Do we have another one? OK. Why don't you just hand it to me. OK. Great. OK. Jeff, you're up. 1:30:18: Jeff Hoel: Hi. I'm Jeff Hoel. And I'm a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee on FTTP and Wireless. But tonight I'm just speaking as an individual. And I've sent you a message about the staff report. I found a number of errors in the description of history. You can read about that. But tonight I want to talk about something else. On the first page of the staff report, there are three things I noticed. First of all, staff is requesting UAC feedback. That's a little weird. UAC's job is advising Council. And when UAC advises Council, if staff wants to listen and get feedback, that's fine. But you know what your job is. Second, they're talking about -- the overall objective is to support new and future applications and technologies dependent on a gigabit-speed broadband. That's too narrow in scope. We want a system for the good of the community that not only offers a number of speeds, some of which are gigabit, but also offers good prices, good reliability, good customer service, good privacy, net neutrality, and maybe a bunch of other things. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 2 Finally, staff is talking about the -- they want to identify a public-private partnership opportunities. That has failed us many times in the past. And it's failed other communities in the past. Most recently, Fort Collins wasted a year talking with people like Axia, and found, basically, Axia disappeared at the last minute because they couldn't -- they couldn't find the money. What I'd like Palo Alto to concentrate on is how to do it ourselves. Fort Collins is doing that. They're moving ahead. As of this last November, they voted to do it. Another topic I want to raise. Recently, January 22nd, City Council had an item on their agenda -- the Upgrade Downtown Project -- and part of that was putting in conduit for fiber, just sort of on speculation. Not because there was a design that said it needed to be there, but just, as long as the trench is open, you have to put it in. The Fiber Fund was going to be charged two million bucks to go about half a mile, which is way, way, way, way, way too expensive. And when staff brought this item to Council, it had -- they originally bid it out, and nobody bid, so they did a single-source negotiation, and put themselves in a position where Council could either accept this particular contract exactly as is, with nothing to be changed about it, or they could start over. And Council caved and said, OK, we'll take the project as is. They did ask staff to come back to find out whether $2 million was the right price for the conduit for fiber. And when they do that, I hope everybody watches. Because I think it's way too high. Council Member Scharff, at one point, said, this is a trust issue. When staff comes to us with a utilities contract -- request to dig up the streets and stuff -- we just gotta say yes. We got to trust 'em. I think that's nonsense. I think if Council always trusted staff to do the right thing, there wouldn't be a UAC. Finally, Ed Shikada said, at one point, the reason that you folks didn't see this contract before it went to Council is because UAC never does contracts. I think that's a bad policy. I mean, I think it's clear that, once an RFP goes out and bids are submitted, you can't take a look at the bids, because the bidders want that information to be secret from each other. But before an RFP goes out, I think there's no reason why you can't -- you know, why the public can't see -- and why you can't see -- what we're about to ask for. And, you know, in this case, it's a very big-deal project. You know, It was, you know, $16.5 million -- $18 [million] if you count the contingency. And so, it's important enough for you to worry about. And, I think, staff should bring it to you. 1:35:14: Commissioner Schwartz: (unamplified) Thank you. OK. We now have Andy -- what-is-it? -- Poggio. 1:35:24: Andy Poggio: (unamplified) Poggio. Perfect. (amplified) Hi. I'm Andy Poggio. I'm also a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee. And I want to urge Palo Alto -- and, in this case, through the mechanism of this group -- to move ahead with fiber-to-the-premises. I'll just make a couple of points about that. One is that our federal government has destroyed net neutrality, and is moving to define "broadband" internet access from a very low speed to an abysmally low speed. Moving us backwards in time. Whereas Palo Alto is about moving forward. So we can't expect good federal support. We're currently served in Palo Alto by a duopoly. AT&T can't manage 5 megabits upload from my Midtown home -- already a very low speed. Comcast is infamous for bad customer service. These are not good choices for us. There is a lot of information and concern around a business plan for fiber-to-the-premises. I note that we don't have a business plan for streets. We're all just glad that we don't have to walk and drive in the mud. All right? We don't have a business for libraries. We all love our libraries. But I ask this group, and everyone here, in the last month, how many times have you used a City library? You don't have to say. Just think of that number. Then, how many times in the last month have you used the internet? I'll be very surprised if, for most people here, there isn't a 10-to-1 ratio easily. So that might indicate where we should be putting our emphasis, on City resources in general. Just a couple more points. One, a lot of people talk about wireless as a replacement. It's not a replacement for fiber. It's fundamentally a shared medium. It doesn't work well when people are streaming -- which we're doing more and more of. I'll note that the organizations that build cell towers never use wireless to connect the cell towers. It's always fiber. And the reason is, wireless is not a replacement for fiber. And, sort of as a general rule, one approach is, if it doesn't move, connect it by fiber. So, my watch, my cell phone, wireless are perfect for those. My house, I'm fortunate to say, doesn't move around a lot, so it should be connected by fiber. One last point. Palo Alto used to be sort of the startup capital, not of Silicon Valley, but, arguably, the world. I think that's City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 3 moved north. I think San Francisco is beating us in that respect. I don't think Palo Alto is going to be able to replace North Beach. I don't think we'll be able to replace SoMa. But we can build fiber-to-the-premises. Benefit startups. Benefit existing companies. And benefit our citizens. Thank you. 1:38:16: Commissioner Schwartz: (unamplified) Herb. 1:38:25: Herb Borock: Acting Chair Schwartz and commissioners and Vice Mayor Filseth. You know, usually, in meetings like this, we get to hear a staff report before the public gets to comment on what staff has to say. But, as you heard from the previous two speakers, the kinds of things that you've been hearing from the public this evening have nothing to do with the staff report. Because staff has decided that it is the one that is making the decision about what goes in the request for proposal. And what the previous two speakers and I are talking about is what a fiber project would be if it's done beginning with the idea of providing a service to the community. That's not what's going on here, and hasn't been going on for some time. In regard to the fact that this request for proposal is not being approved by the City Council. I raised that issue at one of the Citizens Advisory Committee meetings that I was able to attend as a member of the public. Sometimes, the committee meets privately with staff, and they don't notice those meetings. ### Since I've been a CAC member (10-27-16), all CAC meetings I've been made aware of have been open to the public. But prior to 10-27-16, CAC did sometimes meet in private. And I said, well, it should -- my suggestion is, it should -- the RFP should go to the Council. Which Dr. Reichental responded, oh, we never send RFPs to the Council. But, in fact, when fiber was under the Utilities -- not like under the last Utilities Director, who wanted nothing to do with fiber -- Director Fong -- but under Director Ulrich, the City Council approved the RFPs. When the fiber project that led to the attempt with Axia was before the Council, it was under Administrative Services. The RFPs came for approval to Council. So, it's really, you know, who's on the City Council, and who the City Manager is, that determines this flow of information. And in terms of what Jeff Hoel and Andy Poggio have said, to get what they want done, and what I want done, you need buy-in by a majority of the Council, the City Manager, and the Director of Utilities. Because if any one those three doesn't want to do it, it's not going to happen. The Council can decide to do it. But either the City Manager or the Utilities Department can decide not to do it. And it won't happen. It will be delayed. It won't come out the same way. And, so far, we -- currently, in it's -- current City Council / Manager -- the system with who's in those positions now, much more is delegated to the City Manager. On many issues, not just on Utilities or fiber. It's more like a business where the board of directors looks at the stock price, and as long as that's OK, well, we'll let the CEO run the thing. But I don't think that is what a City government is for. The light, by the way, is not working. I know you're looking at the time, but I have no idea what it is. 1:41:48: Commissioner Schwartz: (unamplified) You're done. 1:41:49: Herb Borock: Fine. Thank you. 1:41: Commissioner Schwartz: (unamplified) Good. Thank you. I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was a light to use to time yourself. (amplified) OK. Thank you for your comments. 1:42:02: David Yuan: Good evening, commissioners and Vice Mayor. My name is Dave Yen, Strategic Business Manager. And with me tonight is Jim Fleming, Senior Management Analyst, and our fiber expert. So, first off, I want to acknowledge -- I thank Andy Poggio and Jeff Hoel for serving on the Citizens Advisory Committee, and coming tonight -- and attending tonight's meeting. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 4 1:42:31: Technical difficulties. 1:42:44: OK. So, the agenda tonight is to give you guys a brief overview of the fiber network, provide highlights of the City's 19- year odyssey, or pursuit for fiber-to-the-premises. And we'll revisit Council's August 2017 fiber motion to develop a business case and a high-level design for a fiber-to-the-node network, with an expansion option for fiber-to-the- premises. We'll provide you a market and regulatory update, as of right now. And we'll also provide you, under next steps, an update of our current fiber activities. 1:43:17: So, the fiber network was developed back in the mid-1990s. The purpose of the network was to improve command and control of utility facilities. ### That wasn't the only purpose. From the beginning, Council wanted to lease dark fiber to customers. And Council wanted to get to citywide FTTP (then called FTTH) eventually. In particular, with substations and traffic signals. In 2000, we started getting interest from telecommunications providers and resellers and even Stanford University, requesting to lease some of our dark fiber. ### According to this 12-19-97 article in the Palo Alto Weekly, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1997_Dec_19.LOOP.html "... fiber license agreements have been signed with two commercial customers--WebTV Networks and Brooks Fiber Communications of San Jose. Agreements are close to being finalized with six others." And then, in 2009, we established the Fiber Utility. Previously, it was a subdivision -- or a sub-fund of the electric utility. So, in 2009, we repaid back the electric fund $2 million for the investment. And also had $8 million reserves at that time. In 2014, we partnered with Palo Alto Unified School District and expanded our dark fiber network, by providing fiber to the 17 schools and the district office. ### If this was a partnership at all, it was a public-public partnership. This 12-03-12 staff report says the City gave PAUSD the opportunity to pay for half of the installation cost on an installment plan. Other than that, I think it was an ordinary provider-customer relationship. And currently, we're doing a fiber rebuild CIP project. Basically, it's to relieve some congestion points, mainly in the downtown area and Stanford Research Park. And adding more fiber strands there, to add more capacity. And, as of right now, we have about 100 customers, ### The slide says 108 customers. 221 connections. Annual revenue is about $4.5 million. And annual expenses about $2 million. And the current reserve balance is about $27 million. 1:44:34: Here is an outline of our fiber backbone. Sorry it's hard to see. But there's a -- you can see, it kind of surrounds the outside of Palo Alto. The blue represents the aerial fiber, and the green represents the underground. The split's about 54 percent aerial and 46 percent underground. And I just want to note that there is a lot of fiber in the downtown area, which is what's called out in that left box -- lower box. And on the right hand of that is the Stanford Research Park. There's a high concentration of fiber in those two main areas. 1:45:09: Now, I'm going to pass it on to Jim Fleming. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 5 1:45 :12: Jim Fleming: Good evening, Vice Chair Schwartz, ### UAC's Vice Chair is Arne Ballantine. (unamplified) commissioners, and Council Member Filseth. ** I'm Jim Fleming, and I'm a **. 1:45:21: (amplified) Um. This slide lists the various fiber-to-the-premises and wireless milestones since the late 1990s. The history document attached to the staff report provides more details. ### To me, it's confusing to get two separate presentations of history, one from David Yuan (dark fiber) and one from Jim Fleming (FTTP and wireless). The milestones include: In 1999, the City issued a request for proposals for a universal telecommunications system. However, no viable bids were submitted. ### The RFP was looking for a public-private partnership. By now, we should have figured out not to do that ever again. From 2000 to 2005, a Fiber-to-the-Home Trial was conducted in the Community Center neighborhood. 66 homes participated in the Trial. ### This recounting of history fails to mention that from 2002 to 2004, staff and consultant Uptown Services wrote a FTTH Business Case (2002), FTTH Business Plan, Phase 1 (2003), and FTTH Business Plan, Phase 2 (2004). In 2006, an RFP was issued to build citywide fiber, which resulted in lengthy negotiations with a consortium of firms to build a network. Negotiations were terminated with this consortium in 2009, due to the lack of financial resources of these private firms. ### This was the City's second attempt to make a public-private partnership work for FTTP. In 2010, the City, along with more than 1,000 other cities, responded to Google Fiber's RFI. In 2011 and 2012, staff worked with two consulting firms to prepare market research, and to explore network expansion opportunities, including a study to evaluate a user-financed model for fiber-to-the-premises. In 2013, the Council began its Technology and the Connected City initiative, which included an appointment of a Citizens Advisory Committee by the City Manager. ### Not exactly. On 05-14-13, Council's Technology and the Connected City (TACC) Committee asked City Manager Keene (at Item 5) to appoint and work with a Citizens Advisory Committee. https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/35046 But the appointments of committee members weren't actually made until 02-18-14, just one day before Google announced that Palo Alto was on its short list of 34 cities to perhaps get Google Fiber next. https://fiber.googleblog.com/2014/02/exploring-new-cities-for-google-fiber.html And the development of a Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan and a Wireless Network Plan. The plans were reviewed by the Council in September 2015. And the Council adopted a multi-part motion for next steps, including issuing an RFI for a public-private partnership. ### if you're keeping score -- and you should be keeping score -- this is the third attempt at a public-private partnership. An RFI was issued in 2016, and it resulted in several responses. But none of the respondents' proposals aligned with the City's objectives for a citywide Fiber-to-the-Premises network. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 6 While the fiber and wireless plans were being developed, staff was also engaged with Google Fiber for more than two years, as a potential city for construction of their fiber optic network. As you may know, Google Fiber "paused" its build plans in July of 2016. In 2017, staff presented three options to the Utilities Advisory Commission and the Council Policy & Services Committee for fiber and broadband expansion, in addition to two wireless recommendations. Based on feedback about the potential fiber and wireless options from the UAC and the Policy & Services Committee, on August 21, 2017, an option was recommended to the Council to develop a business case for a municipally-owned fiber-to-the-node network, that can make available fiber infrastructure in neighborhoods, to support last-mile connections by third-party builders and internet service providers, in addition to providing a wireless platform to support other communication needs for the City. A fiber- to-the-node network would be an incremental approach for fiber expansion. Two wireless recommendations were also presented. Those recommendations included to expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities. Most City facilities already have Wi-Fi. And to discontinue plans to provide public Wi-Fi in high-traffic commercial zones. 1:48:47: (You can go to the next slide. Thanks) Based on these recommendations on August 21, 2017, Council directed staff to do the following. * Develop a business case for a municipally-provided fiber-to-the-node network; engage a management consultant to develop a business case; develop funding plans, potential partners and/or service providers; and * Prepare a high-level network design. * Dependent on the outcome of the business case, engage an engineering firm to design a fiber-to-the-node network, with an expansion option to build a citywide fiber-to-the-premises network ### Does it make sense to consider citywide FTTP only if a business case can be made for FTTN? I don't think so. ### Also, I think it makes more sense to design the citywide fiber-to-the-premises network first, and only then consider what can be left out initially if all you want to achieve is FTTN functionality. * Council also asked staff to draft ordinances for consideration that would lower the City's fiber construction costs. For wireless, Council approved expanding wireless to unserved City facilities, and approved discontinuing consideration of City-provided Wi-Fi in high-traffic commercial zones. 1:49:48: Regarding market and regulatory updates, Comcast has confirmed the availability of gigabit-speed broadband to most premises in Palo Alto. ### In its 04-05-17 report to UAC, staff said Comcast would be doing a "soft launch" of DOCSIS 3.1 in 2Q17. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56779 Has the launch status moved beyond the "soft" stage? ### From this Comcast web page for Palo Alto, https://www.xfinity.com/locations/california/palo-alto.html if I click on "see all available offers," I go here: https://www.xfinity.com/learn/offers And I don't see any speeds higher than 250 Mbps. ### Using DOCSIS 3.1 technology, Comcast can offer a download speed of "up to" 1 Gbps but an upload speed of only "up to" 35 Mbps. Since this technology is a hybrid fiber coax technology, with hundreds of premises sharing a coax segment, and since the total bandwidth on a coax segment is only 10 Gbps or so, if a significant number of premises subscribe to 1-Gbps and all try to download at the same time, nobody gets 1 Gbps. Is this good enough to qualify as "gigabit-speed"? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 7 The price is $159.95 a month, with no contract, and $109.95 a month with a 1-year contract. ### Comcast can change its prices at the drop of a hat. At a 01-30-18 meeting of the City Council in Loveland, CO, Comcast's John Lehmann testified (at 4:17:50 on the video) that Comcast is experimenting with a variety of different prices for its (so-called) "gigabit" product (DOCSIS 3.1). https://loveland.viebit.com/player.php?hash=hjj2Twl9RMcv# In Longmont, CO (which already has a symmetric 1-Gbps citywide municipal FTTP alternative), it's $70 per month. In Loveland, CO (which is on the verge of moving forward with citywide municipal FTTP), it's $90 per month. Both are substantially less than Comcast's "gigabit" prices in Palo Alto (which has yet to get its act together). ### Recall that on 09-28-15, Council Member Burt did a quick calculation of how much money the City's premises might be able to save each year if the presence of a citywide municipal FTTP network caused the incumbents to reduce their prices by $40 per month. (See page 39 here.) https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49648 20,000 * $40 * 12 = $9.6 million per year. If he had assumed 30,000 premises, he would have calculated $14.4 million per year. If we compare the no-contract price of "gigabit" in Palo Alto ($160 per month) with the price in Longmont ($70 per month), the difference is $90 per month. So Palo Alto premises might save 30,000 * $90 * 12 = $32.4 million per year. If Palo Alto were offering 1-Gbps at $50 per month, as Longmont does for premises that sign up within three months of the network's availability, then for folks who took that service, the difference could be $110 per month, so the total savings could be 30,000 * $110 * 12 = $39.6 million per year. ### Comcast might double its prices, according to New Street Research's Jonathan Chaplin. 10-02-17: "Comcast to lead doubling of consumer broadband pricing, analyst says" https://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-to-lead-doubling-consumer-broadband-pricing-analyst-says We also understand that AT&T Fiber will initiate the upgrade to their network in 2018 in Palo Alto. ### This could mean almost anything at all. But it obviously doesn't mean that all premises in Palo Alto will be able to get symmetric 1-Gbps internet service from AT&T at a reasonable price by the end of 2018. Last week, the City and County of San Francisco issued a request-for-qualifications to find companies that are qualified to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain a ubiquitous broadband fiber-to-the-premises network that permits retail service providers to lease capacity on the network. The estimated cost to build a citywide dark fiber network in San Francisco is $1.5 billion, and a lit network is $1.9 billion. ### The $1.5 billion figure is for dark fiber infrastructure, with no electronics and no fiber drops. The $1.9 billion figure is for the same dark fiber infrastructure, plus electronics and drops for 100 percent of premises (because San Francisco's belief is that no premises should be left behind). http://www.sfmunifiber.com/fiber_roadmap Moving along, what is 5G, and when will it be available? 5G wireless technology is the next telecommunications standards beyond the current 4G standards. 5G will be integral to the development of the so-called Internet of Things. And to meet the exponential increase in consumer demand for high-performing mobile connections to the internet. 5G fixed wireless access provides connections to the internet via wireless mobile networks, rather than traditional cable, DSL, or fiber. Both AT&T and Verizon Wireless are conducting 5G trials in several cities in their operating territories. In terms of small cell deployments, there are currently about 120 applications submitted, with Planning and Utilities Department by the mobile operators to install small cell antennas and radios in Palo Alto. Primarily on wood utility poles and street light poles. The operators need to deploy small cells to extend their service coverage and/or increase network capacity. 1:51:45: In terms of regulatory issues of note, last December, the FCC repealed the federal government's 2015 net neutrality rules, which required internet providers to treat all websites, large and small, equally. Opponents of the FCC action are taking the agency to court. Also, there are two bills in the California Senate that would force ISPs to adhere to net neutrality protections removed by the FCC. SB 460 was approved last week and is now moving to the Assembly. And SB 822 is pending. It is important to note that legislators may have chosen an approach that is vulnerable to legal challenges. State laws can be preempted by federal policy. And the FCC's net neutrality repeal orders states to refrain from imposing their own network neutrality laws. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 8 In January 2017, the Chairman of the FCC announced the formation of a new federal advisory committee, called the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, which provides advice and recommendations to the commission on how to accelerate the deployment of high-speed internet access. The committee is beginning to issue draft recommendations for model codes for states and municipalities, which will streamline siting requirements, competitive access to broadband infrastructure, and removing access -- or, removing state and local regulatory barriers. The committee is made up of telecommunication industry representatives and representatives from the public sector. ### Recently, San Jose's mayor, Sam Liccardo, resigned from BDAC, because it was "a vehicle for advancing the interests of the telecommunications industry over those of the public." http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74464 Last October, Governor Brown vetoed SB 649, which proposed to scale back local government permit processes for antennas and equipment for wireless services. Many cities, including the City of Palo Alto, opposed the bill. ### Palo Alto dithered far too long before opposing SB 649. By 09-19-17, SB 649 had already been "enrolled" -- passed by the Assembly (09-13-17) and the Senate (09-14-17). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649 On 09-19-17, Mayor Scharff asked Governor Brown to veto it. Fortunately, he did. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61249 On 06-14-17, Mayor Scharff told Senator Hueso, the sponsor of SB 649, in a letter that Palo Alto opposed SB 649. I don't know whether the letter went anywhere else. Apparently, it didn't persuade Hueso. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58295 On 05-08-17, this staff report said staff was still dithering. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57724 Nevertheless, it is likely similar bills will come back this year, both at the state and federal levels. That concludes my remarks. 1:53:46: David Yuan: So, before I go to the final slides, I want to see if there's any questions. I know Jim just covered a lot of material. Under the markets and regulatory. 1:53:56: Commissioner Schwartz: Anybody? On this slide? So, what -- I have some comments. But it seems like -- Why don't you do your -- Why don't you do your slide, and then I'll -- 1:544:11: David Yuan: OK. So, this is our Next Steps. So, we've been working with the CAC for the past couple months on the statement of work for the RFP. It's currently under review by the City Attorney's Office. And, like Jim said earlier, the goal is to identify potential applications for gigabit services or gigabit speed, including the costs, the benefits, and whatever revenues it may derive; identifying public-private partnership models, developing a high-level network design, with cost estimates, both a fiber network and maybe a hybrid version, where it's both fiber and wireless. The timeline right now -- we don't go very fast, unfortunately -- from issuance to awarding of the contract, it takes about 4 to 6 months. So, the -- right now, the plan is to issue it in March. So we probably won't have a contract awarded until June or July. So, that means, we probably won't have any findings brought back to the UAC or Council until the fall, or early 2019. Just so you know. But I'll continue for now. We'll answer some -- Unless you have some questions now. 1:55:13: Commissioner Schwartz: OK. ### At this point, it's traditional for the Chair to let other commissioners speak first, but Acting Chair Schwartz decided to speak first. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 9 So, one of the things that I would think would be helpful is -- We have individuals who are members of the CAC. But they always speak as individuals. 1:55:26 David Yuan: Um hum. 1:55:26: Commissioner Schwartz: So, I think it would be helpful to us to hear whatever is the official position of the CAC, in terms of how that's stated. ### The Citizens Advisory Committee on FTTP and Wireless (CAC) was set up to be advisory (only) to staff. CAC usually meets in public, and usually has agendas and minutes. But it doesn't have to. Meetings are not videotaped. Committee members don't get to put items on agendas. There are no "action items," where committee members vote. Staff runs the meetings. In my experience, committee members have never been asked to come up with an "official" CAC position on anything. ### At the 09-02-15 UAC meeting, during the public comment period for Item 1 (the FTTP item), Bob Harrington handed UAC a paper memo, "Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) is Critical to Palo Alto Infrastructure," written by three CAC members, Bob Harrington, Andy Poggio, and Christine Moe. Bob explained that the memo wasn't the official CAC position, just the opinion of three CAC members. Bob presented the memo. And during UAC's deliberation, Bob answered questions put to him by the UAC commissioners, including Commissioner Schwartz. Here's the video, (Harrington's comments start at 2:01:32.) http://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-12/ (As an aside, wouldn't verbatim minutes be great?) I retyped the memo and commented on it here (pages 170-173). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48985 ### According to the municipal code, Section 2.23.050, UAC is responsible for advising Council about the Fiber Utility. Does UAC have any advice for Council about how CAC was set up? So -- And to understanding -- You know, with a list of who's on it. ### The current CAC members are (in alphabetical order): Richard Brand, Bob Harrington, Jeff Hoel, Andrew Kau, Abbas Masnavi, Olivier Matthey, Christine Moe, Donn Lee, Andy Poggio, Loren Smith, and Vijay Tapaskar. CAC's "home page" is here. https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/technology_committee.asp Each minutes document posted here says who attended and who didn't attend (but the minutes don't make clear who the committee members are and who the staff members are). OK? So, I think that would be something that would be helpful to us, that we could maybe study in the interim, while you're doing that. My concerns fall into a couple of areas. One is, given the challenges that the City is having with staffing, I'm having trouble understanding that if we added a whole new utility, that had high -- that required a lot of people to staff it, how we'd be able to do that. So, that's one of my concerns -- is how that could work. Another is something that I think would be really helpful to us, in terms of our understanding of it, is to have a chart that shows, on one side, what are the different use-case applications, of what people want it for, and then, what happens with today's environment, what happens if there's fiber-to-the-home, what happens if you're using 5G or whatever wireless, you know. So, the options across one axis, and then the applications. So, if the issue is, you know, you've got five people in your house watching movies -- You know, what are the things that -- Because this is one of the things that's always been missing when I've seen any evaluation. I'm not a geek -- a techie -- to know the megabit speed and the -- you know, that isn't like -- what is it that you're trying to do? And what can you do now? And can't do? OK? By other means. OK? So, I think, in whatever next document or presentation gets made to us, that would be a really helpful, useful thing. ### This is just completely wrongheaded. If customers are willing to pay for symmetric 1-Gbps internet service, the City doesn't need to know why. Chattanooga EPB's take rate is now about 56 or 57 percent -- about 95,000 customers (as reported by their Director of Fiber Technology, Colman Keane, at 1:14:10 on this 02-06-18 video). City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 10 https://loveland.viebit.com/player.php?hash=R9JDWuurl22r# Most take symmetric 100-Mbps internet service, but a significant minority takes symmetric 1-Gbps internet service. (A 03- 22-15 article says EPB had 62,686 internet customers, of which 5,265 took 1-Gbps service.) http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2015/mar/22/high-fiber-choiceepb-attracts-45-percent- home/294234/ (A 01-01-18 article says EPB has more than 94,000 customers, but doesn't say how many take 1-Gbps.) http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/edge/story/2018/jan/01/brand-epb/460057/ ### The City doesn't have a chart that lists all of the common electric applications and how much electricity they need -- lights, blower for furnace, air conditioner, refrigerator, microwave oven, dishwasher, phone answering machine, stereo, TV, computer, washing machine, dryer, toaster, blender, garage door opener, clock, EV, fans, etc. It's up to the homeowner or business owner to have an intra-premises distribution system with right-sized circuit breakers or fuses. It's up to the City to deliver the electricity. In 1898, when the City started its electric utility, the list was a lot shorter. 1:57:26: Another thing that I think we need to understand is the purchase appetite among Palo Alto residents. ### And businesses, right? So, if -- And, Catherine, maybe this is something that we can do as a survey. ### It would be foolish to just throw together another survey without thinking about it very carefully first. ### In 2002, staff hired DataCycles to do a survey about interest in municipal FTTP. About 1,000 people were surveyed. DataCycles claimed to have selected a representative cross-section of the public to survey. They claimed to have designed the questions "scientifically" so that the answers would be meaningful. But skeptics still raised concerns. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/uac-meetings/1953.pdf The public got to see what the wording of the questions was and how they were answered. Staff thought that the survey showed sufficient interest in FTTP to make if feasible financially. Skeptics will now say that we can't rely on this data because it's too old. ### In 2012, staff hired RKS Research to do a survey specifically about interest in "user-financed" municipal FTTP. 401 homeowners were surveyed. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30112 The public did NOT get to see what the exact wording of the questions was or how they were answered. The staff report provided massaged data, not raw data. Apparently people were asked whether they'd pay an up-front fee of $0, $1,000, $2,000, $3,000, or $5,000, and whether they'd pay from $50 to $3,000 per month, to get symmetric 100-Mbps internet service. ### As reported in this 12-04-17 document (70 pages) http://www.cityofloveland.org/home/showdocument?id=38871 Loveland, CO did two broadband surveys, one for residential, one for businesses. The document shows all the questions and how they were answered. (I'm not saying we should rely on Loveland's data. And I'm not saying that we should use exactly these questions. But the report was good about letting the public know what the questions and results were.) ### Later, Loveland did another survey -- a conjoint take-rate study -- when the skeptics asked for even more convincing. http://www.cityofloveland.org/home/showdocument?id=36581 I don't know who would think we need this level of detail. ### Incidentally, I agree with Andy Poggio's point, in his message of 02-08-18, 6:00:43 pm, that a survey should be preceded by an education/outreach campaign letting the public know that the City is seriously thinking about doing citywide municipal FTTP, and why. We do have, you know, several who are very dedicated, who come to all the meetings, and express their concerns about that. But it doesn't seem to go beyond, ever, five people that I've seen, since I've been on the UAC. So, could we do -- is it possible to do -- some kind of survey, to find out -- once we've done this application chart of knowing what the things are -- what people in this City think they really need, and is it problematic for them, and how broad is the concern? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 12 ### San Francisco fits 373,481 premises into 46.87 square miles, for a density of 7,968 premises per square mile. Palo Alto fits about 30,000 premises into a land area of 23.68 square miles, for a density of about 1,257 premises per square mile. 2:00:38: Jim Fleming: I mean, there's roughly 26,000 homes, including apartment dwellings, in Palo Alto. ### Shouldn't we also be considering business premises? Years ago, I said staff should report how many premises Palo Alto has -- single family homes, MDUs, and businesses. And, for each of these, how many have aerial utilities, and how many have undergrounded utilities. For example, a 5-14-13 feasibility presentation for Longmont, CO, https://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/provo/longmont_ftth_feasibility_preso_14may2013.pdf says (page 14) they have 28,333 single family premises, of which 6,384 have aerial utilities and 21,949 have undergrounded utilities, and they have 10,721 MDU premises, of which 3,580 have aerial utilities and 7,141 have undergrounded utilities. In all, there are 39,054 premises. (I don't know why business premises weren't reported.) ### Maybe Palo Alto's premises-count data should be reported in each Utilities Quarterly Update report. We know it will change over time. Housing is one of Council's top priorities in 2018. San Francisco probably has -- this is a guess -- probably 3[00,000] to 400,000 dwellings. So that would be the difference. ### San Francisco has 354,807 residential premises and 18,674 business premises, according to this October 2017 report. http://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/CTC-Deliverable22-final-20171017.pdf 2:00:54: Commissioner Segal: So -- Yeah, so, I guess I'm not following why San Francisco is a comp for us. ### Good point! ### I'd be more interested in comping cities that already have municipal FTTP. For example, Longmont, CO, has a population of 92,858; Palo Alto has a population of 67,024. So Longmont has 38.54 percent more people. It cost Longmont about $52 million to deploy its citywide FTTP network to its current take rate of 53%. That's $600 per person. Palo Alto thinks citywide FTTP with a 72% take rate would cost $77.8 million. That's $1,161 per person. 2:00:59: Jim Fleming: It's not -- It's -- necessarily a comp. But it is a model that is emerging, perhaps, for a public-private partnership. Their objective is to find a partner to build out the network. And for them -- for the partner to absorb most of the cost, and take most of the risk of building the network. 2:01:22: David Yuan: So, we've been just basically monitoring their progress and seeing what they're asking for their RFP. 2:01:28: Commissioner Segal: OK, thanks. 2:01:30: Commissioner Forssell: Can I ask you a question, though? Because that's for fiber-to-the-premises. 2:01:32: David Yuan: Um hum. 2:01:32: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 13 Commissioner Forssell: And we're about to issue an RFP for fiber-to-the-node. 2:01:36: David Yuan: Right. ### Well, not exactly right. The RFP is for finding a consultant who can figure out what FTTN and FTTP should be, before writing RFPs about those. So, our ... 2:01:38: Commissioner Forssell: So, you get another way in which it's not really a comp. If I understand correctly. 2:01:42: David Yuan: So, in the RFP, we're going to have a little combination. One is for fiber-to-the-node. And also an expansion option for fiber-to-the-premises. So, the ... 2:01:49: Commissioner Forssell: For the whole city? Or just for a pilot program of just one neighborhood? 2:01:51: David Yuan: Full city. 2:01:53: Commissioner Forssell: OK. 2:01:54: David Yuan: And that's for the design, and estimate of the costs, and the list of the -- like Commissioner Judith said -- Schwartz -- the list of potential opportunities or applications. But I do like the advice about the application matrix, too. So, we'll include that as well. Thank you. 2:02:10: Commissioner Schwartz: (unamplified) ** make it -- make it (amplified) make it easier for people to understand what we're talking about. 2:02:15: David Yuan: And then the cost estimate for the fiber-to-the-node network right now is about $15 million. Is what we're guessing. ### The 08-21-17 staff report says FTTN is estimated to cost between $12 million and $15 million. So, is this price creep? https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61084 The public still doesn't know what that estimate is based on. For one thing, the public doesn't even know how many nodes there would be. 2:02:21: Commissioner Segal: One thing -- I wondered this -- that the two-phase fiber-to-the-node, and then the last-mile ... 2:02:28: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 14 David Yuan: Um hum. 2:02:28: Commissioner Segal: ... to be put off. Is there -- Are there any economies of scale doing it straight to the premises? Rather than doing it in a -- maybe not at all, or a two-part phase? 2:02:41: David Yuan: Well, doing [fiber]-to-the-premises, there's probably more efficiency. But it costs the $78 million or so, roughly. So the question is, do we have the appetite, or ... 2:02:50: Commissioner Segal: Right. I understand that. But is it -- It's $78 million, let's say, to the premises, today. But if we do it to the node and then later to the premises, are we -- would it be a lot more than that? 2:03:02: David Yuan: Potentially. I guess we could ask that. But the -- ideally, we would like to find a partner, to help with that last mile. ### That's not my idea of ideal. 2:03:10: Commissioner Schwartz: Again -- we've talked about it before, but the idea of having a -- um -- use some of the special funds -- the fund of -- the money that's been generated by the fiber -- that if someone makes a case for a creative business that wants to -- that needs this fiber-to the-premises -- and they can make -- that we support it -- that we fund it as a City, because we think it's important. ### I think this is a spectacularly bad idea. It puts the City in the position of picking winners and losers. It puts applicants in the position of having to reveal their business ideas prematurely. What would the winners get? Not FTTP. Maybe a dark fiber connection? But that's much more expensive. What makes FTTP affordable is that it's deployed to whole neighborhoods at a time. I think that if part of what we're looking at is vitality of potential businesses, of somebody coming up with something really creative that they're doing -- you know, an immersive virtual world, and we really want to have that happen in Palo Alto, then I think that would be a good thing to make a case for that we should give it to them at a reasonable price. ### For most of Palo Alto's utilities, a "reasonable price" is what it takes the utility to break even. For the lucky few who get a dark fiber connection at a FTTP price, that price is not "reasonable." Because it's -- you know, we can afford to do that out of the fund. ### To the extent that the money in the Fiber Fund gives the City an advantage in starting up citywide FTTP, these funds are precious, and we can't afford to squander them. So, I think we can be creative where that really makes a difference. Or, if we end up with a commercial solution, to let there be that if there are people who need support, for being able to get broadband to their house, that we can do that, and we can have subsidies for that, I think would be a reasonable thing to consider in that. ### Is Commissioner Schwartz saying that if the City does deploy citywide municipal FTTP, then the City should consider offering special rates to low-income folks? OK. The City does that for other utilities. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49954 But that shouldn't slow down the main discussion of how to do citywide municipal FTTP. If Commissioner Schwartz is talking about the City's subsidizing internet service from AT&T or Comcast, I think that's crazy. They have their own low- income plans. 2:04:27: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 15 Commissioner Forssell: Just one thought. The -- I, too, like this idea of kind of working up a matrix of applications, and sort of how they perform under different scenarios. One application that I'm interested in is the sort of enabling of people to work from home. You know. Which is, really good. You know, Skype, or FaceTime or video -- video phone call connections can be really enabling for people. And that leads me to wonder, you know, is there any way to quantify the positive impacts on the City of people being able to -- You know, the pressure it relieves on traffic, for example. And other ancillary benefits that come from enabling certain applications. I don't know. It's just a thought. ### Absolutely! See my comments near 1:57:26. 2:05:18: David Yuan: So, once we get these listed applications, maybe we could put out that survey to the community. Get their feedback. Or interest. ### Again, I think it's wrongheaded to do a survey about a list of applications. 2:05:26: Commissioner Schwarz: Any -- 2:05:29: Commissioner Segal: Sorry, I have one more question, about 5G. Because I was just talking to a friend of mine, whose husband is traveling around the world at these monthly meetings globally to come up with these 5G standards still. Which sounds to me like it's further off than what I'm hearing from you. And so, if you have some sense of when it's really going to be commercially available, that would be helpful, too. ### 08-09-17: "A 5G Timeline" https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2017/08/09/a-5g-timeline/ This article says Network World says 5G might achieve critical mass by 2025. 2:05:50: Jim Fleming: OK. Yeah, I can speak to that. Right now, the race is on, particularly between AT&T and Verizon, to provide 5G. Right now, the standards are still being developed. It's kind of a pre-5G stage. However, fixed 5G is where AT&T and Verizon are moving very quickly. And they're doing trials in several cities in their operating territories. And their first real commercial launch will be in Sacramento, this coming year. It's almost like an arms race, in terms of the carriers' improving their networks, not only for 4G but for 5G, which is coming up. And, you know, it will be focused on people that don't really want to have a wire. ### By "people," does Fleming mean providers that don't really want to use a wire to provide service, or customers who don't really want to get the service over a wire? If a customer is getting a "fixed" service, why would the customer object to getting it over a wire? You know, currently, they're cable TV customers, or DSL customers with the telcos. Or have some other kind of service. But it's moving very quickly in that direction. Will 5G replace fiber-to-the-premises? There's a real debate about that right now. ### And the incumbents are crossing their fingers behind their backs. And the carriers are investing billions in 5G. Particularly AT&T and Verizon Wireless. ### FTTP will be faster, more reliable, more secure, and less expensive per bit. 2:07:18: Commissioner Schwartz: One of the topics that came up at the recent NARUC meeting ### Maybe Commissioner Schwartz is referring to NARUC's "Infrastructure, Innovation, and Investment" conference, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 16 November 11-15, 2017. https://www.naruc.org/annual-meeting/2017-annual-meeting/agenda/telecommunications/ Commissioner Schwartz attended. https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/F5D04189-D0B4-C7CE-9D7A-DA9342D5D319 was the idea that the telco companies like don't want to do wires. They have-- You know, one of the things they discuss with commissioners across the country is the idea of universal service, and universal access. And so, one of the issues that comes up is that the carriers don't want to do copper wire any more. And so, there's this big debate going on. Because in certain disaster circumstances, it's great to have copper wire, because it's more resilient -- to our earlier conversation. ### If I understand Commissioner Schwartz's point, fiber is just as "resilient" as copper -- if not more so -- provided there's battery backup. And so, I think this is something that isn't just about, you know, other kinds of out- -- but just in terms of phone service, that what the carriers want to do may not be in the direction of all the citizens. The other thing that I do think we should look into, or, sort of, put as -- in our thinking is this idea of net neutrality. And what happens, and what's the battle. And does the fact that -- um -- Is this something that really does change the equation in a fundamental way from what we talked about before? So, is -- would -- would this protect -- would this protect Palo Alto residents from unfair gaming of the system? ### Yes. If the City operated the citywide municipal FTTP network, then it could operate the network in accordance with the principles of net neutrality. I mean, you know, does it change something that maybe didn't exist last year and all of a sudden now it's an issue? And I don't know whether you have an answer, or whether you can just put that in there. But -- But I think that is something to at least make sure we consider. 2:09:00: David Yuan: In the San Francisco's RFQ, they did put in net neutrality as well as the guiding principles. ### I think he meant one of the guiding principles. So that's something that we can consider as well. Making sure that they enforce it. Or, -- yeah. 2:09:12: Commissioner Forssell: And I'd love to add privacy to that list as well. 2:09:14: David Yuan: That's also in their scope of work. And there's just one more thing I want to add, in our note in our last slide is that we are trying to add additional staff to the fiber team, to advance Council's motion. So we are reassessing what's available, given our limited staff. But we are trying. 2:09:34: Jim Fleming: (unamplified) Can I make one more point? 2:09:35: Commissioner Forssell: Can I just ask one more question? Oh, sorry. 2:09:38: Jim Fleming: I'm sorry. Go ahead. 2:09:39: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 17 Commissioner Forssell: I just wanted to ask about identifying potential partners. Is this the -- to find out if there's a potential partner, but if there isn't, we still -- Like, is it -- is it -- On the timeline, there were many previous times where there were attempts to find partners, and then everything stopped because there were no partners. Are we setting ourselves up for another -- if we can't find a partner, we don't move forward? Or is finding a partner on a parallel path with going it alone? 2:10:09: David Yuan: It's on a parallel path. 2:10:19: Jim Fleming: Can I just add one thing? One of our CAC members, Andy Poggio, made a real good point in his comments. And, Andy, I'm going to paraphrase. The world may be going mobile -- it may be going wireless. You still need fiber. You need fiber for what's called backhaul. And those networks are not able to perform unless there's fiber for the backhaul. So, it won't be a totally wireless world, but fiber is very important to the development of, you know, existing networks and the future 5G. And so forth. ### Yes, the 5G carriers will need fiber for backhaul. But that doesn't mean the 5G carriers will be using the City's fiber. When I talked to a Verizon representative at their 10-12-17 open house, he said they had issued an RFP for fiber backhaul and Comcast had won. 2:10:57: Commissioner Johnston: But that's important to bring out when you talk about these applications. What is it that we cannot do now that we would be able to do if we had this fiber network? ### Also, even for the things we could do before, what could we do faster, at a lower cost, with more reliability, privacy, and security than we could before. 2:11:11: Commissioner Forssell: Also, do we equate fiber-to-the-node with backhaul? ### Interesting question. If FTTN "equates" to backhaul for wireless -- meaning that FTTN is designed for and good for nothing else -- that's not good. 2:11:17: Jim Fleming: Yeah. It would create opportunities to license more fiber. You know, as networks are built out, there will be a demand for dark fiber. And that's exactly what we do right now. So it would be -- There would be a possibility of new opportunities to license dark fiber -- to the carriers and others. It's going to go on for a long time. And fiber is a very valuable asset, particularly in a more mobile world. 2:11:53: Commissioner Schwartz: (unamplified) Is it just the (amplified) part that's the question is, do you do fiber to the individual premise? OK? Do you -- If you -- the -- All of the plans have had that there's going to be backhaul -- that there's going to be -- that they're going to be looking at how they expand what we currently have. And the only -- the point of contention is, do we have a separate utility -- or, an additional utility service -- that goes to every single pers- -- or, potential to be sold to every single person in Palo Alto? That it goes to everybody's house? 2:12:24: Commissioner Forssell: Right. No, I get that. I'm just -- If we all agree that even in a wireless world, you need backhaul, does fiber-to-the-node provide that? Or is it fiber-to-the-node plus some additional infrastructure that's not all the way to the premises but some in-between thing that's the sweet spot of providing backhaul for wireless? 2:12:46: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 18 Jim Fleming: Yeah. I think what we want to try ... 2:12:47: Commissioner Forssell: That may be a simplistic form of the question. 2:12:50: Jim Fleming: And, if I understand your question -- hopefully -- The fiber-to-the-node concept is to create opportunities to possibly build the last mile out to the individual premise, or to use that point of presence within the network for other communication opportunities. ### Note that a point of presence requires electronics, and the 08-21-17 staff report says FTTN doesn't include any electronics. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61084 Whether it's licensing fiber to third parties, or for the City's own use. Specifically, public safety, smart grid applications, smart city applications, and other uses. And that's what -- That's the -- One of the main focuses of the business plan is to figure out if the fiber-to-the-node approach, which is an incremental approach, would have value. And that's -- that's going to be important in the business case. And also, whether that infrastructure would attract a third party to build out the last mile to the home. 2:13:45: David Yuan: I think the short is yes, we'll provide more. 2:13:50: Commissioner Forssell: More, but not the complete solution? 2:13:51: David Yuan: Well, it would depend on the list of potential applications and how we want to right-size it. So, assuming you want to do the smart grid, smart city, and 5G, then we'll add more fiber strands. So, depending on the price, and the benefits, I guess, we'll make that decision at that time. But, yes ... 2:14:08: Commissioner Trumbull: So, I just want to make sure we let the public in. As Mr. Borock pointed out, the normal procedure is the staff report and then public can comment. I notice that the gentleman, waving ... 2:14:21: **: (unamplified) ** 2:14:21: Commissioner Trumbull: Don't worry about it. But I just want to make sure he gets a chance to talk. 2:14:25: **: (unamplified) Thank you. 2:14:31: Commissioner Schwartz: (unamplified) ** 2:14:34: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/14/2018 2:49 PM 19 Commissioner Trumbull: Sure. 2:14:35: Commissioner Schwartz: (unamplified) OK, Bob, you're up. 2:14:38: Bob Hinden: Thank you. Yeah, I wanted to comment on some of the presentation, and my thoughts on this. In no particular order. So, information about what applications are better, or how many users -- you know, streams -- you can have -- that information is all available on the web if you look at Google Fiber and Comcast, they have it all on their website. That's not hard information to get. It doesn't require hiring a consultant or anything. The price numbers I was hearing, actually, to me, sound like a bargain. And my basis for that is -- I live near Ross Road. And the City is currently building -- at least in my opinion -- this crazy traffic calming bike thing, for $9 million. And that's just for a little -- you know, one road in Palo Alto. So, if we can get fiber to everyone for $100 million or so, that sounds cheap to me. So, I don't -- You know, we're -- The City is willing to spend lots of money on other kinds of stuff. So, to me, as a resident, I would be happy to see them -- see my money being used for fiber-to-the-home. I don't think that's a particularly big number. And then the -- From what I know about 5G -- and this is part of my day job -- is, this is not a real ubiquitous technology anytime soon. Telcos do trials for things all the time. It doesn't mean they're going to do universal deployment. It's just something they always do to try stuff out. And the notion that it's an alternative here, I think, is just wrong. Or at least not for a very long time. And the rea- -- The way they get higher speeds is by smaller cells and higher frequencies. And that's -- probably doesn't ever scale to universal service, like LTE is today. So, I think it's -- there's a lot of marketing hype there. And we shouldn't be confused by that in deciding what to do here. And we're also, I think, very well suited to doing fiber-to-the-home, because we have a couple of real big assets. We have the current ring. So we have fiber to a lot of places already. And then we have the Palo Alto Internet Exchange, where lots of providers are. So we have a lot of -- We can leverage this, to make this. We have a lot of things other communities don't have. We're still interested in doing this. Thank you. 2:17:24: Commissioner Schwartz: (unamplified) ** 2:17:29: Vice Mayor Filseth: Hey, I noticed in the staff report that if you look at the revenues on the existing fiber -- fiber ring, that almost half of them come from resellers. What kind of peop- -- what kind of -- I mean, who is that? Does anybody -- ** -- is that any groups we've ever heard of? I mean, it's obvious that it's not AT&T or Verizon. But -- ### One of the resellers is Fiber Internet Center (FIC). http://www.fiberinternetcenter.com/ On 08-02-17, FIC founder Bob Evans spoke to UAC at Oral Communications, to complain about stuff. He mentioned that Hurricane Electric is another reseller. 2:17:48: Jim Fleming: They're mostly what are called CLECs -- competitive local exchange carriers. 2:17:52: Vice Mayor Filseth: Right. 2:17:52: Jim Fleming: That -- They don't necessarily own facilities themselves. They either ride on AT&T's network or they find dark fiber to resell telecommunications services. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 4:12 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Parman, Russell <Russell.Parman@cep.sccgov.org> Sent:Monday, February 12, 2018 1:32 PM To:Muzzi, Frank; Risen, Chuck; GregoryBetts@city.palo-alto.ca.us; Myers, Lisa; RobbieParry@city.palo-alto.ca.us; Police; Open Space Cc:Council, City; City Mgr; DEH - VCD Managers; Ebrahimi, Babak; McCaffrey, Kristina Subject:Vector Control Aerial Ops this Wednesday at Palo Alto Floodbasin Hello All:    Sorry for the late notice here. The article can be seen at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/vector/media‐news‐ events/Documents/2018‐Winter%20Marshland%20Mosquito‐%20Media%20Advisory.pdf     We’ll be operating from the PA Airport (per Jim Wadleigh), hope to start about 7:00‐7:30 a.m. Signage around the  floodbasin will go out tomorrow, and we’ll have our staff on site at several locations on Wednesday. We’ll not be  treating the ITT marsh this time.    Let me know if you have any questions.    Regards,    Russ Parman,  M.A. Biological Science   Assistant Manager   Santa Clara County ‐ Vector Control District   1580 Berger Dr., San Jose, CA 95112  Direct  (408) 918‐3497;  Cell     (408) 593‐6176;  Fax (408) 298‐6356;  Office (408) 918‐4770   Email:  russell.parman@deh.sccgov.org  Web: http://www.sccvector.org    We’ve got Twitter, SCCVECTOR iPhone and Android apps,  Yahoo email notice group,  AlertSCC and our home page.    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:25 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sarah Almond Pike <sarahapike@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 5:08 PM To:HRC Cc:Council, City Subject:Voicing Support for a CEDAW Ordinance Dear Human Relations Commission, I am writing to voice my support for the Human Relations Committee to forward a recommendation to City Council for a CEDAW ordinance for Palo Alto. The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) provides a great starting point for assessing gender equity at the city level and thus allowing any needed improvements to be made. A CEDAW ordinance would build on the city's existing CEDAW resolution (no. 8217) as well as the powerful Council Resolution #9653 – Reaffirming Palo Alto’s Commitment to a Diverse, Supportive, Inclusive and Protective Community. I spoke at oral communication in support of the latter resolution, and have spoken to both the City Council and Human Relations Committee about my support for a CEDAW ordinance, in my capacity as a former Board Member of the Palo Alto-based Midpeninsula United Nations Association. Cities and counties of all sizes across the United States are passing CEDAW ordinances. Most recently, San Jose and Santa Clara County have committed to CEDAW. Palo Alto should continue in step with, rather than lag behind, these initiatives that respond to the current reality: we can and must still go further in ensuring equality for women and girls. I am unable to attend the meeting this evening to voice my support, but thank you for your attention to my comments. Sincerely yours, Sarah Almond Pike City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:25 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Enos <enosfamily@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 5:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vote 'No' on Cedaw To the City manager, James Keen and all council memebers, I am strongly against this proposal to jump on the band wagon of the ' # metoo and #timesup movements by devoting tax payer money (of course) for yet one more 'feel good' resolution to make each of you believe that the Palo Alto city council is doing its best to combat perceived grievances, this time against women. There is a name for this and it's is called 'Virtue signalling' and some of our council members have great expertise in this area. What is the point of adopting yet one more ordinance that is almost impossible to define let alone enforce, like the scofflaw for leaf blowers? Mean while the local population has to navigate dreadful traffic delays to get to work and shockingly 3rd world roads to travel on and the office blocks keep on coming. There are far more urgent matters that need attention: setting aside money for future employee pensions, budgeting for improvements in infrastucture or preparation for a real disaster such as an earthquake. This should be the business of local government not adopting ordinances that cannot be measured but look as though something is being achieved. Sincerely, Stephanie Enos City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:26 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Karin Ruescher <greatview2005@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 08, 2018 4:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vote NO   Please do NOT approve our tax money being spent on gender equality survey!    Vote NO!    Thank you!    Regards,  ‐Karin Ruescher     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/12/2018 11:17 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 10, 2018 12:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Why car horns, planes and sirens might be bad for your heart Münzel is calling on lawmakers to change policies. “Noise can be considered a cardiovascular risk factor,” he said. “Importantly, this is a risk factor that cannot be managed by patients or by doctors; it just can be managed by politicians by making laws with low thresholds for decibel levels during the day and during the night to protect the people living very close to noise sources.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/02/06/why-car-horns-and-other-common-loud- noises-may-be-bad-for-your-heart/ many more permits in this second phase than they had initially. Many of ~ese permits are in Zones A and B where many of the businesses which were unable to purchase penruts are located. The staff report glosses over the effect of the poor management ?f ~ermit ren~w~s'. leading ?ne to believe that this situation "just happened". Their previous descnption of the ma?ility of busmesses to renew permits was that this was due to "increased demand". This is hardly credible. !he.re was .no significant change in the number of businesses, the number of employees, or a reducuon m parking which would result in any increase in demand. Parking occupancy survey The City hired a consultant to conduct a parking occupancy study. This happened one day in October. Some aspects of the results match observations of both businesses and residents, especially in the highly parked areas along El Camino Real. Other results, showing low parking density, are disputed by local residents. It is difficult to extrapolate from a single observation. (This would be like looking outside and saying that it was 55° and sunny in Palo Alto, and using this to make decisions throughout the year.) There is no way to know if the conditions on this particular October day were representative of the other days, or if there were factors which made parking better or worse on this date. We consider this survey to be a questionable basis for any proposed changes. We believe that a survey conducted over perhaps three days would offer much more reliable view of parking in the permit area. Parking show rate Without question, not every employee who has an employee parking permit will park their car in the neighborhood every day or for the full day. But, give the haphazard nature of the permitting process and the single parking survey, we question the staff's reliance on the values in their table. At the stakeholder meetings, some businesses mentioned that they actually received more permits than they needed. There were anecdotal reports that some businesses had purchased and were stockpiling a large number of permits, currently unused, in case they needed them. This not only exacerbates the problem of uneven distribution, it artificially lowers the show rate. Even using the questionable parking occupancy data in the staff report, the show rate ranges from 20% to 72%. Based on the staff comment at the top of page 8 in the report, where the staff claims that the number of employee parking permits could be increased three-fold(!!!) without impacting the neighborhood, the staff appears to assume the validity of the lowest show rate and ignores the highest show rate. Parking occupancy standard The staff proposes a cap of 60% as a parking occupancy cap. Staff has provided no justification for this number and has stated that it is not an established standard either within city planning or traffic management. We do not know how this cap would relate to either resident or business satisfaction with the RPP. We believe that resident satisfaction is the only valid measure that we are aware of. While we might imagine that 100% occupancy would correlate with resident dissatisfaction, and 0% would correlate with resident satisfaction, we have no basis for belief that the staff number, or any other number, represents an acceptable parking occupancy cap. Staff has performed no surveys of RPP residents to find a relationship between satisfaction with the RPP and parking occupancy. Neither have they provided any industry study or standard which supports their proposed number, or indeed, any particular number. The residents oppose establishing any specific parking occupancy standard, lacking in any supporting evidence, believing that this is arbitrary and capricious. We are very disturbed by the views expressed by staff that the Evergreen Park and Mayfield neighborhoods are a nearly unlimited parking resource which can be used to offset shortfalls in parking in the commercial districts. The suggestion that employee permits could be increased three-fold and that the City should adopt an inflated parking occupancy target lead us to remind the staff and City Council that the discussion at hand involves a Residaitial Parking Permit program, not a Corrmsrcial Parking Permit program. Permanent increase in employee permits The staff recommends permanently increasing the number of employee parking permits in the RPP by 40. The staff claims that this will satisfy current business needs (which we will address below). This may be true, but it does nothing to address the cause of the problems that businesses encounter. The staff report offers no credible support for an argument that there are insufficient employee parking permits; indeed they make no attempt to make this claim. The root cause of the inability of businesses to purchase permits is not insufficient permits, but the inconsistent and uneven distribution of the permits. It is difficult to reconcile that there were, from all appearances, adequate employee parking permits during the first six months, and suddenly a significant deficit at the start of the second six months, following permit renewals. Adding permits is a "quick fix" which makes the situation better in the short term, but which will not address the root cause of the business' problems. We are very concerned that an increase in the number of parking permits, without addressing the root cause of the permit allocation problems, will set an undesirable precedent. Every imagined (or real) increase in parking demand will be addressed by an increase in the number of employee parking permits. We see foreshadowing of this in the recent staff proposal to reduce the size of the Sherman Ave. garage, where the loss of parking spaces was to be offset by an increase in the number of permits in the surrounding RPP. New zone structure The staff proposes to split the current Zone A and Zone B in two, creating six zones instead of four. While we dispute the estimates of parking occupancy, based on an inadequate survey, we support this change. Some residents have expressed the opinion that a better division would be to split the current Zone B along Ash Street, similar to the proposed splitting of current Zone A. This would allow more focus on the El Camino Real business area and the adjacent impacted residential area. Parking along El Camino Real El Camino Real and the adjacent Stanford campus are integral and important parts of the parking problems in Evergreen Park and should be part of the solution. Currently there are no restrictions on parking on El Camino Real between College Avenue and Park Boulevard. Drivers going to Stanford or taking CalTrain who had previously parked in the Evergreen Park neighborhood simply moved to El Camino Real when the RPP was created. Where it was previously possible for employees and customers of businesses on El Camino Real to find parking, now all spaces are occupied beginning in the early morning for the entire day. The staff recommend establishing a 2 hour parking zone along the east side of El Camino Real. While this will help address this problem, local business employees who park in this area will have to move their cars every two hours. The staff doesn't mention the west side of El Camino Real, which, under their proposed change, will continue to be long-term free parking for people going to Stanford. We support the dentists' recommendation that both east and west side of El Camino Real be incorporated into the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP. We believe that the staff's concern that residents will park on El Camino Real in preference to parking near their homes is unfounded. We also cannot understand how incorporating this area into the RPP would result in increases in neighborhood traffic, since, as the staff report mentions, several streets do not have outlets onto El Camino Real. We also recommend that staff reach out to Stanford to address El Camino Real being used for long term Stanford parking rather than the many parking areas on the Stanford campus. People visiting or working on the Stanford campus should have parking permits for Stanford lots, rather than overflowing into the adjacent neighborhoods. Employee purchase of parking permits We recommend that the City only sell parking permits to employers. This matches a recommendation by area dentists. Selling permits to both employers and employees has allowed certain businesses to obtain a large number of permits at the same time their employees obtain a large number of permits. This is one of the causes of the uneven distribution of employee parking permits in October. Permit distribution In addition to improving communication between the City and business in the RPP area, including advanced notice (in writing) of permit renewal, we recommend that permits be issued with the following priorities: • Permits should be issued in zones closest to the business location • Preference should be given to neighborhood-serving businesses, permit renewals, and businesses which do not participate in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District • Permits may be issued only to businesses listed in the Palo Alto Business Registry • Businesses with low income workers are to be given preference • Businesses with a Traffic Demand Management plan are given lowest priority • Fair and equitable distribution of permits 0 Based on number of employees per business 0 Avoid concentrations of permits at any one location ° Consider the number of businesses at any one location It is our understanding that businesses or buildings which have an established Traffic Demand Management plan should have programs in place which address both traffic and parking. TDMs were adopted in exchange for reductions1 in building parking requirements. The terms of the TDM should be followed to address parking requirements rather than use RPP employee parking permits. The staff is encouraged to maintain a listing of the businesses in the RPP area, the number of permits issued to each business, and to maintain a waiting list for permits. This will establish continuity and stability in the employee permitting process which is currently absent. Exigent circumstances As a result of the problems in permit distribution, a number of neighborhood-serving businesses, including (but not limited to) medical and dentist offices, have been unable to obtain desired employee parking permits. Evergreen Park residents appreciate the contribution that these businesses make to the neighborhood and believe that the businesses have made a good faith effort to accommodate changes in their businesses as a result of the RPP and to comply with the RPP requirements. To address these exigent circumstances, the residents propose that the City issue a total of 40 tarporary employee parking permits, valid until October 1, 2018, to the businesses along El Camino Real which have been unable to obtain permits. We believe that these temporary permits will address the short-term needs of the businesses and allow the staff adequate time to create a permit distribution system which follows the mentioned priorities and fairly distributes the employee parking permits to area businesses. Summary Evergreen Park residents agree that the successful Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Parking Permit program should be made permanent. The residents support rezoning the RPP area to allow better management. Residents support replacing the current "land grab" permit distribution method, which caused many complaints from neighborhood businesses, with a fair and equitable permit distribution method. Residents oppose any permanent increase in the number of employee parking permits, believing that this is not supported by known facts and current circumstances. Residents oppose the imposition of any arbitrary parking density standard, since this does not have any factual basis. Residents support issuing a number of tanporary employee parking permits to address exigent circumstances caused by unbalanced distribution of permits. 111u, rt:u uo, UL.UI r11ym. "" ::7..:>0 [\Jrn-.:>rVJ \M..:>"+..:>, l:>fJt::t::U. L..:>L l\llUl::i, c:lllllUUt::. "+ ILO. I l"+O"t"t/ ( 000( ll, Ull:>lc:llll..t::. PM 1 KM) Thu, Feb 08, 01 :46 Flight: KE 25 [ICN-SFO] (877W; speed: 214 knots, altitude: 3750.5348792106665 ft, distance: PM 0 KM) Thu, Feb 08, 01 :40 Flight: UA5203 [PSP-SFO] (E75L; speed: 268 knots, altitude: 3765.239832704 ft, distance: 4 PM KM) Thu, Feb 08, 01:30 Flight: KE 25 [ICN-SFO) (B77W; speed: 220 knots, altitude: 4087.3774345024 ft, distance: 1 PM KM) Thu, Feb 08, 01 :26 PM Thu, Feb 08, 01 :21 PM Flight: AA6013 [LAX-SFO) (E75L; speed: 242 knots, altitude: 4156.5658389376 ft, distance: 2 KM) Flight: CM 208 [PTY-SFO] (8738; speed: 197 knots, altitude: 3750 ft, distance: 4 KM) Thu, Feb 08, 01 :18 Flight: EK 225 [DXB-SFO) (A388; speed: 229 knots, altitude: 3935.6360218624 ft, distance: 2 PM KM) Thu, Feb 08, 01 :16 Flight: UA 1778 [RNO-SFO) (8738; speed: 223 knots, altitude: 3994.5375391072 ft, distance: PM 1 KM) Thu, Feb 08, 01:12 Flight: UA1209 [PHX-SFO) (8739; speed: 246 knots, altitude: 5227.529672576 ft, distance: 2 PM KM) Thu, Feb 08, 01 :09 Flight: WN 345 [PHX-SFO] (8737; speed: 256 knots, altitude: 5407.5380268992 ft, distance: 3 PM KM) Thu, Feb 08, 01 :07 PM Thu, Feb 08, 01 :03 PM Thu, Feb 08, 01 :01 PM Thu, Feb 08, 11 :50 AM Flight: DL4912 [LAX-SFO] (E75L; speed: 227 knots, altitude: 5150.4950399552 ft, distance: 2 KM) -Flight: UA 447 [LAX-SFO] (A320; speed: 265 knots, altitude: 3725.6318288938664 ft, distance: 2 KM) Flight: UA 390 [SAN-SFO] (A319; speed: 287 knots, altitude: 6374.243043675733 ft, distance: 7 KM) Flight: UA 708 [LAX-SFO] (8738; speed: 184 knots, altitude: 4035.1720054944 ft, distance: 1 KM) Thu, Feb 08, 10:29 Flight: AA6044 [LAX-SFO] (E75L; speed: 211 knots, altitude: 4381.504525764267 ft, distance: AM 1 KM) Thu, Feb 08, 10:26 Flight: UA1863 [LAX-SFO] (A320; speed: 271 knots, altitude: 5204.5898714848 ft, distance: 2 AM KM) Thank you.