HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170605plCC 701-32
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 6/5/2017
Document dates: 5/17/2017 – 5/24/2017
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
if the fee is set at the appropriate level to recover the City's cost to administer EV charging
stations and will be adjusted accordingly as part of the FY 2019.budget process. Below are the
assumptions used to develop the 100% cost recovery fee:
Number of charging ports Citywide
Annual sessions per charger
kWh per charging session
Average hours charging time per session
Electricity Cost per kWh
93
1,000
8.5
2.0
$0.12
As a result of the continuing discussions on a comprehensive parking management plan and the
potential changes proposed for parking in Palo Alto (i.e. paid parking), staff anticipates needing
to revisit fees related to EV Charging in the future; however, at this time staff is recommending
the establishment of discretionary fees for initial connection to a charger as well as staying
connected to a charger once a vehicle is finished charging. The implementation of these fees
would be at the authority of the City Manager (within specified ranges) and would allow the
City to adjust fee structures as needed to encourage turnover at the chargers to maximize the
public's benefit from the chargers while maintaining cost recovery. Current usage shows that
on average vehicles require 2 hours for charge; however, vehicles remain in the parking spot on
average for an additional 45 minutes. The goal of these fees would be to reduce this 45minute
timeframe and allow for more frequent turnover.
Both the usage under this proposed fee structure and the ongoing discussion over a
comprehensive parking management plan will continue to be monitored closely over the FY
2018 timeframe and adjustments and further recommendations brought forward as
appropriate as part of the FY 2019 budget process. The fees to encourage turnover would be
posted on the City's Utilities website as well as noticed at the charging stations as well.
For reference, EV charging fees for Palo Alto organizations and neighboring jurisdictions:
Palo Alto Based Organizations
Jewish Community Center
Stanford Mall
Stanford University
Surrounding Cities
Menlo Park
Mountain View
Redwood City
San Jose
EV Charging Fee
First 1.5 hours Free; $2/hour thereafter
$2 for first 3 hours
$2/hour Garn to 4pm; $1/hour all other times
EV Charging Fee
Currently Free (May 2017)
$1/hour for first two hours; $4/hour thereafter
1 hour minimum to 4 hour maximum parking time
Level I/II (120V/220V): $1.50/hour
Level Ill (500V): $5/hour
$1.25/session and $0.25/kWh 8:30am to 9:30pm
$1.25/session and $0.20/kWh all other times
Page 2
5/18/2017
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
__05/18/2017__
[X] Placed Before Meeting
[ ] Received at Meeting
Item #_9_
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Finance Committee
DATE: May 17, 2017
SUBJECT: FY 2018 Budget Wrap‐up Memorandum
Executive Summary
This memorandum includes additional information pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Budget,
summarizes changes to the City Manager’s Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Budget, brings forth
recommended actions to revise the Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Budget, and responds to questions raised
by the Finance Committee during previous budget hearings. Please refer to the table of contents below
for specific items.
Contents
1)ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 PROPOSED BUDGET ................ 2
2)CHANGES TENTATIVELY APPROVED BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ..................................................... 8
3)WRAP‐UP DISCUSSION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES FROM PRIOR BUDGET HEARING MEETINGS &
ADDITIONAL CHANGES RECOMMENDED ................................................................................................... 10
Staff Recommended Changes to Operating Budget .............................................................................. 10
Budget Process Parking Lot Summary ................................................................................................... 11
Additional Information Pertaining to Parking Lot Issues .................................................................... 12
Changes to the FY 2018‐2022 Capital Budget Publication ..................................................................... 14
Staff Recommended Chages to the Capital Improvement Budget ..................................................... 15
FY 2018 Municipal Fee Schedule ........................................................................................................... 16
FY 2018 Citywide Summary of Revenues and Expenses ........................................................................ 16
4)SUMMARY OF MAY 2017 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETINGS REGARDING FY 2018 BUDGET ............. 17
Finance Committee Tentative Motions ................................................................................................. 17
Related Memos Distributed At Places ................................................................................................... 18
Future Follow‐up Items .......................................................................................................................... 18
5)LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 19
1
2
5/17/2017
1) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 PROPOSED BUDGET
During the Finance Committee hearings, requests for additional information were made by the
Committee members. This section provides the additional information requested by the Finance
Committee and/or provided at staff’s behest in regards to the Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Budget.
City Attorney’s Office Outside Counsel versus In House Counsel (Requested 5/2/2017 by CM Tanaka)
On May 2nd, the Finance Committee requested staff to use no more than half a day’s work to prepare
information describing the workload and budget allocations of in‐house versus outside counsel,
including comparisons with other cities. Attachment A presents background information on the use of
in‐house attorneys vs outside counsel, including a breakdown of the usual types of duties and functions
assigned to each. In general, in‐house staff is used for the regular ongoing legal work, due to both cost
considerations and a need for responsive service. Outside counsel is often used for litigation matters,
affording the ability to rapidly staff up and down in response to litigation developments.
Benchmark City of Palo Alto with Menlo Park and Mountain View (Requested 5/2/2017 by CM Tanaka)
Displayed below are total revenue and total expenditure benchmarks per capita with both the City of
Menlo Park and the City of Mountain View. Expense and Revenue data was obtained from the most
current published budget available for all three cities, the Fiscal Year 2017 Adopted Budgets. Population
data was obtained from the
US Census Bureau, which
provided the most current
population as of July 1st
2015. Daytime population
was obtained from
www.city‐data.com.
Population Type Menlo Park
Mountain
View Palo Alto
Population (US Census Jul 1, 2015)33,449 80,435 66,853
Daytime Population (Daytime www.city‐data.com)52,028 122,465 129,975
There are significant differences between cities in the services delivered to the public, the
means/methods of delivery, and community priorities. These unique characteristics result in major
differences between the categories and methods used to aggregate data. In the attempt to strike a
balance between normalizing the data for proper comparison and maintain proper representation, the
General Fund was focused on as it contained the most overlapping characteristics. These figures reflect
decisions that have been made by the respective City Councils to achieve the priorities and desired
service levels to their communities.
2
3
5/17/2017
FY 2017 Adopted Budget: General Fund per Capita
Menlo Park
Mountain
View Palo Alto
Expenses $51,417,563 $108,433,000 $194,165,979
Expenses per Capita $1,537.19 $1,348.08 $2,904.37
Revenues $51,596,888 $118,718,250 $195,078,254
Revenues per Capita $1,542.55 $1,475.95 $2,918.02
FY 2017 Adopted Budget: General Fund per Daytime Population
Menlo Park Mountain
View
Palo Alto
Expenses $51,417,563 $108,433,000 $194,165,979
Expenses per Capita $988.27 $885.42 $1,493.87
Revenues $51,596,888 $118,718,250 $195,078,254
Revenues per Capita $991.71 $969.41 $1,500.89
Citywide Vacancies (Requested 5/2/2017 by CM Holman)
Throughout the City, there are currently approximately 102 positions vacant, the plurality of which can
be found in the Utilities Department. Attachment B outlines the current vacancies in the City by
department and by budgeted funding source. In specific areas, “backfill” is being used to cover the
duties and is noted by an italicized job title. Backfilled could mean using higher class pay per the terms
of the appropriate Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), an overstrength position, additional
overtime, or the use of contractual dollars or temporary help to accomplish the workload associated
with the vacant position.
3
4
5/17/2017
Print & Mail Fund Contractual Services Increase (Requested 5/2/2017 by CM Tanaka)
In FY 2017 the Adopted Budget Contract Services expense for the Print and Mailing Services Fund was
$114,711 and is recommended to be increased by $134,931 in FY 2018 to $269,642.
The $134,931 increase is for the ARC copier contract, a newly awarded contract, which replaces the
previous contract for copiers with Toshiba; the Toshiba contract was up for renewal. City Council
approved the ARC copier contract in November 2016 for five years (Report ID # 7046). Upon review of a
procurement analysis of cooperative purchasing agency opportunities for copier contracts from major
providers, all compared contracts would have resulted in an increase to the Toshiba contract costs.
After review, City Staff found that ARC offered the best value for the cost, feature set, and ability to
meet the City’s paperless goals. In comparison to other copier contracts that ranged from $23,297 to
$31,191 per month, ARC was selected at $28,693 per month.
Unlike other providers that charge a fixed lease cost based on limits to print volume, ARC has a service
model that allows the City to reduce costs by reducing print activity. In addition, features such as paper
or toner replacement, which then costs the City staff time to manage and maintain are not included in
low cost contracts. For example, compared to the Toshiba contract, which did not provide paper, the
ARC copier contract includes costs for maintenance and paper. As a result, Supplies and Material costs
were reduced in department budgets by a total of $100,000 to partially offset this increase in the central
contract costs. Other features such as energy efficiency, hole‐punching, color copying, and free color
scanning will support and encourage electronic document production. Over time, the new ARC copiers
will help reduce paper consumption along with costs while also helping the City meet its green goals of
reduced paper consumption. With centralized ARC copiers, the City can also better consolidate and
reduce usage of single purpose laser jet office printers, which have a higher cost‐per‐page‐printed
compared to ARC. Staff will be monitoring the costs of the ARC copier contract and if the costs are more
than anticipated staff can end the contract at any time with advanced notice as allowed by the contract
terms.
The Finance Committee also asked about the volatility of the costs in prior years in the Contract Services
expense category as outlined in the table below.
Printing and Mailing Fund
Dollars by Expense Category
FY 2016
Adopted
Budget
FY 2016
Actuals
FY 2017
Adopted
Budget
FY 2018
Proposed
Budget
Contract Services $165,511 $34,411 $114,711 $249,642
Contract services in this fund are very dependent on the printing activity needs of the City. In addition
to the on‐site print shop services, previously the print shop would coordinate the use of outside printing
vendors for jobs they were unable to complete either due to capacity or not having the necessary
equipment to complete it. The coordination of the use of outside printing vendors was decentralized in
FY 2016, resulting in these cost no longer appearing in this fund but directly in Department’s operating
budget expenses. As a result, significantly lower than budget expenses occurred in FY 2016. The FY 2017
Adopted Budget was reduced by approximately $50,000 to reflect the experiences of FY 2016 and the
decentralization of this activity.
4
5
5/17/2017
Internal Services Funds and how they work (Requested 5/2/2017 by CM Fine)
The diagram below provides a visual representation of the funding mechanics of internal service funds
(ISF). This example reflects the primary funding mechanism for the Vehicle Replacement & Maintenance
Fund (“Vehicle Fund”) and illustrates the flow of funds from various other City funds and City
departments to the ISF. The departments and funds contributing to the Vehicle Fund are detailed in blue
on the far left. These expenses are reported in the expense by category summary table as an “Allocated
Charge.” Moving to the right, those charges for example in the Fire Department General Fund of $1.7
million are accounted for as revenue in the Vehicle Fund (this can be found in green in the center under
“REVENUE”). The revenues in the Vehicle Fund are programed as vehicle expense activities in orange on
the far left under “EXPENSES.” This diagram is intended for illustrative purposes only and reflects the
primary source of funds for the Vehicle Fund.
City Manager’s Office Economic Development Recruitment (Requested 5/2/2017 by CM Holman)
A copy of the recruitment brochure for the Economic Development Director position from 2010 was
requested. The City’s retention schedule for recruitment files is 3 years; therefore the brochure and
recruitment details are no longer on file. However, please find Attachment C, a job description which
was updated for the 2010 recruitment and was used as a basis for the brochure. Note that the position
was classified as a Manager (rather than a Director) and reported to a Deputy City Manager. For
reference, the Economic Development Manager did not supervise staff and was paid at approximately
the same salary range as the Budget Manager and the Chief Planning Official, or approximately $167,000
at the top of range.
ASD General Fund
$0.06 M (0.71%)
CSD General Fund
$0.6 M (6.75%)
DSD General Fund
$0.29 M (3.28%)Allocated Charges $1.18 M
Fire General Fund
$1.69 M (19.04%)Contract Services $0.51 M
Library General Fund
$0.01 M (0.07%)General Expense $0.07 M
PCE General Fund
$0.01 M (0.07%)Rents & Leases $0.19 M
PD General Fund
$1.37 M (15.37%)Salary & Benefits $2.29 M
PW General Fund
$1.00 M (11.27%)Supplies & Material $1.17 M
Vehicle Replacements $3.48 M
IT Internal Service Fund
$0.02 M (0.27%)
PW Enterprise Funds
$0.99 M (11.15%)
UTL Enterprise Funds
$2.85 M (32.03%)
$8.89 M
$8.89 M
EXPENSES
Allocated Charges to
Departments for Vehicle
Replacement & Maintenance
REVENUE
Allocated Charges to Departments for
Vehicle Replacement & Maintenance Vehicle Replacement & Maintenance Fund
Subtotal Enterprise
and Other Funds
$3.86 M (43.47%)
Subtotal General Fund
$5.03 M (56.53%)
5
6
5/17/2017
Human Resources Grievances and Hotline Complaints Metrics (Requested 5/2/2017 by CM Holman)
Please see the charts below that provide an overview of the Employee Relations caseload for FY 2016
and FY 2017. Note that
Employee Relations is one
division in Human Resources
and the chart does not reflect
other significant HR activities,
such as: 285 recruitments, 80
active workers comp cases,
4,800 Personnel Action Forms
processed, 294 health open
enrollment changes, and 31
retirements handled in the fiscal year.
The City Auditor, who oversees the City’s Fraud, Waste and Abuse Hotline, provided a presentation of
the Hotline to the Policy and Services Committee on March 28, 2017. Attachment D is a copy of the City
Auditor’s power point presentation, along with a link to the most recent
report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57007
The City Auditor’s report provides the following summary by year:
City Employees to Human Resources Staffing Ratios (Requested 5/2/2017 by CM Tanaka)
Staff was asked to comment on the ratio of HR to City employees in Palo Alto as compared to Mountain
View. Upon further research, it was noted that the City of Mountain View’s HR count did not include 2.0
FTE’s budgeted in Finance for Risk Management and Workers’ Compensation. A more accurate
comparison is included below, along with comparisons to other local agencies. According to the Society
of Human Resources Management (SHRM), the typical staffing ratio in the private sector is 75‐100
employees to 1 HR staff. In general, public sector requires more staffing in HR, based on factors such as
a unionized environment, management of a Merit Rules system, oversight of complex benefits
regulations and pension plan, and specialized support required for Public Safety personnel. The staffing
analysis indicates that Palo Alto’s ratio compares favorably to other public agencies in the area.
FY2016 –New Cases FY2017 –New Cases
Grievances/Arbitrations 9 Grievances/Arbitrations 9
Meet and Confer 8 Meet and Confer 12
Outside Charges
(DFEH/PERB/EEOC)
4 Outside Charges
(DFEH/PERB/EEOC)
5
Formal Investigations 11 Formal Investigations 6
Employee Relations Cases 13 Employee Relations Cases 11
Total 45 Total 43
6
7
5/17/2017
Local Agencies ‐ City FTE to HR Ratio
Source: FTE's from latest Adopted or Proposed Budget as published on the Agency website
Agency City FTE HR FTE HR Ratio Notes
City of Santa Clara 1,071.0 15.00 71:1
City of Redwood City 565.9 8.00 71:1 Does not include Assistant Director who oversees HR
City of Mountain View 603.4 9.50 64:1 Includes 2.0 positions in Finance for Risk Management;
does not include Assistant Director who oversees HR
City of Palo Alto 1,058.0 17.25 61:1
City of Milpitas 340.0 6.00 57:1
City of Fremont 901.3 16.25 55:1 Includes 2.0 positions in City Attorney's Office for Risk Mgmt
and Workers Comp
City of Sunnyvale 901.0 20.00 45:1 City FTE includes combined Police and Fire (Dept of Public
Safety)
City of Alameda 512.0 11.70 44:1 Includes 1.0 Senior HR staff funded in Utilities and 2.7 positions
in the City Attorney's Office for Risk Mgmt and Workers Comp
Note: Excludes Councilmembers and Seasonal/Hourly Employees
Contingent Accounts: historical budget and usage (Requested 5/2/2017 by CM Tanaka)
The annual adopted budget includes six contingent accounts totaling $725,000 annually. These accounts
are typically used for unanticipated events and initiatives throughout a given year. In addition to
contingent accounts, the City typically approves establishing various reserves for specific purposes such
as a salary reserve for labor negotiations or a Sustainability Reserve for the implementation of
sustainability initiatives. Attachment E outlines the last three years of both contingent accounts and
reserves that have been budgeted in the Non‐Departmental section of the annual operating budget.
There are two distinguishing factors of reserves and contingent accounts: 1) contingent accounts are
appropriated annually whereas reserves are typically one‐time in nature, and 2) contingent accounts can
be used with written authorization of the City Manager as outline in Municipal Code Section 2.28.060
whereas reserves require a budget amendment ordinance and thus City Council approval.
Citywide Code enforcement Estimates Revenue implications (Requested 5/9/2017 by CM Holman)
Staff does not believe that a greater use of fines and penalties is warranted given the type of code
enforcement cases being handled and the ability to achieve compliance through other means. If the
Council is interested in increasing the cost recovery of the code enforcement function, staff would
recommend undertaking a nexus study to justify an increase in application fees to cover code
enforcement.
The City could also pursue revenues from vacation rentals with an updated vacation rental ordinance as
other jurisdictions have done. These jurisdictions have allowed a certain number of short term rentals
(i.e. days per year) by owner‐occupants as long as the owners register their properties and pay a
fee. Owners are also required to pay Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and violations are aggressively
enforced with fines and penalties for unauthorized rentals. Some jurisdictions have found it useful to
supplement staff with contract enforcement when focusing on this issue, so the increased revenues are
accompanied by some increased costs.
7
8
5/17/2017
Development In‐Lieu and Impact Fees (Requested 5/9/2017 by CM Holman)
Annually the City reports out on the City’s various development impact fees. Although in the budget
document these funds are aggregated for reporting simplicity, however, in order to comply with State
law AB 1600, for accounting purposes, these funds are segregated from other funds of the City with
interest on each development fee fund or account credited to that fund or account and used only for
the purposes for which the fees were collected. Per State law (Government Code Section 66006) each
local agency that imposes development impact fees must prepare an annual report providing specific
information about those fees. Typically this report is provided in January or February of the year
following the fiscal year end close, therefore the most recent report for Fiscal Year 2016 was approved
by City Council on February 2, 2017, City Manager Report #7386 Annual Development Impact Fees FY16
which can be found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55646.
SUMC Fund: Past Present & Future (Requested 5/9/2017 by CM Holman)
On an annual basis, Staff brings forward to City Council a report that outlines activities that have
occurred during the time period in regards to the Stanford University Medical Center Fund, including
construction activities and other actions taken to fulfill the obligations of the agreement, discussion of
current and future commitments, and an accounting of funds. The most recent report, City Manager
Report #6358 Stanford University Medical Center Annual Report and Compliance with the Development
Agreement, discusses the SUMC Parties activities during FY 2015, the fourth year of the Agreement.
Staff anticipates that the FY 2016 report will be brought forward for Council review in the late June,
early August timeframe. To date, the SUMC parties have contributed $32.5 million in public benefit
funds and are anticipated to pay an additional $11.7 million upon issuance of the first hospital
occupancy permit, projected to be issued in October/November of 2017. This next phase of funds is
already allocated to the infrastructure plan. The most recent report can be found here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51645.
How many spaces does valet in University Avenue free up? (Requested 5/9/2017 by CM Fine)
The current valet program parks about 50‐60 cars per day, mostly at the High Street Garage. Staff
anticipates that maximizing valet parking at the High Street, Bryant/Lytton, and Cowper/Webster
garages could theoretically increase capacity by a total of about 150 cars per day. Further, staff
anticipates that additional capacity could be added in other lots and garages (including California
Avenue) however, this expansion of the program would require the appropriation of additional funding.
Staff will evaluate the cost effectiveness of this program.
2) CHANGES TENTATIVELY APPROVED BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
Throughout the Finance Committee Hearings, the Committee has tentatively approved a number of
components of the City Manager Proposed FY 2018 Operating and Capital Budgets. This section
describes Finance Committee recommended changes made to the budget.
GENERAL FUND
City Auditor’s Office: On May 2, 2017, the Finance Committee tentatively approved the addition of
$20,000 to the City Auditor’s Office budget to conduct a citizen survey of resident opinions on the
quality of code enforcement. This funding will be used to augment the information received through the
Code Enforcement Audit and to help inform the audit recommendations to improve the quality of the
8
9
5/17/2017
Code Enforcement Program. In addition, funding will provide capacity for some customized questions in
the City’s annual National Citizen Survey.
OTHER FUNDS
On May 4, 2017, the Finance Committee tentatively approved changes to the Storm Drainage Fund and
the Wastewater Treatment Fund in recognition of the recent approval of the Storm Water Management
fee in April 2017. A majority of property owners, via a ballot‐by‐mail process, established a base rate of
$13.65 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) per month along with a provision that the City Council
could increase the rate on an annual basis by the local inflation rate (as measured by the Consumer
Price Index) or 6 percent, whichever is less.
Below are the recommended changes to the FY 2018 Proposed Budget, which are detailed in the At
Places Memorandum that can be found here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57694.
Wastewater Treatment Fund
Staffing Realignment:
Shift 2.21 FTE to the Storm Drainage Fund, reduction of $346,648 ongoing.
Storm Drainage Fund
Operating Budget Proposals:
‐ Shift 2.21 FTE from the Wastewater Treatment (WWT) Fund, addition of $346,648 ongoing.
‐ Add 1.0 FTE Associate Engineer position and $40,000 for regulatory requirement consulting
services, addition of $188,189 total ongoing.
‐ Provide funding for a Green Infrastructure Plan related to Storm Water Management, addition
of $341,000 ongoing.
Capital Budget Proposals:
SD‐13003 Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station and Trunk Line Improvements
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 5 Year Total
Proposed FY 2018‐
2022 CIP (4/24/17)
$259,632 $0 $0 $0 $0 $259,632
Recommended $259,632 $2,226,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,485,632
SD‐06101 Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 5 Year Total
$450,000 $465,000 $480,180 $496,551 $513,124 $2,404,855
SD‐20000 Storm Drain Pump Station to Adobe Creek
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 5 Year Total
$0 $0 $500,000 $2,000,000 $0 $2,500,000
SD‐22000 East Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive Storm Drain System Upgrades
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 5 Year Total
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,340,000 $1,340,000
9
10
5/17/2017
3) WRAP‐UP DISCUSSION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES FROM PRIOR BUDGET HEARING MEETINGS &
ADDITIONAL CHANGES RECOMMENDED
This section outlines those items recommended by the Finance Committee to be placed in the “Parking
Lot” for further discussion and additional staff‐recommended changes to the proposed budget.
Staff Recommended Changes to Operating Budget
GENERAL FUND
A summary of the revised FY 2018 General Fund Budgets by Department can be found in Attachment F.
This chart reflects the tentatively approved adjustments thus far and adjustments recommended within
this memorandum; it does not reflect changes to items placed in the “Parking Lot”.
Reallocation of $150k from CMO to Non‐Departmental
This action reallocates the recommended $150,000 in one‐time funding from the City Manager’s Office
to the Non‐Departmental section of the FY 2018 Proposed Operating Budget. These funds are
recommended for an outside study that will help inform the path forward for the City's parking and
transportation efforts, contribute to the integration of a strategic vision across each of those efforts, and
review what organizational structure would best manage these new initiatives. Therefore, given the
citywide nature of this evaluation, funding is more appropriately aligned with citywide initiatives in the
Non‐Departmental section.
AIRPORT FUND
Tie Down Lease and Property Rental Revenues
This action increases the estimate for tie down lease and property rental revenues at the Airport that
were inadvertently cited as $1,011,509 in the FY 2018 Proposed Operating Budget by $500,000. These
revenues are associated with the anticipated sunset of the Fix Based Operator (FBO) leases in April 2017
and were anticipated in the development of the Airport Fund and were included in the 5 year financial
forecast previously provided.
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN‐LIEU FUND
Below Market Rate Housing Contract
This action appropriates $137,000 for contract services of Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) in the
Residential Housing In‐Lieu fund. Funds will be used for oversight of the City's Below Market Rate (BMR)
housing program including administering the sale and re‐sale of new and existing BMR owner units,
maintaining the home purchase waiting list, monitoring occupancy of BMR rental units, providing advice
and consultation to the City regarding negotiations of BMR agreements with developers, and addressing
special issues related to the program as a whole. This program is subject to City Council approval of the
contract, scheduled to be considered on June 5, 2017. This request was excluded from Fiscal Year 2018
proposals due to uncertainty of amounts, which were confirmed upon completion of an RFP in late April.
(Ongoing Costs: $137,000)
10
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2017 1:39 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From: Catherine Martineau [mailto:catherine@canopy.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:04 PM
To: Filseth, Eric (Internal); Holman, Karen; adrianfine@gmail.com; Tanaka, Greg
Cc: Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Perez, Lalo; shani kleinhaus; michaeljferreira@gmail.com; alex@grassrootsecology.org;
Adam Stern; ldrruff@hotmail.com
Subject: Urban Forestry Budget Discussion Today
Dear Chair Filseth and members of the Council’s Finance Committee,
We wish to reiterate the importance of keeping the tree pruning cycle at, or ideally under, seven years is in order to
achieve the City’s urban forestry strategic goals defined by the Urban Forest Master Plan and other documents. Industry
standards set minimum guidelines that do not support Palo Alto’s vision for environmental sustainability and landscape
resilience. Additionally the Urban Forest Master Plan Year Three programs need dedicated funding to make consistent
progress toward these important goals too.
Thank you for your attention to one of Palo Alto’s most valuable asset and good luck for a very long meeting this
afternoon. Rest assured that we appreciate and are grateful for your dedication and hard work on behalf of this
community. This goes for the Staff too.
Catherine
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Catherine Martineau
Executive Director
catherine@canopy.org - (650) 964-6110 ext. 2
Canopy plants and cares for trees where people need them the most.
We bring the life‐giving benefits of trees to the schools, neighborhoods, and
public spaces of the San Francisco Mid‐Peninsula.
HEALTHY TREES, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES www.canopy.org
From: Catherine Martineau [mailto:catherine@canopy.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 5:49 PM
To: eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org; 'Holman, Karen'; adrianfine@gmail.com; 'greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org'
Cc: 'lalo.perez@cityofpaloalto.org'; 'shani kleinhaus'; michaeljferreira@gmail.com; alex@grassrootsecology.org; 'Adam
Stern'; 'ldrruff@hotmail.com'
Subject: Public Works Budget - Urban Forestry
Dear Chair Filseth and members of the Council’s Finance Committee,
Please find attached a letter signed by six environmental organizations expressing concerns over proposed budgetary
cuts in the City’s Urban Forestry program.
Thank you for your attention,
Catherine
2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2017 1:39 PM
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Catherine Martineau
Executive Director
catherine@canopy.org ‐ (650) 964‐6110 ext. 2
Canopy plants and cares for trees where people need them the most.
We bring the life‐giving benefits of trees to the schools, neighborhoods, and
public spaces of the San Francisco Mid‐Peninsula.
HEALTHY TREES, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES www.canopy.org
Page 1 of 2
May 3, 2017 Via email
Dear Chair Filseth and Council Members:
Canopy, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra
Club, Grassroots Ecology, Acterra, and the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the California
Native Plant Society have been alerted to proposed cuts to the City of Palo Alto’s Urban
Forestry programs. Together, our organizations number thousands of members in Palo
Alto who care deeply about the urban forest, its health and ecological function. We are
particularly concerned with the following:
1. Reversal of last year’s Council decision to restore street tree pruning to a 7 year
cycle. The $338K proposed cut means that trees in the public right of way would
only be pruned every 10 years. Best urban forestry practices is to aim at a 5 to 7
year cycle, with a shorter cycle yet for young trees. We urge you to maintain the
pruning cycle at no more than 7 years.
2. No funding for the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP). Year Three of the Master
Plan implementation plan includes essential programs that 1. address
preservation and growth of the tree canopy in the context of development
intensification under the new comprehensive plan; 2. create guidelines for tree-
compatible siting of solar panels; 3. several programs to enhance the ecological
and bird habitat value of the urban forest; 4. ameliorate the inequity in canopy
cover between north and south Palo Alto.
Page 2 of 2
Our organizations were actively involved in the amendment of the UFMP to re-frame
the plan and prioritize ecological benefits and native ecosystems. We are deeply
concerned the value of the plan is severely compromised as there is no clearly identified
source of funding for it. We urge the Finance Committee to direct staff to create a
funding plan for the Urban Forest Master Plan.
Thank you for your consideration,
Catherine Martineau, Executive Director
Canopy 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303
Mike Ferreira, Conservation Chair
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303
Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
22221 McClellan Rd., Cupertino 95014
Alex Von Feldt, Executive Director
Grassroots Ecology
3921 East Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Adam Stern
Adam Stern, Executive Director
Acterra
3921 East Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Linda Ruthruff, Conservation Advocate
Native Plant Society, Santa Clara Valley
Chapter
3921 East Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:49 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Neff <robert@neffs.net>
Sent:Monday, May 22, 2017 10:52 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please approve the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Dear City Council,
I hope you can move forward and approve the new Master Plan for Palo Alto's Parks and Recreation department and
facilities. The plan gives direction not just inside our parklands, but beyond, considering access to parks, and encourages
community‐building recreation events, such as fun runs in the baylands and open street events connecting our
neighborhoods.
With approval of this plan city staff and Parks and Recreation Commissioners can move ahead with implementation. I
hope you will approve this plan tonight.
‐‐ Robert Neff
Emerson Street near Loma Verde
Palo Alto
robert@neffs.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 7:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Glanckopf <annette_g@att.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 2:24 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Office of Economic Development
Attachments:Office ED.docx
Dear Council Members,
I am sending these comments to the finance committee as well as the entire council re Monday
night's agenda item Comp Plan - Business and Economic Development Element.
These are my individual comments and not representative of any group.
Thanks
Annette
ANNETTE GLANCKOPF
2747 Bryant Street
Annette_g@Att.net
Dear Council Members,
I wanted to share my views on the Office of Economic Development. I am writing this as an individual,
not as a member of the comp plan advisory group.
In reviewing the business and economic element of the comp plan, I observe the vision expressed in the
comp plan is very different than the actual practice in Palo Alto. I was disappointed to see this role
eliminated in the current budget. Currently the role is analytical. This function is needed, but it is only a
small part of what I believe is needed and would support the policies in the comp plan that you are to
review. To follow and implement the comp plan policies – business & economic development element,
we need to proactively recruit, support and work to retain retail especially independent locally owned
neighborhood serving businesses.
To support a vibrant retail environment in our city we need an experienced manager to aggressively
work with retail merchants and property owners. I focus on retail, because office is thriving in Palo Alto.
Numbers might indicate that retail is thriving. Stanford Shopping Center is a major contributor to these
numbers. Also the "managed" Town and Country Center and Charleston Plaza (with one management
company) do quite well. Yet there are many areas of the city where true resident serving retail is
suffering, crowded with personal services and doesn't offer a wide variety of choices.. Midtown, isolated
spots like the location of Addison antiques, as well as locations on El Camino/
I believe we need to PROACTIVELY recruit business that would be a good fit in Palo Alto, help them find
appropriate locations, and work with them so they can expediously move into their space. I remember
in 2001 when the Coop market was failing and their building was for sale. Midtown residents were
polled and what they wanted was Traders Joes...who actually was looking for a location in the mid
peninsula. I called them, they seemed interested in the site. I got them to contact the seller, but by that
time the property was sold. In early conversations with them, they related how other cities were calling
them trying to actively bring TJs to their city. They related when they were investigating a store location
in Oakland, Jerry Brown picked them up at airport and spent the day with them, talking about Oakland
and touring to review potential sites. That is one of the roles, we need for Palo Alto.
Another key role for this position would be outreach - work with the owners, property managers on
behalf of tenants...to help negotiate rents, encourage owners to maintain their property, and provide
other support and information from the city on events and information (such as the RPP or paid
parking).
There has been a lot said about the changing role of retail. That is true. Internet shopping is growing by
leaps and bounds...yet people will still need/want to shop in person for some items...and seek personal
services. ..or maybe just shop for recreation. We need to help and provide support so the right retail
goes to the right spot at the right rent.
As you debate to preserve, fund or remove this role, please review what other cities are doing to
preserve their retail and maintain the quality of life for residents. Two examples of what other nearby
cities have in place:
ANNETTE GLANCKOPF
2747 Bryant Street
Annette_g@Att.net
Menlo Park
• Business retention: staff regularly conducts proactive meetings with businesses to offer
assistance through referrals to State and Federal programs, strategic planning for expansion
approval and marketing/networking opportunities.
• Business attraction/business concierge: Staff works to identify new businesses that will enhance
the Menlo Park business community and the City’s overall economic health.
Burlingame
• BUSINESS ATTRACTION: The Economic Development Specialist coordinates with other city
departments and realtors to aid businesses interested in locating in Burlingame to identify
spaces that best fit their needs while also reaching out to businesses that increase the quality of
life and meet the needs of the community.
• BUSINESS RETENTION AND EXPANSION: The Economic Development Specialist regularly keeps in
touch with the local businesses and DBIDs to offer assistance, refers businesses to appropriate
city contacts and organizations that can provide services to businesses, and seeks opportunities
that help businesses reach out to their customers and members.
• STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPs
Thanks for reconsidering this and the role of the Office of Economic Development
Annette Glanckopf
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2017 2:55 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keene, James
Sent:Monday, May 22, 2017 6:28 PM
To:jay whaley; Council, City
Cc:Alaee, Khashayar; Minor, Beth
Subject:RE: Airplane Noise
On behalf of the City Council and the P&S Committee, thanks for your email.
James Keene | City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email –Thank you!
From: jay whaley [mailto:whaley_jay@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 6:02 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Airplane Noise
Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council,
Thank you for your past and continuing actions to address and reduce the overwhelming impact of aircraft
noise over our neighborhoods.
Our neighborhood is Crescent Park, which is very near the Menlo waypoint. The noise from Jet aircraft landing
at SFO has been carefully documented and reported over the past 2 years. Though most of our reports on
Crescent Drive record aircraft elevations between 2800 and 4900 feet, we have recorded a number of very
loud aircraft well above 5000‐6000 feet. The elevation, plus the size and engine characteristics of the aircraft
must contribute to the noise.
We are constantly awakened in the very early morning by such aircraft*. The noise also continues
intermittently, sometimes every 2 minutes, until midnight. The noise is so disruptive that we welcome the
opportunity to travel away from Palo Alto.
Regarding the recommendations and analysis contained in the CITY OF PALO ALTO POLICY AND SERVICES
COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT (ID #8143):
1) We strongly support the recommendation to obtain the appointment of a Palo Alto resident on the Select
Committee's proposed Ad‐hoc Committee and any new permanent entity created to address aircraft noise.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2017 2:55 PM
2
Except for one alternate member, the residents of Palo Alto were unrepresented on the Select Committee on
South Bay Arrivals.
2) We concur with the Palo Alto position on the recommendations for the Northerly and Westerly arrivals to
SFO.
3) Regarding the Southerly arrival, we strongly believe that recommendations #'s 1, 2 and 3 are NOT solutions
to reducing aircraft noise over our neighborhood. Specifically, the minimum aircraft elevation of 5000 feet is
much too low. We urge that you recommend and support a minimum elevation of at least 6000 feet over our
neighborhood, especially for night time arrivals at SFO.
4) We strongly support your position of aligning with Southerly arrival recommendation # 4 of designing an
entirely new route that takes maximum advantage of non‐residential areas.
Your efforts in behalf of all Palo Alto Residents to reduce airplane noise is greatly appreciated!
* UA #396 from HNL at 4:40 AM 4,140 feet: VX # 48 from OGG at 5:45 AM 3,700 feet:
UA # 872 from TPE at 5:45 AM 3,900 feet: UA# 955 from TLV at 4:40 AM 3400 feet.
Sincerely,
Jay and Sallie Whaley
24 Crescent Drive
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 3:32 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Horstmeyer <rhorstmeyer@growthpointpartners.com>
Sent:Friday, May 19, 2017 9:23 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Airplane Noise
Dear City Council:
Now that it has warmed up, the windows are open and I am working outside more; the noise problem from the landing
airplanes has become increasingly evident and annoying. Last night May 18, 2017 we had one plane after another flying
low over my house and changing engine controls. This happens in episodes and at random times. A bunch of jets will fly
low over my rooftop and then then the jets move off in the distance for a while and then it repeats with a series of jets
flying low over my house. It’s highly disruptive and destroys the historical “vibe” we all had in Palo Alto. We now live in
an industrial acoustic sewer. I love this town but I am thinking of moving as I don’t want to live under the landing path
of a major airport.
I saw a spike in activity by committees and in hearings regarding the airplane noise but I have not seen any results.
Why can’t you get the FAA to simply fly the planes over the numerous unpopulated areas like the San Francisco Bay? No
one lives on the Bay so no one will suffer.
Please fix the noise problem from the jets.
Regards,
Bob Horstmeyer
Robert Horstmeyer
Managing Director
office: +1 (650) 322‐1859
mobile: +1 (650) 714‐6476
rhorstmeyer@growthpointpartners.com
The information in this email may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended for the named recipients only. If you are not the addressee
indicated in this message, please do not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, destroy this message and notify us immediately by replying to this email
or by calling us directly, in the U.S. at +1‐650‐322‐2500 and in the U.K. at +44 0207 321 0232.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:49 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 21, 2017 4:02 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:P&S Committee meeting, 05-23-17 -- FTTP & Wireless item
Council members, I am a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee on FTTP & Wireless, but in this message I'm expressing only my personal views. At the 05-23-17 Policy & Services Committee meeting, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57895 committee members will consider an item (Item 2) about FTTP & Wireless, described in this staff report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57822 That staff report is very similar to the staff report considered by UAC at its 04-05-17 meeting: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56779 I commented on this staff report in a message of 04-03-17, 5:23 pm, archived here (pages 29-44): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57436 I also provided a transcript of the meeting for this item and commented on it here (pages 92-124): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57737
Executive Summary: 1. It would be a lot easier for Council, UAC, staff, and consultants to focus on FTTP if Council commanded staff and consultants to stop even thinking about municipal wireless. If Council can't quite bring itself to do that, at least mandate that municipal wireless be paid for by whatever departments think it's necessary and have the budgets for it. It's unethical to ask the Fiber Optic Fund to pay for municipal wireless. The Fiber Optic Fund is for the City's fiber utility, including
municipal FTTP. 2. Staff's three FTTP "options" are a "false trichotomy." The Policy & Services Committee shouldn't think it is constrained to choosing just one. 2.a. Thanks to UAC's recommendation, "Option 2" now includes doing a "preliminary" design a citywide FTTP
network. Great! (There should be a discussion of what "preliminary" means, and what the deliverables are, and how those deliverables will be useful in doing a more detailed design later.) Next, the City would be able to choose what portion of the preliminarily-designed citywide FTTP network to implement first. I feel strongly that it should not be what staff is calling fiber-to-the-node (FTTN). A much better choice would be to implement FTTP to the neighborhoods with the most sign-ups -- possibly to all neighborhoods, if there are enough sign-ups.
2.b. I think it's fine to consider some FTTP funding options identified in "Option 1," if it's in addition to (not instead of) doing the citywide FTTP network design.
2.c. I don't see any merit to the "pausing" part of "Option 3." Thanks.
Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:49 PM
2
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
PS: Please see some more specific comments (paragraphs beginning with "###") below. (Paragraphs that do not begin with "###" are excerpted from the 05-23-17 staff report.)
#####################################################################
--- page 3 ---
... to raise the $50 million to $78 million staff estimates is necessary to build a municipally-owned FTTP network.
### Staff means that such a network would cost $78 million (09-28-15 estimate), but whatever is taken from the Fiber
Fund to pay for it wouldn't have to be "raised."
--- page 8 ---
With regard to business case development ....
### Starting here are six paragraphs that did not appear in the 04-05-17 staff report to UAC.
Staff will engage an engineering consultant to initiate a preliminary design for FTTP and FTTN.
### It would be better to do the design for FTTP but not for FTTN. It would be good to get a cost estimate based on this design. The problem with CTC's 09-28-15 cost estimate is that it's apparently not based on an actual design but rather on
some magic formulas that CTC considers to be proprietary. That's just unsatisfactory. Then, if citywide FTTP were deemed too expensive to take on in one go, we'd have a better idea of what subset to implement first.
... public-private partnership opportunities
### Is it just me, or are people starting to have second thoughts about the "free lunch" of public-private partnership
opportunities? Recently, Axia pulled out of a public-private partnership that Fort Collins, CO, had been pursuing. http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2017/05/07/fort-collins-broadband-push-hits-speed-bump/311839001/
Fortunately, Fort Collins seems to be positioned and motivated to pursue citywide FTTP on its own.
### In a recent podcast, MuniNetworks' Christopher Mitchell said, "When we look at a public-private partnership, we're trying to figure out how many there are, but there doesn’t seem to be that many of them when you actually look at a true
partnership." https://muninetworks.org/content/transcript-community-broadband-bits-episode-253
An up-front cost estimate per home would be communicated (e.g., estimated range of $800-$5,000 per home) ....
### What is this range based on? Is it the cost to pass a premises? Is it the additional cost to connect a premises that
has already been passed? Is it the sum of these two? By citing this range, is staff saying that some premises will cost more to pass and/or connect than others? What is the average cost per premises passed? What is the average cost per
premises connected? Does staff want to specify both of these as ranges, because its estimates at this point are not very precise?
### Per this 05-09-17 Council work session video, Fort Collins thinks its cost per premises passed is going to be about
$1000 (1:20:30) and its cost per premises connected is going to be about $600 (0:41:15-0:43:05) https://fortcollinstv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=7rQoR8a4zzSo#
By the way, utilities in Fort Collins are 99 percent undergrounded.
https://muninetworks.org/content/transcript-community-broadband-bits-episode-211 And, as a rule, undergrounded FTTP is more expensive than aerial FTTP.
--- page 9 ---
... fiber and/or wireless technologies could be deployed to deliver faster broadband services ....
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:49 PM
3
### Council could simplify the discussion of the way forward by forbidding staff even to think about wireless as part of
Option 2.
Homeowners would voluntarily finance system build-out costs by paying a one-time upfront connection fee that could range from $800 to $5,000, or more.
### Again, what is this range based on? Is staff trying to say that subscribing homeowners (or business premises
owners) would all pay the same amount, but staff doesn't know whether that amount should be $800 or $5,000 or more? Or is staff saying that each subscribing homeowner (or business premises owner) should pay an amount that
depends on what it costs the City to pass and/or connect that particular home (or business premises)?
### It's important to note that user-financing needn't necessarily cover 100 percent of build-out costs.
The City would provide a wholesale transport-only service to one or more ISP [sic] on an "open access" basis and the homeowner would directly pay the ISP for Internet connectivity.
### The concepts of user-financing and open access are completely independent. You can have one without the other.
Property owners could self-organize, ....
### What is staff trying to say?
--- page 10 ---
... a very competitive industry.
### The Herfindal-Hirshman Index (HHI) is a way of quantifying how competitive a market is.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/herfindahl-hirschman-index "The HHI is calculated by squaring the market share of each firm competing in the market and then summing the resulting
numbers." Each market share is expressed as a percent. So the HHI can range from 0 to 10,000. If there's just one competitor, then that competitor has 100 percent of the market, and the HHI = 100*100 = 10,000. If there are 100
competitors in the market and each has 1 percent of the market, then the HHI = 100. The cited Department of Justice source says, "The agencies generally consider markets in which the HHI is between 1,500 and 2,500 points to be
moderately concentrated, and consider markets in which the HHI is in excess of 2,500 points to be highly concentrated." For example, if one competitor has 50 percent of the market, then the HHI is at least 2,500, regardless of
how many other competitors there are or how they share the rest of the market, so the market is highly concentrated. Also, for example, if there are only two competitors in the market, then the HHI must be at least 5,000,
which is way beyond just highly concentrated.
### Exhibit D doesn't say what the market shares are of the service providers in Palo Alto.
--- page 12 ---
Committee Review and Recommendation
### This section -- three paragraphs on pages 12-13 -- is new with this staff report.
... Option 1 is too challenging since voter approval will most likely be required.
### I disagree. Option 1 proposes to look into financing methods for municipal FTTP That, per se, doesn't need voter approval.
### The City could use the Fiber Optics Fund ($22,245,000, according to the 2Q17 Utilities Quarterly Report) without
voter approval. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57459
(It was $24,329,000, according to the 4Q16 Utilities Quarterly Report, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54496
but the project to refurbish the dark fiber network as had an impact.)
### The City could issue revenue bonds based on dark fiber revenues without voter approval.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:49 PM
4
### User financing wouldn't need voter approval.
--- page 13 ---
Regarding Option 3, the UAC stated that the support of third party network upgrades should be considered a standard activity by the City.
### UAC didn't state any such thing in its motion. During the discussion prior to the motion, Chair Cook (at 2:10:40 on the
video) said, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57737
"And Option 3 just seems like probably what we should be doing anyway, until we come up with a decision. I really don't like Option 3 at all."
These models need to be identified and should be technology independent, otherwise the City will not know how to design
and build the network.
### Again, UAC didn't state any such thing in its motion. During the discussion prior to the motion, Vice Chair Danaher (at 2:12:17) said, "What's really missing -- and it kind of comes through in your comments -- is what I was asking about.
What's the service provider model? And I would say, explore design of fiber-to-the-node, identify the service provider model and the financing mechanisms. Again, it's technology independent -- of whether it's 5G or glass to the home or
whatever. But if we're going to do this -- explore the design -- we have to come up with a service provider model at the end of it. Otherwise, we don't know why we're building it. So that's what I would change about Option 2 -- is a study
recommendation." In other words, Vice Chair Danaher was pointing out that the Option 2 UAC was asked to consider was proposing a technology-specific hardware deployment without proposing the service provider model(s) that would
make that deployment useful. I believe he was NOT saying that the City should come up with service provider models that would work for any technology.
### I'd go further. I'd say that the Option 2 UAC was asked to consider proposed to deploy some fiber infrastructure to
some nodes -- and possibly to deploy some cabinets at the nodes -- that could not be used for FTTP unless some entity later added electronics and fiber infrastructure from nodes to premises. Such a deployment would be of NO use, other
than possibly for the "ancillary" uses staff mentioned, including leasing dark fiber to the incumbents for 5G or other purposes. So it could support NO service provider model(s).
The City needs to consider emerging technologies and next-generation Internet speeds provided by the existing ISPs.
### At the 04-05-17 UAC meeting, staff talked about how the City should pay attention to this. But I don't think the
commissioners supported it. At 1:37:46, Commissioner Johnston said, "And providing fiber backhaul for emerging 5G services -- is that simply providing a benefit for the wireless providers? That they would be able to come in, use those
facilities, and we'd be able to get some revenue from that? Do we have any idea what the revenue would be?"
Moreover, staff should identify applications and services that require gigabit-speed broadband such as virtual reality, telemedicine, telepresence or telecommunication, ...
### At 1:44:06, Commissioner Schwartz said, "..one thing that I think would be really helpful for those of us who are less
concerned with speeds and feeds would be to talk about these things in the context of the applications that are going to be enabled." And I commented,
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57737 "As long as we know customers will buy performance, why do we need to know what applications they'll buy it for?"
... and develop a strategic plan outlining phased deployments of these applications.
### Did any UAC commissioner say anything like this? If the City chose to offer "open access" FTTP, then it would be up
to the retail service providers, not the City, to choose what services to offer and when. Even if the City chose to be a retail service provider of internet service, it would be up to users to choose what "over-the-top" services to access via that
internet service.
FTTN has the potential to be a foundational technology ...
### At 2:16:19, Commissioner Schwartz said, "... Option 2 lets us put in foundational technology that is going to let us be
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:49 PM
5
flexible." I disagree. I think FTTN is a way of deploying fiber (a kind of FTTP technology) in a way that makes it useless
until somebody finishes the job by making it FTTP -- except for the "ancillary benefits" that dark fiber strands could be co opted for other purposes.
--- page 14 ---
The fiber and wireless activities are consistent with the Telecommunications Policy adopted by the Council in 1997, to
facilitate advanced telecommunications services in Palo Alto in an environmentally sound manner (Reference CMR:369:97 - Proposed Telecommunications Policy Statements).
### CMR:369:97 isn't even available online on the City's website, except in this 09-17-13 message from me.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/35933 Maybe it's time for the Policy & Services Committee to consider what the City's telecom policy should be now -- 20 years
later.
### Note that this staff report doesn't have a "signatures page." I think that's a misfeature. The 04-05-17 staff report (which is remarkably similar) has a "signatures page" -- page 12.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56779
--- page 19 ---
### I won't comment on Exhibit C (pages 24-31), the draft minutes of the 04-05-17 UAC meeting for the FTTP & Wireless item. Instead, please see my comments on a verbatim transcript of this meeting item, available here (pages 92-124):
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57737
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 3:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 15, 2017 3:44 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:FTTP in Westminster, MD -- progress report
Council members,
Here's a progress report on FTTP in Westminster, MD.
05-10-17: "Update on Westminster's High Profile PPP Network - Community Broadband Bits Podcast 252"
https://muninetworks.org/content/update-westminsters-high-profile-ppp-network-community-broadband-bits-podcast-252 Transcript:
https://muninetworks.org/content/transcript-community-broadband-bits-episode-252
I was especially interested in Dr. Wack's point that Westminster's City Council was pushing staff outside of their comfort zone.
Note that Westminster sought a public-private partnership because it was starting with "nothing." It didn't have a municipal electric utility and it had no experience with fiber. But Palo Alto starts with a municipal electric utility, and it has some experience with fiber.
Thanks.
Jeff
------------------- Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
###########################################################################
Transcript: Community Broadband Bits Episode 252 Mon, May 15, 2017 | Posted by htrostle
This is the transcript for Episode 252 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast. Westminster, Maryland, has developed a public-
private partnership with Ting, and Robert Wack the city council president joins the show to discuss how the project is meeting its goals. Listen to this episode here.
Robert Wack: When he brings clients or vendors or just friends into his office, he sits them down at his desk and says, "Watch this."
And he shows off his gig like it's his new, shiny, red Corvette.
Lisa Gonzalez: This is episode 252 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. I'm Lisa Gonzalez. When Christopher was at the Broadband Community's conference in Austin recently, he had the opportunity to check in
with Robert Wack, city council president from Westminster, Maryland. Westminster is a town of about 18,000 people that decided the best way to improve local connectivity for schools, businesses, and residents was to invest in publicly-owned fiber and work with the
private sector partner. In 2015, they began working with ISP Ting. Robert was the leading voice of the initiative. He gives Chris an update on how things are going in Westminster and the two talk about expectations, realities, plans, and challenges. Robert was on the
show way back in 2014 for episode 100, when the project was just getting started. And we've written about Westminster for muninetworks.org as the Community Network has grown. Be sure to check it out. Now here's Christopher with Robert Wack, city
council president from Westminster, Maryland.
Christopher Mitchell: Welcome to the Community Broadband Bits podcast live edition, coming to you live from the Broadband
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 3:51 PM
2
Community Summit with Robert Wack, the city council president from Westminster, Maryland. Welcome back to the show, Robert.
Robert Wack: Thanks, Chris. Glad to be here.
Christopher Mitchell: I'm excited to get an update, because I know that things have been going well. I've been following and I don't
think we've talked about this much since maybe we did a podcast talking about the public and private partnership as you were getting it kicked off.
Robert Wack: It was a long time ago. And as you recall, in the fall when we saw each other in Minneapolis, I said, "When are you
gonna ask me to come back and talk about our project?" And you gave me a look and said, "Well when you have numbers, real numbers, to talk about, then we'll have a discussion."
Christopher Mitchell: That sounds more honest than I normally am. So I'm not sure that that happened.
Robert Wack: No, I think we know each other well enough now that you're honest with me. And you were pretty direct.
Christopher Mitchell: Yeah, we've probably have a whole four or five guests lined up at that time and I was feeling pretty good. But
when I have people face-to-face, I love to be able to do the recording here in this very professional studio in my hotel room. So let's just do a quick reminder for people who aren't familiar. If you were just ... If you had a elevator pitch for what you're doing in
Westminster, how would you describe it?
Robert Wack: We're building a community-wide gigabit, broadband network using a unique and innovative public-private partnership model. The fiber is completely owned and built and maintained by the city of Westminster. And our private partner, Ting, likes
### lights
the fiber and installs the equipment and has the customer service relationship with all the residents and businesses.
Christopher Mitchell: Now let me ask you ... Because I know that you pay really close attention to what's happening out there. What
do you think is most unique about your approach?
Robert Wack: Now that I have seen more projects all across the country, our country
### project
is even more remarkable than I originally understood, because we started with nothing. We didn't have municipal utility. We had no native fiber experience or skills within our city employees. Frankly, we didn't know what the heck we were getting ourselves into. But
we knew we wanted to do it. And it's been a very steep learning curve. And had I know back then how hard this was going to be, I'll be honest, I might have had some second thoughts. But we've done it, or we are doing it with considerable success. And the other
thing that's remarkable about our project is our relationship with our partner. Ting is a fabulous company to work with. They've been as interested in creating innovative solutions to this tricky space of, "How do you divvy up the responsibilities of creating a gigabit
fiber network in a community?" But not pushing either partner outside their comfort zone. And they've been great to work with.
Christopher Mitchell: Let me tell you what I think is something that is incredibly unique and I hope continues to get people thinking along these lines. And I'm curious how you react. Your relationships with Ting is, as you alluded to, I think unique in the sense that I
don't that there's another place where that relationship is happening, even where Ting is working with other cities. You divide up the responsibility in the event of an event where you don't have enough money for debt service. If the network is not producing enough
cash, you pay, the city pays a certain amount. Ting pays 100,000 dollars and then you pay the rest potentially. So it actually, for the first 200,000 dollars of overage, splits it down the middle, right? If I'm remembering it correctly.
Robert Wack: Yeah, more or less. Yeah.
Christopher Mitchell: Right. So it's a little bit complicated, but it's something that we haven't seen anywhere else. The thing that I
thought was genius was that Ting pays you, because you own the fiber, and Ting pays you for homes that could connect to the fiber but are not connected to the fiber, thereby giving them an incentive to do a really good job advertising.
Robert Wack: Exactly. And how we got to that is something I've been talking about a lot, but I'm not sure it's catching on. I don't
know if that's my fault or if there's a problem with the idea. But it's thinking about fiber as real estate. So if you think about a shopping mall and you go into a shopping mall and you want to open a yogurt stand, you're gonna pay a base rent. Even if you never make a
penny, you still own the landlord a base rent. Now some real landlord will do interesting things where they will give you a cut, a break
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 3:51 PM
3
on your base rent in exchange for a piece of your business. So if some percentage of your profits or your revenues. So we looked at
that. And ours is skewed more heavily toward the performance part. So we get a bigger payment for a lit customer than we do for a pass
### passed
premise. But the pass
### passed
premise is exactly what you said. It's an incentive. It's a base payment to help us cover our debt service, but it also creates a very
powerful incentive for them to get those customers lit. And it also creates an incentive for us to help them get customers lit. And because when we did our research looking at other projects that have failed around the country, that was one of the things, is that there
weren't aligned incentives all the way along the process. So there's incentives aligned during construction, but then the operations part and the customer service part and the subscriber enrollment part, there have to be very concrete, real incentives for both parties to be
working together at each of those stages, even though that thing may be more one party's responsibility than the other. You want them helping each other all along.
Christopher Mitchell: To what extent do you think your successful relationship with Ting comes out of Ting being a really interesting
partner versus the contract that you drew up with them?
Robert Wack: That's a really interesting question, Chris. And I refuse to be drawn into the false dichotomy that you're proposing.
Christopher Mitchell: It was a brilliant contract with the right group.
Robert Wack: This is like choosing between your spouse and your wedding vows or something like that. It's both. And they are a function of each other. We wouldn't have the contract we have without Ting as being the partner that they are. And vice versa. We
wouldn't have Ting as a partner if we weren't willing to be creative with the contract and do innovative things, so I think they're inextricably intertwined. You can't separate them out. But that should be a goal, going into the relationship knowing what both parties
want and then being willing to do whatever it takes to make it happen.
Christopher Mitchell: But also then a lesson that one can't just take your contract and say, "We're gonna do it with this group."
Robert Wack: That's correct. That's another lesson from this. As I've gone around the country and looked at other kinds of projects is there's no template. There are some principles. There's some basic concepts about risk-sharing and proper allocation of risk between
the parties, but the devil's in the details. And those are gonna be a function of the unique characteristics of the community, the local government, and the partner and the kind of project, and the community, the features of the community and what's possible and ... So
yeah, every contract, every partnership's gonna be unique. But there are some underlying principles that are common to all of them.
Christopher Mitchell: Let me ask you then, you said you have some doubts as to whether maybe you might not have done it based on how difficult it's been. Well, what has been the most difficult part of this? Because I think from afar, we just see you rolling and
rolling and rolling and it looks like it's working pretty well.
Robert Wack: Yeah, that's a good point. I'm probably ... My perception is skewed because I live it day-to-day. One of the biggest challenges has been we're pushing our municipal employees, particularly the folks at public works, really hard, way far outside their
comfort zone, because fiber stuff is not anything they've done before. And they're doing a great job learning it, but it's a lot to learn. The other piece is just managing the vendors in this space. It's something that's new. We've never contracted with fiber engineers
before. We've never contracted with fiber construction companies before. We don't have that capability, so we are relying totally on them to do the work the way it's supposed to be done in a timely manner under budget. And that's a lot of work managing that. So
we're getting better. But I'd be lying if I said it's been perfect. There have been little snags along the way. And then there's stuff that's out of our control. So for example, the fiber shortage in the last 18 months. It's gotten better, but we had a solid six months where we
couldn't do anything, because we couldn't get fiber. And that was a result of all the other activity around the country. And didn't plan on that, but you had to deal with it. Weather was another thing. And the whole utility locate thing. We are putting such a burden on
our local utility locating company that there are delays sometimes because of that. We ask them to come out and do 100 locates, because we're getting ready to plow through a neighborhood and they can't keep up with us. So little things like that. But they add up.
And so we're behind schedule, not catastrophically so. We're certainly under budget. Our guys have done a great job managing the construction costs. So we're doing really well in that regard. And now our take numbers, our subscriber numbers are really picking up.
So we're very pleased overall.
Christopher Mitchell: Right and so as a refresher for people, you have Comcast and Verizon DSL, those two service providers in the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 3:51 PM
4
area. They haven't done much real investment to keep you current. You partnered with Ting. Ting is rolling out ... You're doing this in
an incremental fashion. About how much of the community has service already?
Robert Wack: We're probably at about 20% of what will ultimately be the total build. The pilot project was pretty small relative to the rest of the city. This first phase that we just lit is about 800 premises. And then this next phase after that is another 1700. So that'll be
completed by the end of this year. So that will end up being about 30%. 30-something percent by the end of this year will be built out. So still early, relatively. But as I've said, we're very pleased with the subscriber take already even in this early stage.
Christopher Mitchell: So what're you seeing?
Robert Wack: North of 30% for the pilot project and then in phase one that just got lit, we're already at 15%. Altogether, then with
those two pieces, it's about 10% of what's been constructed. So not where we want it to be. We want generally to be north of 20% for the whole thing, but the trajectory is in the right direction.
Christopher Mitchell: If I remember correctly, you are obligated to go to the next phase when you hit 20%. So sounds like, I mean if
you're that close that quickly, it sounds like you're doing what you were expecting to do when you were making the plan.
Robert Wack: 20% is kind of a guideline both Ting and we agreed to. But there's wiggle room in the contract that allows both of us to say, "Hey, speed up. Hey, slow down." And so it's a discussion. And again, it goes back to the partnership and the lines of
communication and their efforts and success with their subscriber enrollment and the pre-subscription numbers are sufficient enough to give us confidence to keep moving.
Christopher Mitchell: Just reminds me of the line from Pirates of the Caribbean, if you can remember back to, I don't know, 20 movies
ago when it first came out. It was: "The pirate's code, more of a guideline than-"
Robert Wack: "It's more guideline, love."
Christopher Mitchell: So you are aiming for city-wide for people who are not gonna go back and listen to our original interview. I'll spoil it for them. You're building out city-wide.
Robert Wack: City-wide. That will end up being over 7,000 premises. And then, we're already looking at building beyond the
perimeter of the city. Assuming we have a continued success that we're having now, we'll start looking at ways to finance extending it out to our entire water sewer system, which will end up being about 15,000 premises.
Christopher Mitchell: Wow, that's wonderful. And Carroll County already has some fiber infrastructure, so I hope that helps a little
bit.
Robert Wack: It will, a little. Mostly what's near the city is gonna be all us. But the county's interested in working with us. So.
Christopher Mitchell: When we last spoke, I feel like you already had some early business excitement. You had a business that brought more ... They were coming into your community. They brought more into your community than they expected because of this
infrastructure. Do you have any other exciting stories, anybody stopping you at the grocery store to say, "I can't believe how wonderful this is!"
Robert Wack: Well actually, yes. One of my colleagues on the council ran into somebody at a soccer game or something and it was a
father of a family of four in one of the neighborhoods that we just lit. And this guy almost threw himself weeping into the arms of my colleague saying, "Thank you. You have saved my family, because our internet before was so crappy that the kids were fighting all the
time. I couldn't get work done. My wife works from home. And it was a nightmare. And we got our Ting lit up and for the first time in years, everybody's happy. And we can all do whatever we want: stream movies, download large files. And nobody has a problem and
everybody's happy."
Christopher Mitchell: That reminds me of a story. This is actually something that never gets discussed in public policy, I feel like. That's important, right? That's like a ... And you're a doctor. And this a measurement of quality of life-
Robert Wack: Stress.
Christopher Mitchell: And health. Stress? Yeah.
Robert Wack: Yeah.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 3:51 PM
5
Christopher Mitchell: There was a family we interviewed in Ammon, Idaho that they were on the city ... They were on the cable
system that the city was building a fiber network to basically offer people good service, because the cable system was so bad. And this is a cable system that's advertising gigabit speeds. But the modems, they keep, people's cable modems, kept cutting out. And so these
people would say every Saturday morning, they'd be woken up by their kids early because they'd be like, "We can't get on the computer. We can't do this. We can't play the games." And as soon as they switched over to the ... They were beta testers on Ammon's
municipal fiber network. And they were just talking about how they got to sleep in on Saturday mornings now.
Robert Wack: Well so along those lines, we have a business locally who's a software development company. And as you may know, in software development, it's usually a distributed process. So they have developers in other countries, all over the United States. And
they're moving big files back and forth all the time to test modules and it's just a part of the process. It's a very iterative process. So he said once they got their gig, that it shortened their development time by days and when he brings clients or vendors or just friends into
his office, he sits them down at his desk and says, "Watch this." And he shows off his gig like it's his shiny, new, red Corvette. Those are his words, "Because this is my shiny, red Corvette. Watch this." And he does a speed test and starts doing stuff and it's made a
significant impact on the efficiency and profitability of his business.
Christopher Mitchell: I believe it. One of the things that I'd like to do is, I think, is not to tell people. To have them sit down and say, "Hey, just go check out some news sites or do something you'd normally do online." And just see how they react and if they notice a
big difference. I suspect they would. They may not notice it immediately, but once you call it to their attention, I would guess that they would just be blown away.
Robert Wack: There's a video out there from our fiber lighting ceremony. And the Ting folks put it together. And there's a short clip
showing a young girl with her phone flipping through some stuff. And that's my daughter. And you look at the smile on her face. She said literally, "This is unbelievable. This blows me away." Because she was flying through stuff on her phone just from the wifi
connection from the gigabit at the place we were. So yeah, it is a mind-blowing experience when you feel it and experience it for yourself.
Christopher Mitchell: So I want to get onto the discussion around what you're actually doing with it in a minute. But first, have we
covered all the nuts and bolts in terms of the numbers that you're seeing and your experiences with the infrastructure stuff?
Robert Wack: Yeah. I mean, so we're a little behind schedule. We are under-budget. And our subscriber numbers are hitting the targets that we're expecting. And we are covering our debt service. That's probably the most important number from the municipal finance
perspective and the replicability of this model, is that this is paying for itself. So this is a 21 million dollar project that, at the end of the day if we stay on track like this, it will not impact city finances by a penny, because the revenues generated by the fiber will pay
for the fiber. And that's a really, really important thing for people to know.
Christopher Mitchell: That's interesting because one of the things that I perhaps falsely remember was that you didn't make a huge deal about that. I mean in some people, they make this whole thing: "Your taxes will not be raised. We are going to build this network
without using a penny of tax payer dollars." I seem to recall ... I know that you live in a more conservative community, but I seem to recall you saying, "This is infrastructure. We're gonna make it work."
Robert Wack: Chris, that's called managing expectations, my friend. So you're right. I did not make a big deal out of that. Because I
didn't know, with a capital K, that that's how it was gonna work out. But now that we have data and it ... That was our intention for it to work out that way, but we weren't gonna lead with that. Because if we didn't deliver of them,
### on that
it would've been a big problem. So yes, we opened with the argument that this is infrastructure and this is our responsibility as
municipal officials to provide this kind of infrastructure, because it's good for our economy. And that's it. But the plan all along was for it to pay for itself. But we weren't gonna lead with that, because we didn't know for sure that that was gonna be the case. That's
politics, baby.
Christopher Mitchell: Well that's successful politics, maybe yeah, not just politics. What's MAGIC?
Robert Wack: MAGIC stands for the Mid-Atlantic Gigabit Innovation Collaboratory. And what MAGIC's mission is, it's an independent non-profit that's building economic development around technology generally and broadband infrastructure specifically.
The thing I'm involved with that's going to leverage our fiber infrastructure and hopefully turn it into jobs and new companies in our community and new investment dollars. As Jason Stambaugh, our former executive director says, it's a magic trick. We turn fiber into
jobs and investment.
Christopher Mitchell: I think this is something I really want to spend a few minutes on. Who are the people that are in the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 3:51 PM
6
Collaboratory?
Robert Wack: Right now, it's a combined effort between MAGIC, our library system, the career and tech center that's part of the
Carroll County Public Schools, the Community Media Center, and the community college and McDaniel College. So we've got all the educational institutions involved. And we do three general categories of things. One, we call tech experiences, which is really just
another way of saying workforce development. We try to draw as many students in as possible into technology programming that gives them new skills, gets them exposed to employers, and hopefully gets them into internships and part-time jobs. The second group
of activities we do are what we call our innovation labs. And these are demonstration projects for different kinds of technology. And that one ... The sort of the flagship of that category is our smart home project, which is tied into the fiber network. And we're doing
some really cool work with telehealth with that. And then the last is sort of the more traditional incubation effort where we are assisting startups with mostly business development kinds of services. We do not have a building. We're not in the real estate business.
We're not leasing cubicles. That, when you're saying incubator, that's typically what people go to right away. "Oh, you got a cool building. Or you've got young people hanging out playing Foosball and--
Christopher Mitchell: Free pop.
Robert Wack: Yeah, right. No, we're not doing that. We're not doing that yet. Maybe some day. When we've got 100 startups that can't
find office space on Main Street, that's a good problem to have. And then we'll do that. But right now, we've got plenty to office space on Main Street, so we're not doing the real estate thing. But we are helping startups.
Christopher Mitchell: If we fast forward five or 10 years, how will you know MAGIC was successful?
Robert Wack: There will be a lot of 20-somethings crowding the bars and cafes on Main Street. There'll be a lot of cool logos visible
from Main Street, because these companies have taken up office space on Main Street. We'll have some splashy announcement about some venture capital group dumped five million dollars into a Westminster, Carroll County-based technology company. But most
importantly, we'll have kids graduating from local and area schools saying, "I'm going to Westminster, because that's here all the cool stuff's happening." And believe it or not, just in the little over a year we've been in operation, we're getting that already.
Christopher Mitchell: No, I believe it. And part of the reason I say that is I grew up in eastern Pennsylvania. Family friends who have
some daughters that recently graduated from college, they love going down to Baltimore. And they drive down to Baltimore for weekends regularly. And the idea that someone would say, "Oh, wow. Like I'm so close to Baltimore. All this culture and cool things
happening. I can live out here in Westminster where all this cool stuff is happening." And it just seems like it's an exciting place to be.
Robert Wack: That's what we're shooting for.
Christopher Mitchell: Lafayette, Louisiana. One of the things that they did was really trying to create jobs locally so that kids will not be leaving. Are you seeing ... Like I mean, what are you seeing from some of the kids that are going through this, because I think this
is one of the main reasons communities build these kinds of networks is to make it exciting for kids to come back. So one thing is the culture and that sort of thing. But what kind of ... The first thing that you mentioned in terms of creating the jobs and that sort of stuff,
it may not be sexy 75-100,000 dollar a year jobs, but what kind of jobs are you talking about there?
Robert Wack: First of all, it's very early in the process. So the positive indicators we're seeing are very small and subtle. But they're real. So we've placed probably about a dozen kids into internships and part-time jobs with local tech companies. You know, some
might say, "Oh that would've happened anyway." Maybe not. Maybe some of these kids would've gone elsewhere or maybe the tech companies would have looked elsewhere for these employees. This is a five to 10 year project of growing these companies and getting
kids placed. In terms of the kinds of jobs, what we've seen so far it's web development. It's software development, coding, some network stuff, cybersecurity. Those are good, reasonably well-paying, white-collar jobs that we want more of in our community. Like
many rural and semi-rural communities, our local economy is skewed heavily toward school system, local government, the hospital, and maybe one or two large manufacturers. If any one of those things has a problem, that's a major negative impact on our local
economy. So we need to have a more diverse local economy with lots of small businesses, because there's a substantial body of economic research that says that net job growth is 60 to 80% of net, new job growth comes from small businesses and entrepreneurs.
So we need more of that. And that's a big part of what we're doing and the fiber infrastructure is a unique asset now that we in this community that will hopefully be an engine for creating those jobs, attracting those entrepreneurs, and getting that net new job growth
that's gonna drive our economy for the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years.
Christopher Mitchell: What is the best unanticipated thing that has happened? Like what is something that came along and just hit you out of the blue? Like when I started thinking about building this fiber optic network and arguing that we should do it, something that
you did not expect to happen that's happened, if there's anything.
Robert Wack: The fiber project has unrolled how I hoped it would unroll. So there haven't been any big surprises there. I guess maybe
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 3:51 PM
7
the surprise is that I was right.
Christopher Mitchell: Not used to that?
Robert Wack: No, really the big surprise is with MAGIC. The totally unexpected thing that's been a big engine driver of the success
and rapid growth of MAGIC is I never realized how many technology professionals we already have living in our community that drive into Baltimore and Columbia and Washington DC and northern Virginia. And they're in the car for hours. They hate it. And they
want to do anything they can to help do what we want to do in terms of creating jobs and creating a technology ecosystem in Westminster and Carroll County. So we had this army of volunteers that have been helping us with our programming and projects that
are all really high-skilled technology professionals that want to do this because they see the long-term benefit for their kids and everybody's kids for creating this thing out of nothing for our community.
Christopher Mitchell: Well that's great. And I'm incredibly excited. For people who really want to know, the nuts and bolts, we
covered it in a paper that you can find dealing with public-private partnerships and what we took away in terms of the best parts of the model of Ting of Westminster. So let me just say thank you so much for coming up here and letting us know the update.
Robert Wack: Thanks for having me.
Lisa Gonzalez: That was Christopher with Robert Wack, city council president from Westminster, Maryland, getting caught up on how the network has impacted the community. We have transcripts for this and other Community Broadband Bits podcasts available
at MuniNetworks.org/broadbandbits. Email us at podcasts@MuniNetworks.org with your ideas for the show. Follow Chris on Twitter. His handle is @CommunityNets. Follow muninetworks.org stories on Twitter. The handle is @MuniNetworks. Subscribe to this
podcast and all of the podcasts in the ILSR family on iTunes, Stitcher, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Never miss out on our original research. Subscribe to our monthly newsletter at ilsr.org. Thank you to Arne Huseby for the song, "Warm Duck Shuffle,"
licensed through Creative Comments and thanks for listening episode 252 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 4:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 15, 2017 4:01 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:Fw: Great Community Advice and Colorado Update - Broadband Bits Podcast 253
Council members,
I recommend checking out this podcast/transcript.
05-11-17: "Great Community Advice and Colorado Update - Broadband Bits Podcast 253"
https://muninetworks.org/content/great-community-advice-and-colorado-update-broadband-bits-podcast-253 Transcript:
https://muninetworks.org/content/transcript-community-broadband-bits-episode-253
It has some great ideas about how to deploy fiber. * Have a "dig-once" policy.
* Design what you want for municipal FTTP; then you'll know what to build when "dig-once" opportunities arise.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303 -------------------
##########################################################################
Transcript: Community Broadband Bits Episode 253
Mon, May 15, 2017 | Posted by htrostle
This is the transcript for episode 253 of the Community Broadband Bits Podcast. Diane Kruse of NeoConnect joins the show to discuss Colorado's community networks. Listen to this episode here.
Diane Kruse: I think it's reached this critical point where it is absolutely a necessity for municipalities to build out fiber infrastructure.
Lisa Gonzalez: This is Episode 253 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. I'm Lisa
Gonzalez. This is a special twofer week. Christopher interviewed several people at the recent Broadband Community Summit in Dallas, and we want to bring you the material while it's still fresh. We'll be back to our regular schedule next week. Diane Kruse and
her consulting firm, NeoConnect, work with communities that are looking for ways to improve local connectivity. In this interview, Diane offers a consultant's perspective on Colorado's restrictive SB 152 and how it has affected local community initiatives to improve
broadband. She shares how her firm approaches working with communities. Each one has unique goals and considerations while making public investment. Chris and Diane discuss some of the changes they’ve seen in both private and public investment and how
it's happening. Learn more about Diane's firm at NeoConnect.us. Now, here's Christopher and Diane Kruse.
Christopher Mitchell: Welcome to another edition of the Community Broadband Bits podcast, coming at you live once again -- We're live right now, but it's coming at you from the Broadband Community Summit in Dallas, Texas, 2017. With me today is the president
and CEO of NeoConnect, Diane Kruse. Welcome to the show.
Diane Kruse: Thank you, Chris, it's great to be here.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 4:12 PM
2
Christopher Mitchell: NeoConnect, I know that your firm is located in Colorado. There's tons of things happening in Colorado, but you do things around the country.
Diane Kruse: Yeah, we are a nationwide consulting firm. We work with municipalities and local governments on broadband planning
and implementation. We have projects all over the US, but you are absolutely right. There's a lot of work that’s being done just right in our back yard in Colorado.
Christopher Mitchell: You're about to kick off a number of projects in California. I know that you are involved in Tennessee, several
other southeastern states, but today we're just going to talk about Colorado. First let me just ask you, you had any good bike rides lately?
Diane Kruse: Oh, gosh. We could talk for hours about that. Yes, of course. Living in Glenwood Springs in Colorado, right in the
middle of the mountains, is just the ideal place to go for a bike ride.
Christopher Mitchell: I was talking to someone just the other day. They were talking about a bike ride across America, and I was thinking we could put together an interesting team. I'm really good at flatlands, being from Minnesota. I can go 50, 60 miles with only
a mile of up or down gain.
Diane Kruse: I'll take the mountain passes.
Christopher Mitchell: Right.
Diane Kruse: It's perfect.
Christopher Mitchell: You can do the hard work and I'll just coast along. Colorado, for people who are brand new to the show, this might be a surprise, but for everyone else that’s aware, nearly 100 local governments, which includes almost half the counties, I guess,
and a lot of cities have opted out of a restrictive law in Colorado that says communities basically can't do anything in telecom without authority, without a referendum.
Diane Kruse: Right. Senate Bill 152 is a law that was established in 2005. It was essentially written, I think, at the urging of some of
the larger telephone and cable companies.
Christopher Mitchell: Right. At that time, Qwest was headquartered in Denver, I think.
Diane Kruse: Right.
Christopher Mitchell: That was their territory.
Diane Kruse: Right, and so the law basically states that a local government is restricted in building out telecommunications infrastructure for citizens. The law states that they can build out infrastructure for other government entities as well as quasi-
government entities, schools, hospitals, the medical clinic, libraries, but they are only allowed to build out telecommunications infrastructure to citizens for the service providers to use. Even the service provider piece of that is what the law refers to as
insubstantial compared to government use. Unfortunately, insubstantial is not defined in the law, and so there isn't any indication of what is a large amount for the service provider and what is an insubstantial amount. It also restricts the local governments from
entering into public-private partnerships, which, as you know, is a model that many municipalities use to help solve broadband challenges in their communities.
Christopher Mitchell: Certainly desire to use. I'd love to talk to you about what your definition of that is toward the end of the show.
When we look at a public-private partnership, we're trying to figure out how many there are, but there doesn’t seem to be that many of them when you actually look at a true partnership.
Diane Kruse: About 90 communities, local municipalities, and counties have opted out of this law, and so there is a provision in the
law that states that they could opt out with a 50% majority to opt out of the law and take back local control. In all of the elections that have been held, Longmont was the first. They lost their first election, but then came back strong with a stronger advertising campaign
and it passed. Since then, over 90 communities have held out the election. It has passed with overwhelming support in favor of opting out. On average, the vote has been in the 70 to 75% in favor of opting out, and in some communities like Telluride and Estes Park and
Durango, over 95% of the citizens that voted wanted to opt out of that law. I think what was interesting about that, in hindsight, I think it was originally written to be a barrier to entry for municipalities, and it's actually, I think, served just the opposite result. It's become
this spur of innovation for municipalities to step up and figure out ways of solving some of the broadband challenges that they have in
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 4:12 PM
3
their community.
Christopher Mitchell: Right. I think that’s a hundred percent correct. What I find interesting and what I think you're really the right
person to tell us about is what happens next. For people who are watching from the outside, sometimes I talk to people who are following this from afar, people on the East Coast, West Coast, whatever, and they're thinking, "Oh, Colorado, you have so many
communities that have opted out, but I'm not seeing a lot of stories as to what they're doing next." As you know, this is not a vote to establish a Chattanooga or a Longmont style network. This is a vote to reclaim authority to then later make a decision. I guess I'm
curious to know, are there any patterns emerging for what comes next for -- ? Let's start with maybe urban areas and then talk about rural separately.
Diane Kruse: First of all, I think that municipalities that want to solve broadband, that task should not be taken so lightly. It is often a
very costly, capital-intensive endeavor for a municipality to build out, say, a fiber to the home network. As a consultant, one of the things that we have to sift through early on in the process is what is the city's appetite and at what level of investment do they feel
comfortable entering into some type of infrastructure so that it could potentially be leveraged in a public-private partnership or it could potentially be leveraged to bring broadband to homes and businesses. Considering that it's a large capital expense, it should not be
taken so lightly. It does require a lot of review and consideration on the municipality's side. Honestly, it is kind of a weird time in our industry because in larger metropolitan areas, we are seeing the cable companies rolling out DOCSIS 3.1 that is supporting gigabit-
type services. They're also working on another version of DOCSIS that will allow for symmetrical gigabit services. I think, again, we're seeing that happening in mostly large metropolitan areas. That’s where Comcast and Charter and the CenturyLinks of the world,
if you will, are investing in fiber to the home like gigabit-enabled services. In some of the larger urban areas, I think a lot of the municipalities are taking a let's-wait-and-see approach and let's see if the private sector actually does step up. Municipalities in the
metropolitan areas are having a different conversation, and that conversation is how can they build out smart city infrastructure to support the needs of local government.
Christopher Mitchell: Three years ago, if you had told me CenturyLink was really going to invest substantial amounts of money in,
let's just say the top 25, top 30 markets for fiber to the home, larger areas, I probably would have said, "No, I think you're wrong. They're really not going to do that," but they have done that. They’ve been much more aggressive than I would have expected. Now
for a local leader, I think you could have a reaction that says, "Well, we're glad that there's additional investment, but we also feel that even if we have fast cable and if we have some fiber to the home from CenturyLink to some neighborhoods, we still want another
option," because a lot of times, people just naively assume, I think, that these are cities that have nothing or that they're just very poorly served. I think in many cases, they're the average and they're looking for something better.
Diane Kruse: Yeah, I think that happens, too. We should, first of all, say that -- We shouldn’t make the assumption that in every major
metropolitan area they have gigabit-type services, because that isn't happening. That isn't true. Even in the Denver metropolitan area, CenturyLink is not deploying fiber to the home in a very fast fashion. In many parts of, say, the Denver metro area, there are people
that can't get adequate broadband services and maybe even can't get broadband services that meet the minimum definition of 25 mb down and 2 megabit upload.
Christopher Mitchell: Right. I'll readily concede that. I've been more surprised in the Twin Cities and in Seattle and Portland. I may
have just assumed that it was true in Denver, but they may be less aggressive in that region, or I might just be -- It's always hard to tell what's really happening on the ground, because, frankly, government has totally fallen down on keeping accurate statistics, so most of
this is rumor and asking around. Anyway, you were saying?
Diane Kruse: Yeah, so I think how we figure out what's rumor and what's advertising, what's fiber to the press release rather than what's actually happening on the ground, is working directly with the municipalities. You can see what permits are being pulled, and
from that, sit down to understand what each of those companies are doing within that municipality. For example, in the city of Arvada, which is a suburb of Denver, Comcast has stated that it will be one of their first target areas to offer gigabit-type services. We are
seeing that, actually, in the city of Arvada, as they're pulling permits for fiber construction to get fiber out to the neighborhoods, deeper into the neighborhoods. I would like to bring back in the smart city-
Christopher Mitchell: Yes. Yes, go for it right now.
Diane Kruse: -- conversation as it relates to these larger metropolitan areas, because what is happening, what is the conversation, if
you will, is that infrastructure needs to be built, and broadband is one of the components that will be supported on this infrastructure. The reason why many cities are building out fiber and building out more conduit and facilities, I think, is to make their cities more
efficient. They're rolling out traffic management systems. They're rolling out more complex lighting fixture systems. They're putting sensors along every corner of their city to support smart city applications. They're having to build fiber and they're having to put in
facilities and infrastructure, and if they can do it with the private sector, great, but they're going to do it without the private sector as well.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 4:12 PM
4
Christopher Mitchell: I would just add one other use case to that, and I'm curious if you'd react quickly. Don’t feel compelled to. If I
was a city contemplating those kinds of builds right now and I saw this 5G on the horizon having small cells which need to be fiber-connected in many cases, some cities, I think, react to that with, "Oh, man, this is going to be really hard to permit and deal with all
this stuff." If I was looking at it, I'd be thinking, "Wow, that’s another anchor customer for the fiber I'm building out to my city, and this is going to help me justify the cost, to help drive revenues, because whether it's Verizon, Sprint, or AT&T or whatever, I would
love for them to be using my fiber to backhaul to their central location in the city or something like that."
Diane Kruse: Yeah, if they will acquire the fiber from the city, I think it's a great application. I think it's also a great opportunity as this is happening, where small cells are being deployed and fiber is being built to those small cell sites, it's another opportunity for the city
to gain some assets. I think the first thing that a city needs to do is look at a shadow conduit policy or a dig-once policy.
Christopher Mitchell: What is shadow conduit?
Diane Kruse: Shadow conduit is just -- Maybe it's a version of the dig-once policy that any time there is work being done in the right of way by, say, Comcast or CenturyLink or any utility provider, it could be the electric company or it could be a road widening project
or a trail project, any time there's work being done, a shadow conduit needs to be installed at the same time. Then the city would typically only pay for the incremental costs of the conduit, putting the conduit in. It essentially takes the cost of construction down
from, say, $30.00 a foot for new construction down to -- It should be $5.00 to $6.00 a foot to put in an additional conduit while work is being done. As, say, Comcast is upgrading their fiber network and putting fiber out further into the neighborhoods to support their
gigabit-enabled services, as they're laying fiber, they should be putting in shadow conduit on behalf of the city. Then the city could potentially use that as leverage, if you will, for a broadband strategy but also as infrastructure that can support smart city applications.
Christopher Mitchell: As someone who's worked with cities on these sorts of things, let me ask you, people might think Comcast is
going to oppose that, but I actually think that the number-one source of opposition to that in many cases is the Public Works people for the city, who might be saying, "Look, we like to build roads, we maintain this and that. We don’t do conduit. We don’t want to
have to deal with that sort of thing." What do you do, what do you advise your clients when you come across that?
Diane Kruse: Usually, the Public Works Department would not be responsible for laying the conduit, but they would continue to do what they normally do, which is to approve the permit process. I'll take the city of Arvada as an example because we just finished
implementing some rules around shadow conduit. We did get some opposition, honestly, from the Comcast and CenturyLinks, and the existing electric company also pushed back a bit, but we sat down with them and we heard what their concerns were and then we
mitigated those concerns. One concern is that it would slow down the permitting process. We had sat down with the city of Arvada and we mapped out their priority locations and their priority applications for a smart city, and we did a preliminary design of a fiber
network, so we were able to identify priority routes for them. The city of Arvada said that they would not slow down the existing 14-day turnaround to get a permit approved. What they will do when a permit comes in is they verify whether this is a priority route based
upon the design that we put together, and if it is, they will notify the company within three days. Then the permit will still get approved within the 14-day window. It's smart conduit installation. It's not just installing conduit everywhere. There is a strategy
behind it, if you will. One other pushback that the industry had was that it would be a burden to them, and the city agreed that they would pay for all of the incremental financial costs of the shadow conduit and that there would be no burden to the service provider.
Really, ultimately, at the end of the day, it's the contractor that’s doing the work. Comcast is not doing the work and neither is the city. The contractor is doing the work, and it's easy for them to throw in spare conduit.
Christopher Mitchell: Right. No, it's actually, kind of I just -- Having talked with some people who are working often in smaller
communities where they may first approach the network owner and then figure out there's a big bureaucracy they can't navigate, so then they just go to the contractor and be like, "Hey, you want to make an extra couple of bucks?"
Diane Kruse: Right. I think that happens, too.
Christopher Mitchell: Probably some of the cities where they want a permitting and that sort of thing, but sometimes you got to just
get the job done, it seems.
Diane Kruse: You said that, not me. Right?
Christopher Mitchell: Right, right, and you're disagreeing with me. I can tell.
Diane Kruse: That’s okay.
Christopher Mitchell: You answered this, but I really want to just make sure people noticed it. You don’t just throw conduit in the ground. You not only just prioritized it, but you did a layout so that you would know where to put vaults and things like that because-
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 4:12 PM
5
Diane Kruse: Exactly.
Christopher Mitchell: Yeah, because if you have this big, long conduit, you need to figure out where you're going to break it to gain
access to it.
Diane Kruse: Yeah, that’s a really good point. I think what the takeaway is often, say, from conferences like this is that a city would just go put in conduit and then three years later when they want to go use it, they can't access it. Yeah. We have done a design so we
know exactly where the vaults are going, we know what size of vaults we want, the specifications of the conduit, and we have the priority routes already identified. That’s in a KNZ
### KMZ
file that the city can use. Any time there's a permit that’s filed, they can easily check that preliminary design to see if it's a priority
route for them.
Christopher Mitchell: Right.
Diane Kruse: It's smart conduit installation.
Christopher Mitchell: Let's look back at the rural issues, then, for much of Colorado, quite rural. Not just rural, but terrifyingly expensive, Rockies rural. What's happening in rural Colorado?
Diane Kruse: I think maybe kind of going back to one of the questions that you had about, gosh, there seems like there were a lot of
communities that have opted out of Senate Bill 152. Why aren't we seeing more projects being installed? I think the reality is that we are seeing more projects installed. Typically, they're done on a regional basis. For example, Region 10 is six counties and 22
communities. All of them have opted out, so they're 30 of the 90 communities that have opted out of Senate Bill 152.
Christopher Mitchell: It's worth noting, Colorado has this history, so when you say Region 10, it's like this group of communities have a history of working together. It's worked out really well for how Colorado is organized and allowed for grass roots leadership. I jut
wanted to put a pin in that quickly, because I don’t know if other states have done this as well, but this is a known thing in Colorado that’s worked well historically.
Diane Kruse: Yeah, it's worked really well. It's a regional council of governments, and they have worked together for a number of
issues around transportation, around economic development, and now around broadband. They are local community leaders that are actively involved in solving their communities' issues and problems and making their communities a better place to live. They work
together as a region to make it happen. There's a lot of synergies that I think have come about from that process. Now, a lot of these communities or regional councils of government are coming together to help solve broadband challenges. There was state funding that
was set aside for regional projects through the Department of Local Affairs. There was $20 million that was set aside for broadband implementation, and so many of these communities leveraged that funding and then further leveraged it perhaps with an economic
development grant or some other form of grant to build out infrastructure. I would say if you look around the state, there's probably 12 regional councils of government that are working together to put in infrastructure, and they're spending money and they're making that
happen. Some of it is DOLA money and some of it is EDA.
Christopher Mitchell: DOLA is the Department of Local Affairs.
Diane Kruse: The Department of Local Affairs in Colorado. Maybe taking the example of Region 10 and what they have done, I mentioned that they are six counties and 17 to 22 communities that make up the membership of Region 10. The size of their territory
is the same size as the state of Vermont, so it's a massively large geographical space.
Christopher Mitchell: I guess if you compressed it to make it all flat, it would probably be even bigger.
Diane Kruse: Yeah, if you pressed it. Absolutely, yes. In the mountains in western Colorado, it's rocky terrain. They are building a middle mile infrastructure that will connect all of their counties and all of the communities with fiber. It was a very expensive project,
but what we were able to put forward was a number of partnerships to reduce the cost of building fiber to all of those communities. At first glance, we were looking at 50 to $75 million to build out fiber to connect the region, and we were able to identify fiber that the
local power companies owned for their skid assistance
### SCADA systems
and power management operations. Then we also identified fiber, long-haul fiber, if you will, that was in place from Tri-State, who's
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 4:12 PM
6
the power generation and administration, kind of the wholesale provider of power in the region. We were able to negotiate a
partnership with both Delta-Montrose Electric Association and Tri-State to reduce the cost of just acquiring or providing as an in-kind contribution existing fiber.
Christopher Mitchell: Now if I could just jump in for a second. This is one of those things where I think sometimes people might hear
that and they think, "Wow, I wanted to do that sort of a thing, but my co-op was resistant or they weren't super enthusiastic about it." Now my understanding is Delta-Montrose Electric Association was at first skeptical, not necessarily wanting to -- It took some local
organizing to put pressure on them and to make them understand this would be a good thing to support. This is not something where everyone was just like "Yeah, let's all work together." It was real work-
Diane Kruse: Oh, absolutely.
Christopher Mitchell: -- that had to be done along the way.
Diane Kruse: Yeah, there was real resistance at first because DMEA obviously saw their mission is to provide power to their
constituents, and they didn’t want to get distracted. There was a lot of local organizing and grass roots efforts around the business community coming to the board of directors meeting for DMEA to talk about how important broadband is to the economic
development wellbeing of all of their communities and that they did have a vested interest in making sure that we could retain and keep companies to be based there and also to keep people continuing to live there. To make a long story short, they organized over 70
business people to come to the board of directors meeting for DMEA to encourage them to support the Region 10 project, and they did wholeheartedly. It's a great partnership between DMEA and Region 10 and Tri-State where we took the spend from 50 to 75 million
down to 17 million, and then Region 10 applied for grant funding through the Department of Local Affairs and then leveraged that further with an EDA grant that all told, about $3 million will be spent in a cash contribution to build this 50 to $75 million network.
After Region 10 received their funding, Delta-Montrose Electric Association actually announced that they would be offering last mile solutions and last mile services gigabit to every home with Google-like pricing. They're building that out in Delta and in Montrose
Counties now, and they're also further expanding that footprint on a regional basis. I think that that’s a huge success story, and maybe that’s not something that’s being written about in our industry magazines, but it's a great success story that Colorado has, and I think
it's a good model that could potentially be followed for many of these rural areas that are difficult to serve, is to partner up with the power company to make something happen.
Christopher Mitchell: Yeah, we're excited about that approach and we've done a lot of coverage of different electric co-ops doing that
sort of thing. It's actually kind of interesting, because it answers one of the questions right. You're saying these are 30 communities that have opted out and that was an important part of their organizing. Though the ultimate solution in many ways is actually not
necessarily a municipal solution, but that opting out was kind of a step that took and united them and helped them to make sure they had lots of options to choose from and then ultimately have gone with a solution that is not going to add to my number of municipal
broadband networks on our map.
Diane Kruse: Yeah, exactly. In fact, I would say that one of the things that we do that might be different from our colleagues in the industry is there are so many ways to solve broadband, and one way to solve that is to build a municipal fiber to the home network.
There's a whole bunch of other things that municipalities and counties can do to improve broadband services that may not hit your list,if you will. Maybe that’s one good example. It's not a municipal network, if you will, that is building fiber to the home, but it is a
collaboration of municipalities that have definitely come together to solve broadband challenges. In this case, Region 10 will support an open access system that’s available to anybody, so we've reduced the biggest cost for all of the service providers in the area by
reducing those backhaul costs to almost nothing through the Region 10 network. Then we happen to have a last mile gigabit-provider with Delta-Montrose Electric Association, but I will say that there are a whole bunch of other service providers that are also able to
improve their services in their respective communities because of the middle mile work that Region 10 is doing. That’s one way to solve it. I want to talk about another project that is also a lot of collaboration, and it may not hit your list as well.
Christopher Mitchell: Oh, that’s all right.
Diane Kruse: Jefferson County Schools is a school district that is located in the Denver metropolitan area, and they want to build fiber
to their 155-plus schools. That, too, is a 35 to $50 million project that they did not have funding for. They have hired us to work with the 15 or 16 municipalities that their schools are operating within the city's footprint and to collaborate with the schools to figure out
how we could work together and how we could collaborate so that everyone could get their needs met, get fiber built to key critical anchor institutions, to government offices, get smart city applications in place, and then build fiber to the schools. Sometimes, the
solution is E-rate. In other cases, it might be rural healthcare grants, but in the case that we're finding is very effective in the Denver metropolitan area is Public Safety. Public Safety has their own source of funding that is available to improve safety and their ability to
respond to a crisis.
Christopher Mitchell: Now I'm curious. It gives me a lot of hope to hear that these are working together, because in the past, we've
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 4:12 PM
7
always heard criticism that some of these programs are would-be silos,
### programs would be silos,
where if you were going to build one network, it couldn’t share anything with another network, but it sounds like some of that’s been
resolved.
Diane Kruse: Yeah, I think so. I think there was initially some resistance to working together and I think we're all guilty of this, that we're all so busy in our own little worlds and we do work in silos. Our mission, if you will, for that project is to break down the silos
and to get people to work together and to collaborate to make something happen for everybody's benefit. This is turning out to be a great project as well where Jefferson County Public Safety, I think, is interested in putting cameras and high-speed fiber to all of the
schools. It improves their ability to respond to a crisis at the school, and so that’s effective with their mission and their strategy, and it allows the schools to get fiber for enhancing their education experience for the students.
Christopher Mitchell: For people who haven't seen it, we did a video about Ammon, Idaho, where they have developed applications
around specifically making sure that emergency 911 centers are alerted in the even that there's a gunshot in the schools. There's some really interesting work that’s being done. A lot of people are thinking about how not just to have these sort of surveillance cameras
and the high-speed, but how to really make sure that they're integrated well and that you have these different actors talking to each other and coordinating ahead of time.
Diane Kruse: Mm-hmm (affirmative). That’s a great project, and it's a great project to have collaboration. It may not be one that would
hit your municipal fiber list, if you will.
Christopher Mitchell: No, but it'll probably hit our list of communities that build anchor networks and see savings, because I'm guessing that the schools, when this network's all completed, will save a tremendous amount of money. They'll have higher
connectivity to their locations. They’ll probably pay less, and most importantly from my point of view is they’ll have control over future costs. The contracts that come up in three years for whoever they're with, they'd have to re-bid it and they wouldn’t really have
a sense of is our price going to increase by 10%, 30%. Now you have security in budgeting, which I have to think is a big deal for local governments.
Diane Kruse: Oh, it's a huge deal. Absolutely. That’s why I think it's critical that local government own their own networks for
supporting their government needs. Schools need to have their own networks as well to support education. I think those are the trends that we're seeing. Then if that infrastructure can be leveraged to do a public-private partnership for broadband, then that may be a good
strategy to serve the homes and businesses within that community.
Christopher Mitchell: I'm about to go a panel in a little bit, and another person that will be on that panel who's very much an opponent of municipal broadband recently wrote an article in which he said, "This is why we're not seeing more municipal broadband
networks," and the premise being that we're not seeing a lot of growth. You in your experience and having to talk to other consultants, as we finish the interview, what's your top line? Are you seeing growth in municipal investments and working to solve these
problems?
Diane Kruse: I think it's reached this critical point where it is absolutely a necessity for municipalities to build out fiber infrastructure. Now whether they use that to go out to homes and businesses is maybe something that they should carefully study. I think that what
we're seeing is in almost every city, they're building out fiber infrastructure, perhaps to their key anchor institutions and to their schools and libraries or as a way to leverage a public-private partnership for broadband to homes and businesses. I would say it's
happening everywhere, and it's just hit a critical mass that we can't report on every single opportunity. I think in Region 10, that’s a good quantifiable project because they received funding and were implementing it in those partnerships that have been developed. All
over the state I think municipalities are putting in fiber infrastructure to support their anchor institutions and then to use that as a way to put together a strategy for broadband for the homes and businesses.
Christopher Mitchell: Right. I think to some extent we're a victim of our own success, in that if you're not announcing 100 gigabit to
every home for $5.00 a month, the press might be thinking, "Ah, boring," the idea that you're adding a bunch of conduit and fiber and in three to five years, it'll be used and it'll be used in interesting ways. It's not as sexy of a story.
Diane Kruse: Yeah, I think that’s right. I don’t know who your panelist is, but I would have to say that that person is not correct.
We're seeing a lot of municipalities put in infrastructure. Now they may not have a gigabit to the home, municipally owned fiber to the premise strategy, but they may be using a different strategy to improve broadband for their constituents.
Christopher Mitchell: Thank you so much for coming and telling us what's going on in Colorado and I think a real picture as to what
cities are wrestling with around the country.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/15/2017 4:12 PM
8
Diane Kruse: You bet. My pleasure. Thank you, Chris.
Lisa Gonzalez: That was Christopher and Diane Kruse, founder and CEO of NeoConnect, talking about municipal broadband deployment. We have transcripts for this and other Community Broadband Bits podcasts available at
MuniNetworks.org/broadbandbits. E-mail us at podcast@MuniNetworks.org with your ideas for the show. Follow Chris on Twitter. His handle is @CommunityNet. Follow MuniNetworks.org stories on Twitter. The handle is @MuniNetworks. Subscribe to this
podcast and all the podcasts in the ILSR family on iTunes, Stitcher, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Never miss out on our original research. Subscribe to our monthly newsletter at ILSR.org. Thank you to Arne Huseby for the song Warm Duck Shuffle,
licensed through Creative Commons, and thanks for listening to Episode 253 of the Community Broadband Bits podcast.
[--o----;-1~---;---~~;~,I' _._.,,--:-;-·~~j _.g_e Tit 1e.-::...<-.-' ...... ~ -~:,;1,_Ju~_t1Vf:~~11-1~J~-
The FV17 Munldpal Fee Schedule listed two types of Quarterly permits for Downtown and
callfomla Avenue callfomla Avenue lots and garages: Transferable Permits and Permits. Both are the same price. The
Busl ness District Al I Lots • proposed change removes all quarterly permit entries In favor of annual permits with a note that
Transferable Permit reads that quarterly and six month permits wlll be prorated based on the annual permit fee.
The FY17 Munldpal Fee Schedule listed two types of Quarterly permits for Downtown and
callfomla Avenue lots and garages: Transferable Permits and Permits. Both are the same price. The
University Avenue -proposed chan1e removes al I quarterly permit entries In favor of annual permits with a note that
Transferable Permit reads that quarterly and six month permits will be prorated based on the annual permit fee.
College Terrace -Guest The proposal Is notto delete the College Terrace Guest Permit butto update It In the FYlB
Permit Municipal Fee Schedule to College Terrace Annual Resident/Annual Guest Permit.
College Terrace -Lost This fee Is recommended for deletion because It's dupl lcatlve. The College Terrace Guest Permit
Guest Permit and Lost Guest Permit are the same price.
Downtown RPP Annual
Guest Permits for lhls fee ls recommended for deletion. Guest permits are not a part of the Downtown RPP program.
Residents Dally permits may be purchased for either residents or guests.
Downtown RPP ·Five day This fee Is recommended for deletion. Ave day employee 1uest permits are not a part of the
Employee Guest Permit Downtown RPP pro1ram.
As mentioned above, this fee Is updated In the FYlB Proposed Munldpal Fee Schedule under the
Resident! al-other (Tri al) Crescent Park NOP and the fee has been adjusted from $100 to $75.
Thts fee Is recommended for deletion, consistent with RPP programs. Dally permits may be
Downtown RPP Visitor purchased for either residents or guests.
Corrections & Clarifications: Changed Fees
Staff Report 8020 lists seventeen fees in Planning and Community Environment. Additional
justification for changed fees is shown on the attached page.
5of7
J, ......... 91
City Manager
Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 7:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Winter Dellenbach <winterdell@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:59 PM
Subject:Buena Vista - Oh Happy Day! The news we've all been waiting for!
Attachments:051817 Buena Vista Acquisition release.pdf; Buena Vista Timeline.pdf
Dear Friends of Buena Vista ~ Buena Vista is saved! Residents are
Safe at last.
After 5 years of hard work, today, the 91-year old Buena Vista Mobile
Home Park has an assured future, and the land saved for below
market rate housing. A Press Release was issued this afternoon by
the Housing Authority of Santa Clara Co. as was Supervisor Joe
Simitian's Statement and Timeline (below) concerning the details.
You had a great deal to do with making this improbable achievement
possible. Thank you Katherine Harasz of the Housing Authority.
Supervisor Simitian sums up nicely the various folks and groups that
were so essential to do what many thought impossible. Thank you
one an all.
I often signed off on my emails to you with, "We can do this,
together". Everyone now take a bow - you are splendid! [applause].
This is a day and weekend to lift a glass, to do a happy dance, to hug
your children, to twirl around and be grateful that you live in a town
that shows through its actions that we care for each other. Palo Alto
values are alive and well. May Buena Vista residents live long and
prosper.
Together, we did this.
Winter Dellenbach
(Not for the last time)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 7:57 AM
2
Friends of Buena Vista
fobv.org
Press Release: Housing Authority of Santa Clara Co.
Statement Re: Buena Vista Mobile Home Park
Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian
What a great, great day.
From the beginning of this effort weʹve had three goals:
To preserve 117 units of desperately needed affordable housing;
To prevent the eviction of 400 low income residents, folks who truly have nowhere
else to go; and,
To ensure that the current property owner receives full and fair market value for
the property.
With todayʹs announcement by the Housing Authority that they have reached
agreement to purchase the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park and avoid the closure of the
Park, we can celebrate the realization of all three goals.
All of this has been made possible only with the help of a lot of good people who deserve
our thanks. Since my office and I began our efforts two and a half years ago to save the
Buena Vista we have been fortunate enough to have the support of a great many allies
and friends of Buena Vista.
Thanks certainly go to:
My colleagues at the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, who were willing
to take the lead in our effort to acquire and improve the Buena Vista;
The City of Palo Alto, whose City Council unanimously agreed to match the
Countyʹs funding commitment;
Our indispensable third partner in the effort to acquire and improve the Buena
Vista, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara;
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 7:57 AM
3
Caritas, the California‐based nonprofit, experienced and skilled at preserving
affordable mobile home communities, who reached out to us in the early days of
our effort, and who is now under contract to actively manage the new Buena Vista;
Our Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, State Senator Jerry Hill and former State
Assemblyman Rich Gordon, all of whom lent their support, and helped with the
search for funding;
Two dozen former Mayors and City Councilmembers who spoke out in support
of the effort to save the Buena Vista;
Eighteen local school board members (past and present) who likewise expressed
their support;
More than 500 Community members who rallied at Palo Alto City Hall to show
their support for their Buena Vista neighbors;
Our local news media, including the Mercury News, the Palo Alto Weekly, and
the Daily Post, all of which lent their editorial support;
The Palo Alto Council of PTAs, and the regional association of PTAs – the
6th District PTA;
The many non‐profits who stepped forward to offer support, including the Asian
Law Alliance, Neighborhood Housing Services, the Housing Trust Silicon Valley,
Working Partnerships, TransForm, the League of Women Voters Palo Alto and the
Silicon Valley Community Foundation, among others;
Palo Alto Forward and Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning (two local political/policy
groups who often have competing land use visions), both of whom expressed
support for the effort;
The aptly named Friends of Buena Vista; and, of course,
The residents themselves, represented by the Buena Vista Residents Association.
So many good folks came together to prevent the loss of 117 units of desperately needed
affordable housing; to prevent the eviction of more than 400 of our neighbors; and to
make sure the current owner of the property receives full and fair market value.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 7:57 AM
4
At one level this was a test––a test of whether or not our region remains a place of
inclusivity and opportunity. In this instance, at least, Iʹm gratified to say we passed the
test.
On a very practical level, this has also been an effort that benefits us all. The people who
live at the Buena Vista are mostly working class folks filling the jobs that make our
community run. Theyʹre working at local businesses, nonprofits, colleges and
universities. Theyʹre essential to our continued economic vitality. We need them in the
workforce.
And if theyʹre forced out of the region, commuting from God knows where, that has
traffic congestion implications for all of us as well.
Two and a half years ago, when my office and I first began our effort to save the Buena
Vista, I noted that the conversation about the Buena Vista up until that time had been
almost exclusively about closure approval and compensation for tenants about to be
evicted; and that I was hoping to start a new conversation about what it would take the
keep the Park open for the foreseeable future.
I also indicated that it was my hope that some significant County funding might prompt
others to step up and ask how they could be part of the solution. And finally, I expressed
doubt that any single agency or entity could pull this off alone. But I also noted that
maybe if everybody took a piece of the problem we might find a solution.
And that’s exactly what happened.
==============
Simitian:Buena Vista Timeline:
NEWS
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Katherine Harasz, SCCHA Executive Director, 408-464-2692; katherine.harasz@hacsc.org
SANTA CLARA COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND BUENA VISTA MOBILE HOME PARK OWNER
REACH PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners to Vote On Property’s Acquisition Next Week
SAN JOSE, Calif. ― May 18, 2017 ― The Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) and the owner
of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park in Palo Alto, Calif., have reached an agreement that will ensure
the preservation and upgrade of the mobile home park and allow its 400 low-income residents to
remain in their homes. Pending a formal vote by the housing authority’s board of commissioners at its
May 23 meeting, the housing authority will acquire and own the property for $40,375,000.
“We are really happy the housing authority could join the community-wide effort to ensure the
permanent availability of this important affordable housing resource in Palo Alto,” said Kathy Espinoza-
Howard, chair of the Santa Clara County Housing Authority’s board of commissioners.
The mobile home park’s current owner said in the joint statement, “I am pleased we reached this
settlement that will enable the families to stay here and also allow the housing authority to pursue the
park’s renovation and upgrade.” The housing authority and the Jisser family will be neighbors, as the
family will retain ownership of the parcel immediately adjacent to El Camino Real.
Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian, who has championed the county’s efforts to preserve the
mobile home park since January 2015, said, “From the beginning of this effort we've had three
goals: to preserve over 100 units of desperately needed affordable housing; to prevent the eviction of
400 low-income residents, folks who truly have nowhere else to go; and, to ensure that the current
property owner receives full and fair market value for the property. With today's announcement we
can celebrate the realization of all three goals. All of this happened because so many good folks had
the grit, the determination, and the decency to make it happen.”
Funding for the purchase and redevelopment comes from a three-way partnership between Santa
Clara County, city of Palo Alto and the housing authority. The city and county have committed $29
million in dedicated affordable housing funds for acquisition and rehabilitation, and the housing
authority will contribute the remainder using federal funding from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). Short- and long-term improvements to the park include ensuring that the
400 people living on site retain a right to lease and upgrading the park’s utilities.
This wraps up four months of negotiations following an extensive due diligence process by the housing
authority that included everything from obtaining a fair market value appraisal and securing a park
operator to obtaining approval from HUD to use federal funding. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo led the
charge to obtain HUD’s approval for SCCHA to use federal funding for the project, working with former
Secretary Julian Castro from February 2015 until Inauguration Day in January.
Palo Alto Mayor Greg Scharff said, “This is an extraordinary opportunity to preserve affordable housing
for low-income residents, including at least 100 children, in a city where it is desperately needed. Palo
Alto’s commitment of affordable housing funds to this project are well spent.”
Congresswoman Eshoo said, “Today is cause for great celebration for the residents of the Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park. I’m proud to have helped secure $26 million in federal funding to complement the
overall package to save the homes of 400 Palo Altans. These resources will also help to renovate over
100 units of affordable housing for the community. The efforts of the Santa Clara County Housing
Authority, the city of Palo Alto, the county of Santa Clara, and the superb leadership of Supervisor Joe
Simitian have brought about a remarkable success for our mutual constituents.”
The parties expect to conclude the acquisition by early fall, following a subdivision of the park from the
part of the parcel that includes commercial uses that the Jisser family will retain. The housing authority
and its operator will continue assessment of the park and the park residents’ needs, and begin the
design and permitting of infrastructure and other needed improvements.
###
About Santa Clara County Housing Authority
The Santa Clara County Housing Authority is the largest provider of affordable housing assistance in the
county, helping make rental housing safe and affordable for low-income families through Section 8
voucher programs and below-market rental properties. Designated a Moving to Work agency by
Congress, the agency assists nearly 18,000 households through innovative policies for the delivery of
assisted housing. For more information, visit www.hacsc.org.
Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Timeline
2012 – Present
Closure and Litigation
2012 – 2017
In September of 2012, more than 400 Buena Vista Mobile Home Park
residents in 117 units are told about plans to close the Park. Buena
Vista began organizing, eventually forming the Buena Vista Residents
Association. Shortly thereafter, neighbors of the Park form Friends of
Buena Vista, to see how they could support Buena Vista residents.
In November of 2012, the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park owners file
an application with the City of Palo Alto to close the mobile home park.
From November 2012 through May 2015, the multi-year closure
process continues through a series of hearings, many of which were
packed with Buena Vista residents and interested community
members.
On May 26th, 2015, the Palo Alto City Council approves the closure of
the park.
On August 24th, 2015, the Buena Vista Residents Association
(represented by the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley) file a lawsuit
against the City of Palo Alto over the closure process and conditions
of approval.
On November 19th, 2015, the owners of the Buena Vista Mobile Home
Park sue the City of Palo Alto over the conditions associated with the
closure approval.
On June 24th, 2016, a federal court judge dismisses the owner’s lawsuit
against the City of Palo Alto.
On December 21st, 2016, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge
rules in favor of the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Residents
Association, reversing the City Council’s closure approval.
Save the Buena Vista Effort
2015 – 2017
On January 27th, 2015, at the request of County Supervisor Joe Simitian,
the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously sets aside
$8 million in developer fees to prevent the eviction of the residents and
preserve the site for affordable housing.
On February 20th, 2015, Palo Alto’s City Manager sets aside $8 million
in developer fees to match the County’s commitment (contingent on
subsequent approval by the Palo Alto City Council).
In January and February of 2015, the editorial pages of the Mercury
News, the Palo Alto Weekly, the Daily News, and the Daily Post
express support for the effort to “Save the Buena Vista.”
In February and March of 2015, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, State
Senator Jerry Hill, and State Assesmblymember Rich Gordon weigh in
supporting the Buena Vista, including letters to appropriate federal
and state agencies in an effort to secure additional funding.
On March 9th, 2015, over 500 members of the community, representing
every walk-of-life and all of the City’s neighborhoods, gather at Palo
Alto City Hall to thank the City for its tentative $8 million match and
to urge continued support.
In the first few months of the effort to Save the Buena Vista, a number
of non-profits – including the Asian Law Alliance, Neighborhood
Housing Services, Housing Trust Silicon Valley, Working
Partnerships, TransForm, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation,
the Council of Palo Alto PTAs and the regional 6th District PTA
expressed support for the effort.
Palo Alto Forward and Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning (two local
political/policy groups who often have competing land use visions)
both express support for efforts to save the Bunea Vista.
On May 6th, 2015, Supervisor Joe Simitian announces a County
partnership with Caritas, a California non-profit dedicated to the
preservation and operation of affordable mobile home parks, a key
step in determining possibilities for the Park’s future.
In June of 2015, all five members of the Palo Alto School Board and 13
former school board members write a letter urging the Palo Alto City
Council to take steps to preserve the Park.
Two dozen former Palo Alto Mayors and Councilmembers write a
similar letter to the City Council, also urging them to find a way to
preserve the Park and prevent the eviction of the residents.
On June 23rd, 2015, at the request of Supervisor Joe Simitian, the Santa
Clara County Board of Supervisors unanimously approves setting
aside additional developer fees for the effort to save the Buena Vista,
increasing the County’s contribution commitment to $14.5 million.
On June 29th, 2015, the Palo Alto City Council unanimously approves
setting aside additional developer fees for the effort to save the Buena
Vista, increasing the City’s commitment to $14.5 million.
During the second half of 2015 (July – December) negotiations for a
non-profit and/or public acquisition get underway. An offer is made
by Caritas, but is ultimately rejected by the owner (who expresses
concern about the multitude of lawsuits involving the City, the Park
owner, and the Park residents).
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 21, 2017 11:43 AM
To:Scheff, Lisa; Watson, Ron; Reichental, Jonathan; Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Council,
City; Kniss, Liz (external); Scharff, Greg
Subject:California Public Records Request - PDF file will not open....
Again, we believe this is deliberate obstruction
Mark Petersen-Perez
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:49 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 22, 2017 12:44 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; DiFrancia, Michele; Gary Toth; Davies,
Richard F; Shikada, Ed; Mello, Joshuah; Metzger, Chris (Chris.Metzger@mottmac.com)
Subject:Caltrain got their electrification money! All of it!
FYI - two articles below giving details.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/congress-pushes-department-of-transportation-to-release-billions-in-approved-funding-for-transit-projects/2017/05/22/a2bf2186-3ccb-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html
Transportation to release billions in approved funding for transit projects
By Ashley Halsey III and Katherine Shaver May 22 2017
Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao said Monday that she will sign off on a controversial California transit
project, one of 16 transit projects for which Congress provided funding this month. The proposal to electrify trains on the peninsula into San Francisco caused dissension among the state’s
congressional delegation as House Railroad Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Denham objected to the plan while
both of the state’s U.S. senators supported it.
“I think there is an issue that the California delegation needs to come together and discuss,” Chao said at a Senate hearing last week. “There appears to be split opinions on this project.”
Split opinions not withstanding, Congress approved funding for Caltrain’s $1.75 billion electrification project
and 15 other transit projects in an omnibus bill signed by President Trump this month. All of the projects were described as either ready to start immediately or able to break ground later this year. Now members are pushing Chao to more forward with releasing the money.
It was unclear whether Chao intends to sign off on the other projects.
The Trump administration has suggested it has no plans to sign off on future transit investments, saying they
should be funded by the local governments that benefit from them.
The three priciest projects on the list funded in the omnibus bill this month are the Purple Line light-rail project
in Maryland, an extension of a light-rail system in Seattle, and the Caltrain plan to put electric trains on a corridor leading into San Francisco that now is served by diesel locomotives.
[ Though shovels are ready, Trump officials delay grant for Caltrain upgrade]
Supporters of building a 16-mile light-rail Purple Line in the Maryland suburbs say it should be first in line for a Trump administration that has called for shovel-ready infrastructure projects, particularly those that include
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:49 PM
2
private investment. The project, however, was dealt another setback Monday when a judge ordered federal
transit officials to redo part of its environmental impact statement.
--------------
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/05/22/caltrain-electrification-funding-fta-congress.html
Feds finally OK Caltrain's electrification funding May 22 2017 by Jody Meacham Caltrain will get its electrification funding from the federal government.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announced today it will sign the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) that will allow the railroad to proceed with its $1.9 billion project to electrify the corridor and buy new
electric trains.
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo called the announcement an "alleluia moment," in a press release sent out following the announcement. It "is a clear victory for my constituents and the people of the Bay Area," she said.
“This critical upgrade is one of the key transportation job creators in the country. It will enhance the spine of the
Silicon Valley transportation system. It’s a win for the environment. It’s a win for the tenaciousness of the Bay
Area Congressional Delegation, led by Leader (Nancy) Pelosi and our Senators (Dianne) Feinstein and (Kamala) Harris."
The official announcement followed a letter sent last week from Gov. Jerry Brown to Transportation Sec. Elaine
Chaoasking her to to approve the agreement, but it says the OK is based on the federal funding bill signed May
5 that included a $100 million down payment on the full $647 million grant to Caltrain. The announcement noted: "As with all signed FFGAs, additional funding amounts specified in the agreement
are subject to the Congressional Appropriations process during future years. The FTA notified the Caltrain
project sponsors today."
The FTA’s Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program is the nation’s primary grant program for funding major transit capital investments. Projects accepted into the highly competitive program must go through a multi-year,
multi-step process outlined in legislative requirements in order to receive program funds.
Caltrain had expected FTA approval in February before California's 14-member Republican delegation in Congress objected to the grant on the grounds that it would help high-speed rail a project they wish to block reach its northern terminus in San Francisco.
Caltrain argued that the project, even though partly funded by the California High-Speed Rail Authority, was
needed anyway to cut commute times and increase passenger capacity.
Jody Meacham is a reporter for the Silicon Valley Business Journal.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2017 2:56 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Hawks <getoutgirl@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 22, 2017 3:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Castilleja School
Attachments:PA City Council Letter.docx
Dear City Council,
I submit this letter in support of Castilleja School and all that they have done to try and right the wrongs.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Hawks
May 22, 2017
City of Palo Alto
Atten: City Council
I have lived in the area since 1983 and Palo Alto proper since 2010. My normal commute home
takes me down Alma and I have been surprised and saddened at the continued anger towards
Castilleja. I have followed this story since during a Master Plan update, the School shared that it was over its numbers and have worked diligently since then to correct and improve all of the areas that have been voiced and the anger just continues.
Castilleja’s has been in Palo Alto for over 100 years, well before most of the houses built in the
neighborhood. Anyone moving into that area knew there was a school. All over the Bay Area, the traffic has picked up, new businesses have been built, El Camino alone has been under construction around California Street for years and have you noticed all of the hotels? People
can’t afford to live here so they live in the valley and drive over Monday morning and then back
home on Friday.
The School needs to upgrade to meet the academic needs of their students. Construction impacts the neighbors, we all know that, it is a fact of life whether you are beside a school or the remodel
of a home. Their Master Plan on their website gives a very detailed and well thought through
plan that includes more parking, a better drop off and pick up design to get cars onto campus and
off side streets. How can they be more transparent? They have listened to ALL of the voices and made changes to bring peace to this situation. With all of fines and lawyers, one must ask…how much of this could have been directed to financial aid to support the lower and middle class
families in the area. When will great be good enough for the voices that continue to beat the war
drums?
I urge the City Council to be the peace maker now. Castilleja is educating the young women in
the Bay Area that will be tomorrow’s leaders. Work with them, it is time.
Respectfully,
Jennifer Hawks
4173 El Camino Real #23
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 3:32 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Matt Leary <matt.leary@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:51 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Matt Leary
Subject:I Support Castilleja and I Vote and I pay Taxes
Dear Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to express my strong support for Castilleja and its plans to modernize its campus. Castilleja's most recent proposal,
submitted April 2017, reflects a genuine effort to be responsive to its neighbors and blend in with the surrounding community.
Castilleja has a track record of controlling traffic and parking issues, and can be trusted to continue to do so.
We live in a time when the value of diversity and women in society is under siege. Castilleja, the only, non-sectarian all girls
school on the west coast, plays a critical role in educating the next generation of female leaders. Castilleja's students, through
their community service initiatives, have deep ties to the city's many non-profit organizations.
Castilleja can trace its history back almost as far as the founding of Palo Alto. Its commitment to excellence mirrors our
community's commitment to education. Please support Castilleja's efforts to stay relevant and provide a meaningful 21st century
education to the young women of our city and region.
Sincerely;
Matt Leary
765 Moreno Ave
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 3:32 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Teresa Zepeda Kelleher <tnzepeda@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:I support Castilleja
From: Teresa Zepeda Kelleher <tnzepeda@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:30 PM
To: CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org; citi.council@cityofpaloalto.org; greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: I Support Castilleja
Dear City Manager, Mayor Scharff and Members of City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for Castilleja and its plans to modernize its campus.
Castilleja's most recent proposal, submitted April 2017, reflects a genuine effort to be responsive to its neighbors and blend in
with the surrounding community. Castilleja has a track record of controlling traffic and parking issues, and can be trusted to
continue to do so.
We live in a time when the value of diversity and women in society is under siege. Castilleja, the only, non-sectarian all girls
school on the west coast, plays a critical role in educating the next generation of female leaders. Castilleja's students, through
their community service initiatives, have deep ties to the city's many non-profit organizations. Many of us have additional deep
ties because we live in Palo Alto.
Castilleja can trace its history back almost as far as the founding of Palo Alto. Its commitment to excellence mirrors our
community's commitment to education. As a Palo Alto resident, I am proud to have such a distinguished school empowering
women leaders who will change our world for the better, right in our back yard. Please support Castilleja's efforts to stay
relevant and provide a meaningful 21st century education to the young women of our city and region.
Thank you,
Teresa Kelleher
1740 Guinda St.
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 3:32 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Tara Jotwani <tjotwani14@students.claremontmckenna.edu>
Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:29 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:I Support Castilleja
Dear City Manager, Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to express my strong support for Castilleja and its plans to modernize its campus. Castilleja's most recent proposal,
submitted April 2017, reflects a genuine effort to be responsive to its neighbors and blend in with the surrounding community.
Castilleja has a track record of controlling traffic and parking issues, and can be trusted to continue to do so.
We live in a time when the value of diversity and women in society is under siege. Castilleja, the only, non-sectarian all girls
school on the west coast, plays a critical role in educating the next generation of female leaders. Castilleja's students, through
their community service initiatives, have deep ties to the city's many non-profit organizations.
Castilleja can trace its history back almost as far as the founding of Palo Alto. Its commitment to excellence mirrors our
community's commitment to education. Please support Castilleja's efforts to stay relevant and provide a meaningful 21st century
education to the young women of our city and region.
Best,
Tara
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 3:32 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:carolina@abbassi.net
Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ISupportCastilleja
Dear Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to express my strong support for Castilleja and its plans to modernize its campus. Castilleja's most recent proposal,
submitted April 2017, reflects a genuine effort to be responsive to its neighbors and blend in with the surrounding community.
Castilleja has a track record of controlling traffic and parking issues, and can be trusted to continue to do so.
We live in a time when the value of diversity and women in society is under siege. Castilleja, the only, non-sectarian all girls
school on the west coast, plays a critical role in educating the next generation of female leaders. Castilleja's students, through
their community service initiatives, have deep ties to the city's many non-profit organizations.
Castilleja can trace its history back almost as far as the founding of Palo Alto. Its commitment to excellence mirrors our
community's commitment to education. Please support Castilleja's efforts to stay relevant and provide a meaningful 21st century
education to the young women of our city and region.
Best Regards
Carolina Abbassi
1055 Hutchinson ave
Palo alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 3:32 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Uma & Sri <umasrikumar@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:32 AM
To:City Mgr; Council, City; Scharff, Gregory (internal)
Subject:We Support Castilleja's Plan
Dear City Manager, Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council,
We're writing to express my strong support for Castilleja and its plans to modernize its campus. Castilleja's most recent
proposal, submitted April 2017, reflects a genuine effort to be responsive to its neighbors and blend in with the surrounding
community. Castilleja has a track record of controlling traffic and parking issues, and can be trusted to continue to do so. Over
my years at Castilleja I have watched the diligence they put in this topic and how effectively it is being manages
We live in a time when the value of diversity and women in society is under siege. Castilleja, the only, non-sectarian all girls
school on the west coast, plays a critical role in educating the next generation of female leaders. Castilleja's students, through
their community service initiatives, have deep ties to the city's many non-profit organizations.
Castilleja can trace its history back almost as far as the founding of Palo Alto. And is intricately woven into Palo Alto's identity
itself. Its commitment to excellence mirrors our community's commitment to education. Please support Castilleja's efforts to
stay relevant and provide a meaningful 21st century education to the young women of our city and region.
Uma & Sri Nair,
1972 Ivy Ln
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 3:32 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Tara Kaplinsky <tarakaplinsky@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:23 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:I Support Castilleja
Dear Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to express my strong support for Castilleja and its plans to modernize its campus. Castilleja's most recent proposal,
submitted April 2017, reflects a genuine effort to be responsive to its neighbors and blend in with the surrounding community.
Castilleja has a track record of controlling traffic and parking issues, and can be trusted to continue to do so.
We live in a time when the value of diversity and women in society is under siege. Castilleja, the only, non-sectarian all girls
school on the west coast, plays a critical role in educating the next generation of female leaders. Castilleja's students, through
their community service initiatives, have deep ties to the city's many non-profit organizations.
Castilleja can trace its history back almost as far as the founding of Palo Alto. Its commitment to excellence mirrors our
community's commitment to education. Please support Castilleja's efforts to stay relevant and provide a meaningful 21st century
education to the young women of our city and region.
Warmly,
Tara Kaplinsky
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 3:32 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Bisi Akinola <bakinola@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:21 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:I Support Castilleja
Dear City Manager, Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to express my strong support for Castilleja and its plans to modernize its campus. Castilleja's most recent proposal,
submitted April 2017, reflects a genuine effort to be responsive to its neighbors and blend in with the surrounding community.
Castilleja has a track record of controlling traffic and parking issues, and can be trusted to continue to do so.
We live in a time when the value of diversity and women in society is under siege. Castilleja, the only, non-sectarian all girls
school on the west coast, plays a critical role in educating the next generation of female leaders. Castilleja's students, through
their community service initiatives, have deep ties to the city's many non-profit organizations.
Castilleja can trace its history back almost as far as the founding of Palo Alto. Its commitment to excellence mirrors our
community's commitment to education. Please support Castilleja's efforts to stay relevant and provide a meaningful 21st century
education to the young women of our city and region.
Thanks,
Bisi Akinola
-- Bisi
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 3:32 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Jessica Yang <jessyang325@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 19, 2017 10:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Strongly oppose Castilleja school expansion
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
As a PA resident, I strongly oppose Castilleja school expansion. The expansion will cause huge traffic and safety issues for people who live near by and the children who need to ride to Paly. My son will go to Paly in a
couple of years. Ensuring his safety during daily commute is my top priority. Therefore, I plead to city council
to stop Castilleja school expansion. They need to move the school out of residential area if they want to expand.
Best regards,
Jessica Yang
408-802-1760
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 7:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Shailesh Rao <srao9386@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 19, 2017 6:34 AM
To:City Mgr; Council, City; Scharff, Gregory (internal)
Subject:From a Palo Alto resident - Support for Castilleja School expansion
Dear City Manager, Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council,
I've never written to any of you and first of all, I want to say THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU for helping
create such an amazing city. We moved to Palo Alto 6 years ago and have loved every minute of it. I can't
imagine living anywhere else.
I'm writing to express my strong support for Castilleja and its plans to modernize its campus. Castilleja's most
recent proposal, submitted April 2017, reflects a genuine effort to be responsive to its neighbors and blend in
with the surrounding community. Castilleja has a track record of controlling traffic and parking issues, and can
be trusted to continue to do so.
As a resident of Old Palo Alto, I understand the point of view of the Castilleja neighbors who are against the
expansion. But a member of the community who loves this city, I am also surprised at the blind eye that is being
turned to what are obviously "well above and beyond" efforts that are made by Castilleja on a daily basis to
mitigate the traffic problem. As a Casti parent. I have volunteered on numerous occasions for event duty - to
direct traffic and ensure that no one parks on the street. I have done this with joy because I see the school
genuinely caring about the community and because I see it as my duty to help.
I have spoken to the administrators of the school and taken the time to understand the plan. I believe that the
school has gone out of its way to accommodate the community's needs and will continue to do so.
We live in a time when the value of diversity and women in society is under siege. Castilleja, the only, non-
sectarian all girls school on the west coast, plays a critical role in educating the next generation of female
leaders. Castilleja's students, through their community service initiatives, have deep ties to the city's many non-
profit organizations.
Castilleja can trace its history back almost as far as the founding of Palo Alto. Its commitment to excellence
mirrors our community's commitment to education. Please support Castilleja's efforts to stay relevant and
provide a meaningful 21st century education to the young women of our city and region.
If there's any way in which I can help, please let me know
Thanks
Shailesh Rao
Resident of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2017 7:32 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stan Hutchings <stan.hutchings@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:08 PM
To:Council, City; Transportation
Subject:Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
...tried to send this to the email address provided, but was not delivered. Some correction needs to be made. I'm
not sure where I got the wrong address, possible the PA Online.
Regards, Stan
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, May 14, 2017 at 1:23 PM Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: stan.hutchings@gmail.com
Address not found
Your message wasn't delivered to transportation@cityofpaloaltto.org because the domain cityofpaloaltto.org couldn't be found. Check
for typos or unnecessary spaces and try again.
The response was:
DNS Error: 33342246 DNS type 'mx' lookup of cityofpaloaltto.org responded with code NXDOMAIN
Domain name not found: cityofpaloaltto.org
Final-Recipient: rfc822; transportation@cityofpaloaltto.org
Action: failed
Status: 4.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: smtp; DNS Error: 33342246 DNS type 'mx' lookup of cityofpaloaltto.org responded with
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/18/2017 7:32 AM
2
code NXDOMAIN
Domain name not found: cityofpaloaltto.org
Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 13:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stan Hutchings <stan.hutchings@gmail.com>
To: transportation@cityofpaloaltto.org Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 13:23:03 -0700
Subject: Suggestion to make proposed and existing bike boulevards safer
I've said it before (Comment for Speed Survey Community Meeting regarding safe bike routes), and I'll say it again to you:
Reduce the speed limit to 15 MPH on heavily traveled bicycle boulevards and the routes for optimum access cross-town
and to schools. Some of the routes are obvious and are already marked (e.g., Bryant, Park, N.California, etc.). Start immediately with them. Then as evaluation and creation of other routes is made, extend the bike system speed limit.
This is a safety issue, and should not be affected by the speed drivers want to go, or the flaky 85th percentile rule to
determine speed limits, but is determined by what is safe for bicyclists. Indeed, if the bike boulevard or route is heavily traveled by bikes, the rule could well result in a much lower legal speed limit.
The new routes and corres ----- Message truncated -----
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Public Records Request Tracking System <public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 19, 2017 5:40 PM
To:Scheff, Lisa; Council, City; Watson, Ron; Stump, Molly; Perron, Zachary; Kniss, Liz
(external); Scharff, Greg
Subject:Fwd: Public Records Request :: W000779-050917
This link takes me nowhere to access the requested information... Is this your intention Mr. Watson? Their has
to be better method...
Thanks, Mark Petersen-Perez
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Palo Alto Public Records Center" <paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net>
Date: May 19, 2017 at 3:27:56 PM CST
To: public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com
Subject: Public Records Request :: W000779-050917
--- Please respond above this line ---
05/19/2017
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of May 09, 2017, Reference # W000779‐050917
Dear Mark,
I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the California Public
Records Act (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.) received by the City on 5/9/2017.
Your request mentioned 1. Total number of Taser deployments since placed in service 2.
Number of reported injuries 3. Number of hospital transports 4. Number of adjudicated
settlements 5. Cost of settlements ‐ Dollar value 6. Cost of Tasers in service annualized
i.e. Maintenance, Training...
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:43 PM
2
The City has reviewed its files and has responded to your request. Please log in to the
Records Center at the following LINK to retrieve the appropriate response.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this further, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Lisa Scheff
Public Safety Program Manager/Records
Police Department
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:43 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Public Records Request Tracking System <public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 20, 2017 4:18 AM
To:Scheff, Lisa; Watson, Ron; Council, City; Reichental, Jonathan; Stump, Molly; Kniss, Liz
(external); Scharff, Greg; Keene, James; Keith, Claudia; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Bullerjahn,
Rich; Philip, Brian; Sean Webby; Cynthia Sumida; David Angel
Subject:Fwd: Public Records Request :: W000779-050917
Lisa, Time and time again I have requested on multiple occasions that you include your phone number at the bottom of all your emails communications.
If in fact your using a Microsoft email product their is simply NO excuse for you to not including this vital
information when dealing with the general public.
Mr. Watson, California Public Records Requests should be seamless, prompt and transparent. Knowing placing
a system which obfuscates and circumvent the public's right to know Sir is obstruction.
Mark Petersen-Perez
Editor: Palo Alto Free Press Ticuantepe, Nicaragua
Central America
650 646 5737 Google Intl
505 87843381
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Palo Alto Public Records Center" <paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net>
Date: May 19, 2017 at 3:27:56 PM CST To: public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com Subject: Public Records Request :: W000779-050917
--- Please respond above this line ---
05/19/2017
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:43 PM
4
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of May 09, 2017, Reference # W000779‐050917
Dear Mark,
I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the California Public
Records Act (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.) received by the City on 5/9/2017.
Your request mentioned 1. Total number of Taser deployments since placed in service 2.
Number of reported injuries 3. Number of hospital transports 4. Number of adjudicated
settlements 5. Cost of settlements ‐ Dollar value 6. Cost of Tasers in service annualized
i.e. Maintenance, Training...
The City has reviewed its files and has responded to your request. Please log in to the
Records Center at the following LINK to retrieve the appropriate response.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this further, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Lisa Scheff
Public Safety Program Manager/Records
Police Department
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 7:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:55 PM
To:Loran Harding; kfsndesk; newsdesk; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; dwalters; Daniel Zack;
Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; jboren; bmcewen; Tranil
Thomas; Leodies Buchanan; Joel Stiner; bretthedrick; russ@topperjewelers.com; Cathy
Lewis; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Mayor; CityManager;
midge@thebarretts.com; Mark Standriff; beachrides; fmerlo@wildelectric.net;
firstvp@fresnopoa.org; robert.andersen; nick yovino; Council, City; terry; bballpod
Subject:Fwd: Stanford Law Prof discusses Mueller Apptment as Russia Special Counse. May 17,
2017
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:46 PM
Subject: Fwd: Stanford Law Prof discusses Mueller Apptment as Russia Special Counsel. May 17, 2017
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:41 PM Subject: Stanford Law Prof discusses Mueller Apptment as Russia Special Counse. May 17, 2017
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Thurs. May 18, 2017
To all- Here is a Stanford Law professor explaining an investigation conducted by a special counsel vs. an
independent investigation by an independent commission. This should be widely reported:
https://law.stanford.edu/2017/05/17/david-sklansky-on-robert-mueller-appointment-as-doj-russia-
investigation-special-counsel/
LH
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:44 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:23 PM
To:terry; Council, City
Subject:Fwd: "Tapped Out" on PBS last night, 5-4-17, re water in California
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, May 20, 2017 at 12:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: "Tapped Out" on PBS last night, 5-4-17, re water in California
To: mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Doug Vagim
<dvagim@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian
<davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, CityManager <citymanager@fresno.gov>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>,
rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com, jboren <jboren@fresnobee.com>, bmcewen <bmcewen@fresnobee.com>, Mark
Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, "paul.caprioglio"
<paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, Paul Dictos <paul@dictos.com>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>,
Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, Tranil Thomas <soulja92y@hotmail.com>, lxcastro93@yahoo.com, fmerlo@wildelectric.net, mmt4@pge.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:06 PM
Subject: Fwd: "Tapped Out" on PBS last night, 5-4-17, re water in California
To: Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:04 PM
Subject: Fwd: "Tapped Out" on PBS last night, 5-4-17, re water in California
To: Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Mayor
<mayor@fresno.gov>, CityManager <citymanager@fresno.gov>, "paul.caprioglio"
<paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, "robert.andersen" <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>,
rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com, dwalters <dwalters@sacbee.com>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>,
thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov, mmt4@pge.com, jboren <jboren@fresnobee.com>, bmcewen <bmcewen@fresnobee.com>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer
<mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>,
bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:44 PM
2
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:57 AM Subject: Fwd: "Tapped Out" on PBS last night, 5-4-17, re water in California To: Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:50 AM
Subject: "Tapped Out" on PBS last night, 5-4-17, re water in California
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Friday May 5, 2017
Updated Saturday, May 20, 2017
Mr. Doug Vagim Fresno, Ca.
Doug- Excellent show last night on 18-1 in Fresno. "Tapped Out". First of a 4 part series, the second to run
next Thurs. eve., 5-11-17. One hour long. I learned. Your attempt to keep me in the dark about how water
moves around the San Joaquin Valley is now foiled. (Joke).
You can find the first and second segments of "Tapped Out" at www.valleypbs.org. Click around in there to
find it.
A few items I remember from the first segment:
We just let 10 trillion gallons of clean, fresh, precious water run out of the Sierra and down the river to the
ocean during Jan.-April, 2017 after ~5 years of severe drought in California. During those 5 years, towns and
farmers pumped water out of the aquifer like mad, depleting it even more than it was by 2011, and it was
seriously depleted then. There was huge ground subsidence on the west side of the S.J. Valley until the 60's when the Calif. Aqueduct and the Delta-Mendota Canal were built. An article in the Fresno Bee ~2003 showed
a map of ground subsidence, and there is some on the west side of the City of Fresno!
Friant Dam started as a State of Calif. project ~1938, but the State could not sell the bonds, so the feds took
it over. Construction was 1940-1942. Then WWII happened. Friant is not as tall as it could be because steel became limited in supply due to the war. It was really finished ~1945 or 46. Now run by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Friant Dam feeds the Sierra run-off in the San Joaquin River south down the Friant-Kern Canal and north in
the Madera Canal. The Bureau of Reclamation, which operates Friant Dam, is also required to release some water on down the San Joaquin R. In the winter of 2017, they have released a LOT of water down that river.
Building the Friant-Kern Canal and the Madera Canal deprived the west side of the S.J. Valley of water, so
an exchange was put in place: Shasta Dam was built and it feeds huge quantities of water into the Delta, which
is then sent south via the federal Central Valley Project's Delta-Mendota Canal on the west side.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:44 PM
3
A German named Miller and his partner Dux were butchers in SF around 1900. They decided to raise their
own cattle in the Central Valley and got control of hundreds of thousands of acres here, most of it fed by Sierra run-off into the San Joaquin River. The exchange set up above was the solution to their losing that water.
In late 1800's, people who had come for the Gold rush became farmers and they built primitive canals in the
S.J. Valley. Plenty of surface water for a long time. In fact, there were lots of artesian wells.
Until the D-M Canal and the State Water Project's California Aqueduct were built, the ground-water that was
used on the West side was of poor quality, limiting the crops that could be grown there. With the arrival of fresh
surface water, the variety of crops that could be grown there grew a lot. Lettuce, almonds, etc.
There were several dams built on the San Joaquin River above the site of future Friant Dam before it was built. Southern Cal. Edison generates electricity even now from at least one of them.
20% of all the electricity used in California goes to pumping water out of our aquifers. Fantastic number.
1997 was huge flood year in Central Valley. I was living in Santa Clara and so I hardly noticed it.
Millerton Lake behind Friant Dam has a capacity of 500,000 a.f. but 1.8 million a.f. can come down the San
Joaquin River from the Sierra in a wet year. So Friant Dam has to release nearly 4x its capacity during a wet
year.
Proposed Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin R. above Friant Dam would be the size of Hoover Dam!
and would hold over 1 million a.f. of water. The environmentalists oppose it.
One man who is a big farmer, as I recall, said that we could run the water out into the valley and let it perc.
into the aquifer instead of letting trillions of gallons flow to the sea. This is the Stanford idea. He said that he would have 6,000 acres that could have berms built around it and huge water could be put in there to perc. I
assume he meant that LOTS of farmers would be glad to do this. I had wondered about that every time I
mentioned the Stanford plan: Would there be land in the S.J. Valley available to do the percolating or would
there be huge opposition?? Apparently that would not be a problem. This man said "we have the canals and the
pipes to move the water around". This sounds like a far better idea than T.F. Dam to me. T.F. will cost ~$2 billion. For that, we could build a LOT of berms on land available now and flood that land in wet years for
percing. Direct injection into the aquifer would be needed in some places.
One issue the show did not address is salt water intrusion into the Delta from San Pablo Bay if the flow of
water into the Delta from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers is reduced. How can we build the T.F. dam OR do the percing that Stanford recommends without exacerbating that problem?
As sea level rises, and it will rise in San Francisco Bay by ~45 inches by 2050, according to "The Earth
Under Water", available on You tube, we will have to release more and more precious fresh water from Sierra
runoff into the Delta to hold back the salty water. We already release a lot of fresh water into the Delta to prevent San Francisco Bay (San Pablo Bay) salt water from ruining the fresh water in the Delta. See "The Earth
Under Water". Take SF Bay up 45" and you have a real problem. Now take it up 230 FEET, and you face a
hopeless problem. That is what an ice-free planet will give us.
You see in that program the idea of building a huge dam across the Golden Gate, just inside the bridge. This would save the San Francisco Bay Area, the Delta, and the San Joaquin Valley. Notice in that program what
happens to the SJ Valley as sea level rises: With an ice free planet, we will have a tongue of ocean coming
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:44 PM
4
down as far as Fresno, maybe Bakersfield. Look closely at the graphic they show. Fresnans will be able to take
paddle-wheel steamers to San Francisco. I believe that the Golden Gate Dam will be built at some point. Why
not build it now? It would cost $2 or 3 billion, somewhat more than the crazy Temperance Flat Dam would cost. Cancel Gov. Brown's twin tunnels under the Delta as well, and we'd have the money to build the GG Dam
now.
The GG Dam could have locks at its southern end for ships to get over it, and turbines in it to generate
electricity from tidal action. The idea of the GG Dam was being discussed ~2005. It would make the San Francisco Bay a fresh water lagoon. Rather radical? For sure, but I believe we will come to it eventually as the
relentless sea rises.
The GG Dam would impact the Port of Oakland and the Port of Stockton. We would have to tender our
apologies to the Port operators, to Tony Bennett, to Harry Bridges and the West Coast Longshoremen, if they still exist in the age of containers, and to Marlon Brando. But note the effect it would have on the issue of water
in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys of California: With NO salt water in San Francisco Bay
threatening the fresh water in the Delta, we could use every drop of Sierra fresh water run-off for cities
and industries, for agriculture, and for the, certainly altered, environment.
The recently adopted City of Fresno 2035 General Plan contemplates raising Fresno's population from the
current 515,000 to ~750,000 people by 2015, all to enrich three developers here who own the town. You see,
climate change is a myth and the big-gun climate experts at places like Stanford are a pack of liars. We can use
what my professor Paul Ehrlich used to call "The Forbes Magazine approach": i.e., no constraints. Just build as
fast as we can, and contribute to rich Republicans like Trump who is considering abandoning the Paris Accord and wants to mine a LOT more of that "clean coal". He too knows that those experts at Stanford, Cal Tech and
MIT are a pack of liars and fornicators.
And that's just the 2035 Plan in Fresno. By 2100, we'll want several million people in Fresno, all to further
enrich three developers here and the local politicians they support. With the influence of these people, California will have at least 100 million people, maybe 300 million, by 2100. And then we can continue to
double California's population every few decades after that.
Study what happened in 1789. Thousands of members of the one percent were beheaded.
See "The Earth Under Water".
No doubt the proposed dual water tunnels under the Delta proposed by Gov. Brown will be addressed in one
of the next three segments of "Tapped Out".
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/22/2017 1:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eva Xu <eva.xu@bayswaterasset.com>
Sent:Friday, May 19, 2017 10:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:I Support Castilleja
Dear City Manager, Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council,
I'm writing to express my strong support for Castilleja and its plans to modernize its campus. Castilleja's most recent
proposal, submitted April 2017, reflects a genuine effort to be responsive neighbors' concerns and blend in with the
surrounding community. I the last two years, Castilleja has built a track record of controlling traffic and parking issues,
and can be trusted to continue to do so. I should know, because I have been living on Kellogg Ave since 2005, one block
away from Castilleja.
We live in a time when the value of diversity and women in society is under siege. Castilleja, the only, non‐sectarian all
girls school on the west coast, plays a critical role in educating the next generation of female leaders. Castilleja's
students, through their community service initiatives, have deep ties to the city's many non‐profit organizations. My
daughter is a proud Castilleja Senior, and the creator of Brentwood Creativity Club to serve and inspired the kids in East
Palo Alto.
Castilleja can trace its history back almost as far as the founding of Palo Alto. Its commitment to excellence mirrors our
community's commitment to education. Please support Castilleja's efforts to stay relevant and provide a meaningful
21st century education to the young women of our city and region.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best Regards,
Eva Xu
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/24/2017 9:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:bobgnote <bobgnote@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 21, 2017 11:21 AM
To:leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique; Library Director; Library Commission; Library
Programming; Kanth, Gayathri; Garcia, RuthAnn
Cc:Council, City; citycouncil; Alphonse.Le-Duc@sen.ca.gov
Subject:Palo Alto Library issued an illegal ban, for one year, which must be clarified and
administrated, now DELAYED
All,
On Friday May 19, 2017, I logged into a PC at Mitchell Park Branch.
A street woman who likes to harass me signed up on an adjacent machine and began rambling at me, even though all
PCs were open on both sides of the 2‐sided row, 2d floor of Mitchell Park Branch.
As she blathered, I did not respond, but I was then approached by "Dan" the librarian and another staffer, who told me a
ban was issued in October, regarding incidents related to Mitchell Park Branch and other neglected PAPL branches,
which got rid of the Google printer, when it became apparent incompetent library staff refused to update the PCs, so the
Google printer program had to be ended, from staff incompetence and stubbornness.
PAPL staff intended to derail the Google printer program, and when I complained, they let street people and kids harass
me at PC terminals.
This continued in October 2016, while I was illegally incarcerated, relative to SCCo., SJ, MV, and PA collusion to refuse to
report Wells Fargo choke‐out of the RS Gaebler SNT, while the county issued false process, to incarcerate me, as the SEC
investigations went public.
So I get out, after C1634718 AND while Islamic State has been popping all over, around the D61 court dates, and I find
you did an illegal ban, which the State of California should have prosecuted, as an ADA violation, and YOU are
pretending you aren't getting people fucking DEAD, while Trump blathers about all this, in Riyadh.
Meanwhile, SCCo. does illegal bans like this one, in Mtn.View and Palo Alto. I have been banned ex officio, from CSA,
MV Senior Center, MVPL, and Cuesta Park, during all this harassment, without a hearing.
YOU NEED TO INFORM ME OF THE PAPL BAN AND ITS CONDITIONS, NOW. Is it just Mitchell Park? Why was I not
informed, in October, when you were messing with Ruth‐Ann Garcia, letting her and other incompetents trash the
Google printer program, while racketeering, to incite street people, to harass me, at the PC stations, LIKE MVPL DID,
OVER THE LAST
30 YEARS?
Is it because PAPL also hires MVPL perps and similar punks, who racketeer at PC patrons, in collusion with street people
and whomever else does dirt, locally?
YOU NEED TO ADMINISTRATE THE ILLEGAL BAN, PROPERLY.
And I advise you to relieve this, for cause or in the interest of justice, since Palo Alto is checking in on the abuse of
process, which is also abuse in custody, right as Ramadan 2017 is about to happen.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/24/2017 9:56 AM
2
You are messing with the wrong Muslim. I.S. saw you all discriminating and kills over it.
The USDOJ is neglecting you and DA Jeff Rosen.
Get a clue. Jeff Sessions may get the name‐game and beat you at it, badly. You can face the music, suddenly.
RECONSIDER YOUR ILLEGAL, DISCRIMINATORY BAN, AN ADA VIOLATION.
PAPL is banning me because your staff is incompetent at PC administration, and your aggravated intent to misconduct
articulates, by bans, from PAPL administrators who were already abusing me, to alleviate their aggravated corruption,
with no intent to administer the Google printer program, SO THEY BEGAN INJURING ME WITH STREET PEOPLE AND
WITH THIS ILLEGAL BAN.
You never intended to let Google print OR to let the ADA rule your policies.
And then there's the matter of you are trying to piss off Islamic State, as SEDITION, while PAPD has refused to make a
timely FAST report, on Wells Fargo, over time.
Seems to me that MV and PA have some explaining to do, about their ADA‐violating bans.
‐‐
Bob Gaebler
bobgnote@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 7:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Shannon Rose <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 18, 2017 7:45 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shannon McEntee
Subject:Parking in Mayfield
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I want to thank you for limiting parking to two hours on weekdays in Evergreen Park and Mayfield. It has made such a
positive difference where I live on Sheridan. Just yesterday friends came to visit and mentioned with surprise that
they’d found a parking place! I didn’t solicit their comments.
Not only can my guests find a parking place, but just as important and a bit of a surprise, the noise level has been
reduced. We had so many honking horns as people locked their cars, then ran back for something and then locked it
again. That’s three loud and needless honks. We've endured honking all day from early to late hours. This noise
pollution has been greatly abated with the new parking hours. Thank you again for supporting a livable Palo Alto.
Hurray!
Sincerely,
Shannon McEntee
410 Sheridan Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2017 2:56 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Public Records Request Tracking System <public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:07 PM
To:Scheff, Lisa; Stump, Molly; Carnahan, David; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Keene,
James; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Keith, Claudia; Council, City
Subject:Re: CPRA Follow-up May 29th letter
Further authority:
California Public Records Section §6252(f) and Evidence Code &
250.
You may only refuse to give me these records if there is an express law prohibiting you from giving them to me.
In the case of California State University of Fresno Assn, Inc. V
Superior Court McClatchy Co. (2001) 90 Cal App.4th 810, the
court held that "The burden of proof is on the proponent of nondisclosure, who must demonstrate "clear overbalance" on the side of confidentiality."
Mark Petersen-Perez
Sent from my iPad
On May 23, 2017, at 2:58 PM, Public Records Request Tracking System
<public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com> wrote:
We receive no such letter dated May 29th in which you mention anything having to do with settlements. Furthermore, please provide legal argument for denying items 1, 2, 3, and 4 as
mandated by law.
6253.1.
(a) When a member of the public requests to inspect a public record or obtain a copy of a public
record, the public agency, in order to assist the member of the public make a focused and
effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the
request or to the purpose of the request, if stated.
(2) Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist.
(3) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2017 2:56 PM
2
(b) The requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall be deemed to have been satisfied if
the public agency is unable to identify the requested information after making a reasonable effort
to elicit additional clarifying information from the requester that will help identify the record or records.
(c) The requirements of subdivision (a) are in addition to any action required of a public agency
by Section 6253.
(d) This section shall not apply to a request for public records if any of the following applies:
(1) The public agency makes available the requested records pursuant to Section 6253.
(2) The public agency determines that the request should be denied and bases that determination
solely on an exemption listed in Section 6254.
(3) The public agency makes available an index of its records.
1. Total number of Taser deployments since placed in service
2. Number of reported injuries
3. Number of hospital transports
4. Number of adjudicated settlements
5. Cost of settlements ‐ Dollar value
6. Cost of Tasers in service annualized i.e. Maintenance, Training...
<CPRA Response Letter2 - MPP_Taser W779-050917.pdf>
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/23/2017 2:57 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Stolee <rstolee@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 22, 2017 4:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received
Re: Motor Homes on El Camino
As you might have noticed, El Camino Real, next to Stanford has become a de facto Motor Home Park for about 30 to 35 motor homes. Having lived on the Peninsula for over 50 years, I remember the days when
driving by Stanford was a time to relax and enjoy the beauty of the campus trees and fields before driving south
into the business districts south of Stanford Avenue. This parking should to be used for temporary parking for
sporting events, not for permanent living arrangements for palo alto residents. I am sympathetic to Stanford
employees during the week who need parking where Stanford parking is very expensive, but these Motor homes take away these parking spots, as well as being an eyesore.
I would like to suggest create parking limits of 3 hours and/or limit overnight parking from 11-5 along El
Camino next to Stanford. No other city that I know of allows Motor homes to park on busy main city streets. I
drive all the way from San Carlos through Sunnyvale and see no motor homes on the street.
Please look into this and solve this situation.
Richard Stolee
CTRA and Long Term City resident
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all nine Council Members
and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet.
If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call 329‐2571
to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting.
If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or
else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification.
We appreciate hearing from you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/19/2017 3:31 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, May 19, 2017 12:25 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC; Architectural Review Board; Dauler, Heather
Subject:SB 649 update
Council members,
SB 649 sailed through the Senate Appropriation Committee (7-0)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649
It was placed on the Appropriations suspense file on 05-15-17. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649
The League of California Cities continues to oppose SB 649.
05-16-17: "SB 649 — A “Small Cell” Bag of Empty Promises" https://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2017/May/SB-649-%E2%80%94-A-Small-Cell%E2%80%9D-Bag-of-Empty-
Promises "Cities are encouraged to contact legislators immediately and oppose SB 649. This is crucial if cities will be able to retain full
discretion and ability to charge fair market rates over publicly owned property."
In this three-minute video, the League's Rony Berdugo testifies at the Senate Appropriations Committee in opposition to SB 649. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLHK61hNRW8&feature=youtu.be
Thanks.
Jeff
------------------- Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
......
14. Tables 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 titled "Total Noise Levels (dBA leq} Do the CNEL values shown reflect all
recorded noise events?
This is correct, all noise events is all inclusive. Tables 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 "Total Noise Levels"
shows the CNEL for all noise events. SFO Aircraft Events plus All Other Events equals Total.
Policy and Services Committee
Airplane Noise Public Comments
Darlene Yaplee, Karen Porter, and Vicky Reich
May 23, 2
We ask for Policy and Services (P&S) to put in motion the following City Council actions:
1. Reaffirm the City's positions to reduce airplane noise.
a. We suggest the document:
i. Be updated to feature the highest priority items from the SC/RT
repqrts
ii. Include community feedback and be reviewed for technical
accuracy and positioning by Peter Kirsch and Freytag &
Associates
iii. Address the misperception that Palo Alt~ w2rt!s to move noise to
other cities -~A"l.~O ~ v
iv. Address the negative"""~ealfu i~acts of aircraft emissions
b. We believe Palo Alto should complete the update of its positions before
the FAA's response is made public and before Council goes on summer
break (end of June).
2. Seek representation on any airplane noise body whose actions will potentially
impact Palo Alto, with concurrence from Peter Kirsch.
a. Such entities may include and are not limited to:
i. Ad-hoc and any permanent entity (as recommended by Select
Committee)
ii. SFO Roundtable
iii. Entity under discussion to address SJC reverse flow arrivals, etc.
b. Communicate interest for Ad-hoc and any permanent entity to Rep Eshoo
who is likely to be involved with member selection.
3. Use the P&S committee report to alert Council that: a subsequent discussion
before council will be needed once the FAA response is available; AND
additionally for the P&S committee to be responsible for preparing the documents
for Council discussion when the FAA's response is public.
4. Install permanent versus temporary noise monitors (with Peter Kirsch
concurrence).
5. Approve items 2, 3, and 4 to advance to the City Council before Summer 2017
recess. As the document to reaffirm the City's position (item 1) may take longer
to complete, we ask P&S to target completion by end of June at the latest.
6. We recommend the City authorize Peter Kirsch to host a 1-2 hour session with
citizens to foster alignment.
..
Bri~. Santa Cruz County Noise Monitoring
1.0 Executive Summary
BridgeNet International was contracted by the San Francisco International Airport Aircraft Noise
Abatement Office to collaborate in monitoring the aircraft noise contributions of the new SERFR ONE
Area Navigation (RNA V) Arrival into San Francisco International Airport over Santa Cruz County. Five
noise monitoring locations were selected that were near the arrival corridor with the assistance of
members of the group known as Save our Skies Santa Cruz.
The overall average daily noise level from SFO aircraft on the SERFR ONE RNA V Arrival only ranged
between 34 and 38 dB CNEL for all five noise monitoring locations. The overall average daily noise
level from all other noise ranged between 44 and SS dB CNEL. All other noise refers to non SFO aircraft
and any other noise sources occurring throughout the community. The overall total average daily noise
level ranged from 4S to SS dB CNEL.
Noise from SFO aircraft on the SERFR ONE RNA V Arrival did not increase the overall total average
daily noise level (dB CNEL) at three noise monitoring locations. Noise from SFO aircraft increased the
overall total average daily noise level (dB CNEL) at two noise monitoring locations by 1 dB.
2._0 Background Information
2.1 Characteristics of Sound
Sound can be described technically in tenns of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration
(time). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Decibels are
based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels
to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes.
The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz
are not heard at a11 and are "felt" more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive
hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases,
hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about I 0,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is
not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been
devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) perfonns this
compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the
human ear. Community noise levels are measured in tenns of the A-weighted decibel abbreviated dBA .
Report#2015-067
2
7/21/2015
Bri~~. Santa Cruz County Noise Monitoring
2.2 Propagation of Noise
Outdoor sound levels decrease as a result of several factors, including increasing the distance from the
sound source, atmospheric absorption (characteristics in the atmosphere that actually absorb sound), and
ground attenuation (characteristics on the ground that absorb sound). If sound is radiated from a source in
a homogeneous and undisturbed manner, the sound travels in spherical waves. As the sound wave travels
away from the source, the sound energy is spread over a greater area dispersing the sound power of the
wave.
Temperature and humidity of the atmosphere also influence the sound levels received by the observer.
The influence of the atmosphere and the resultant fluctuations increase with distance and become
particularly important at distances greater than I ,000 feet. The degree of absorption depends on
frequency of the sound as well as the humidity and air temperature. For example, when the air is cold and
humid, and therefore denser, atmospheric absorption is lowest. Higher frequencies are more readily
absorbed than the lower frequencies. Over large distances, lower frequency sounds become dominant as
the higher frequencies are attenuated.
2.3 Noise Metrics
The description, analysis and reporting of community noise levels around communities is made difficult
by the complexity of human response to noise and the variety of noise metrics that have been developed
for describing noise impacts. Each of these metrics attempts to quantify noise levels with respect to
community response.
Noise metrics can be divided into two categories: single event and cumulative. Single event metrics
describe the noise levels from an individual event such as an aircraft flyover. Cumulative metrics average
the total noise over a specific time period, which is typically from one to 24-hours for community noise
levels.
2.3.1 Single Event Metrics
Maximum Noise Level or LMax is the maximum or peak sound level during an aircraft noise
event. The metric only accounts for the instantaneous peak intensity of the sound, and not for the
duration of the event. As an aircraft passes by an observer, the sound tevel increases to a
maximum level and then decreases.
Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SEL) -The duration of a noise event, or an aircraft flyover,
is an important factor in assessing annoyance and is measured most typically as SEL. The
effective duration of a sound starts when a sound rises above the background sound level and
ends when it drops back below the background level. An SEL is calculated by summing the dB
level at each second during a noise event and compressing that noise into one second. It is the
level the noise would be if it all occurred in one second. The SEL value is the integration of all
the acoustic energy contained within the event. This metric takes into account the maximum
noise level of the event and the duration of the event. For aircraft flyovers, the SEL value is
numerically about 10 dBA higher than the maximum noise level.
Report#2015·067
3
7/21/2015
Bri~~-· Santa Cruz County Noise Monitoring
3.0 Noise Monitoring Results
Noise monitoring was conducted from June 26, 2015 to July 13. 2015 by Heather Bruce of BridgeNet
International. During all of the noise measurements the sound level meters were mounted on tripods five
feet above the ground and equipped with windscreens.
The sound level meters used to measure the noise levels were two OldB DUOs, one OldB CUBE and two
portable BrUel & Kjrer EMU 2200s. The equipment used meets the International Standard IEC 61672
specification for Type 1 precision sound level meters. The microphones were calibrated before the tests
with either a Brilel & Kjrer Type 423 I sound level calibrator or a G.R.A.S. Type 42AA pistonphone that
meets the International Standard IEC 60942. Calibration is traceable to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST).
Noise measurements were made at 5 locations: 1111 Wilderfield Road in Los Gatos, 200 Woodlander
Place in Scotts Valley, 1023 Vine Hill Road in Santa Cruz, 240 Fast Lane in Santa Cruz and 820 Amigo
Road in Soquel. Refer to Figure I for the noise monitoring locations.
Table I below shows the number of SFO correlated aircraft events by noise monitoring location and total
number of SFO SERFR aircraft tracks. June 2611t and July J3d1 were not included because they did not
collect noise data for the entire day. A threshold of 40 dB and duration of 8 seconds was used in the
analysis at all five noise monitoring locations.
Table 1 -Number of SFO Correlated Aircraft Events by Noise Monitoring location and Total Number of SFO SERFR
Aircraft Tracks
bJ NUtrber al Corrfiated E~ts
1111 VVilderfield I 200 WoodlaldEr I 1023VineHlll I 240 Fast Lene Roa:! Race Roal I
6127/2015 95 103 40 37
612812015 103 112 22 25
6129120/5 105 123 29 26
613012015 92 107 'Z1 35
71111015 107 108 41 35
71212015 135 141 51 47
71312015 106 108 41 50
71412015 66 68 29 26
71512015 109 107 37 40
71612015 121 137 56 43
71712015 121 143 59 46
718120/S 94 101 59 44
71912015 n 112 52 45
711012015 48 130 65 56
711112015 0 125 63 53
711212015 0 150 Cl 51
I Totals II 1,373 I 1,875 I 738 l 659
Report#2015·067
I 820 Arrig;> Roa:!
30
25
23
24
31
51
49
26
32
53
51
52
56
61
50
52
I 666 I
Tata/ Nlllrbfr
a/SERFR
Tradfs
147'
162
179
169 !
158
196
151
164
166
168
100
161
159
157
146
173
2,636
5
7/21/2015
Santa Cruz County Noise Monitoring
Table 2i -1111 Wilderfield Road -SFO Aircraft Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
DATE Hour OfTbe Da I CNEL I
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
I Jun 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 . 34 28 37 38 37 37 39
Jun 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 35 32 34 30 39 29 30
Jun 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 34 32 36 31 36
Jun 30 0 0 0 0 24 30 27 38 36 34 31 36 31 34
Jul 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 39 20 35 35 34 36 41
Jul 2 30 0 0 0 0 0 36 39 33 42 37 39 35 40
Jul 3 31 31 0 0 0 0 44 41 0 34 34 42 26 37
Jul 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 36 31
Jul 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 36 30 41 37 41 35 38
Jul 6 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 39 34 37 37 29 34
Jul 7 29 0 0 0 0 0 38 39 32 37 35 37 35 35
Jul 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 40 40 37 39 40 34 41
Jul 9 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 29 38 35 0 29 32 35
Jul 10 32 0 0 0 0 29 31 38 33 35 33 35 31 39
Jul 11 --- -----------------
Jul 12 -.. -----------·-·------t ..
Energy
Average 26 22 0 0 13 21 37 38 34 37 35 38 34 37
4 The sound level meter reached storage capacity and ceased collection on July I 01~ at 17:00.
Report#2015-067
34 37 36 40 35 39
37 37 32 38 36 37
34 34 29 37 35 35
36 33 0 33 35 ! 35
33 36 36 36 33 39
37 35 36 40 37 39
37 36 27 40 38 36
36 34 31 37 39 37
32 36 35 39 37 35
35 36 37 39 43 39
37 38 38 41 37 38
38 37 35 36 36 34
32 38 34 35 37 36
32 37 37 ---
--------------. .
35 36 35 38 38 37
38 40 39
34 40 31
36 34 37
34 34 0
36 0 0
40 33 0
34 33 0
37 33 0
32 29 0
37 42 36
37 39 38
32 37 34
36 35 33 ---------.....
36 37 33
26
0
32 1
O i
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
34
38
------.
29
40
37
37
35
36
39
42
34
38
40
40
41
38
36
Q
7
7/21/2015
Bri~.
Table 32 -1111 Wilderfield Road -All Other Noise levels (dBA Leq)
L L ~ L ~
DATE Hour Of The Dav
0 I 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Jun 27 52 52 51 51 51 51 51 50 48 56 55 44 42 41 41 41 39 38
Jun 28 49 49 48 47 47 49 49 50 48 42 39 42 38 35 34 43 34 35
Jun29 51 52 52 53 53 53 53 52 50 47 37 44 37 34 35 34 35 37
Jun 30 42 38 36 34 34 34 36 41 35 35 43 40 36 47 36 43 44 38
Jul l 43 43 40 34 34 36 41 39 37 38 39 42 36 40 39 42 37 36
Jul 2 39 33 34 31 36 42 48 48 38 38 43 37 39 45 39 37 38 36
Jul 3 44 41 42 39 39 43 45 45 39 38 38 43 38 36 36 34 35 36
Jul 4 48 46 46 47 48 49 49 48 41 40 41 45 37 34 37 38 39 38
Jul 5 49 49 49 50 50 51 51 51 49 43 38 42 39 38 42 40 37 38
Jul 6 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 49 47 39 35 44 39 35 35 35 42 38
Jul7 49 50 49 49 49 50 51 51 49 45 42 40 37 39 38 39 39 37
Jul 8 50 51 52 52 52 52 52 51 48 43 39 43 40 40 40 41 41 37
Jul 9 51 50 50 50 so 50 50 49 48 42 37 36 34 41 42 43 41 40
Jul 10 48 46 47 47 47 47 50 46 40 37 37 43 42 44 44 44 38 -
Jul 11 -------' ----- --- - - --Jul 12 -I -~ :..1 ----1 --- --------... ~ t , ~ ~ t
J . l 1-,_ l -~ I
Energy --..----Average 49 49 49 49 49 49 50 49 46 46 45 42 39 41 39 40 39 37
2 The sound level meter reached storage capaci~y 11nd ceased collection on_l!!!l'J _01h at 17:00. ____ _
Report#2015-067
18
35
33
36
38
39
36
35
34
35
37
36
38
35 --I I -
36
Santa Cruz County Noise Monitoring
~
19 20 21
35 43 47
33 44 48
35 35 41
33 32 39
37 33 38
36 41 48 '
35 32 44
32 46 48
38 46 49
36 40 46
36 43 48
52 45 48
38 41 46 1 ----------' -l. -
42 42 47
.
22 23
47 48
49 50
44 44
37 39
40 37
48 46
46 48
49 48
49 49
49 48
49 49
50 51
47 47 ---, --j --, --
-47 48
E:J
I I 57
55
57
45
46
50
50
54
56
55
56
58
55
54
GJ
8
7/21/2015
B~. Santa Cruz County Noise Monitoring
Table 43 -1111 Wilderfield Road -Total Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
DATE HourOfTheDa ~
--~--------~0_2 __ 0_3 __ o_4 __ o_5 __ 0_6__.._0_1 __ 0_8 __ 0_9 ___ 10 ___ 11 ___ 12 ___ 13 ___ 14 ___ 15 ___ 16~-11 ___ 18 ___ 19~-20 ___ 2_1 __ 2_2 __ 2__,3 L___J
Jun 27 52 52 51 51 51 51 51 50 48 56 55 45 43 42 42 42 41 42 38
Jun 28 49 49 48 47 47 49 49 50 48 43 39 44 38 36 39 43 36 40 38
Jun 29 51 52 52 53 53 53 53 52 50 47 38 44 37 38 37 37 36 39 38
Jun 30 42 38 36 34 35 36 37 42 39 38 43 41 37 47 39 43 44 39 39
Jul I 43 43 40 34 34 36 41 42 37 39 40 42 39 43 40 43 40 39 40
Jul 2 40 33 34 31 36 42 48 48 39 43 43 41 40 46 41 39 40 41 39
Jul 3 44 42 42 39 39 43 47 46 39 39 39 45 38 39 40 38 35 41 40
Jul 4 48 46 46 47 48 49 49 48 41 40 41 45 39 36 39 39 40 40 40
Jul 5 49 49 49 50 50 51 51 51 49 _45 41 44 41 41 42 41 39 41 39
Jul 6 49 49 50 50 50 50 50 49 47 40 39 44 39 38 38 39 42 42 44
Jul 7 49 50 49 49 49 50 51 51 49 46 43 42 39 40 41 41 41 42 39
Jul 8 50 51 52 52 52 52 52 51 49 43 41 44 41 43 41 42 42 39 40
Jul 9 51 50 50 50 50 50 50 49 48 42 37 37 36 42 42 43 42 41 39
Jul 10 48 46 47 47 47 47 50
'
47 41 39 38 43 42 45 44 44 40 --
Jul 11 ---------------- -------..
+ Jul 12 -----•• I -------------I ----.. ---..
Energy
Average 49 49 49 49 49 49 50 49 47 47 45 43 40 42 41 42 41 41 40
3 The sound level meler reached s~<!~&e capacity and ceased colleclion on July I o•h at 17:00.
Report#2015-067
I r-40 44 47 47
38 44 49 49
38 39 42 45
37 36 40 37
41 38 38 40
41 43 48 48
38 36 44 46
38 46 48 ! 49
39 46 49 49
41 41 47 49
40 44 48 49
52 45 49 50
40 42 46 47
--_,_ --
I
--i -----<· -------
43 43 47 148
48
50
44
39
37
46
48
48
49
48
49
51
47
-I --
48
57
55
57
45
47
50
51
54
56
56
56
58
55
54
Q
9
7/21/2015
..
Palo Alto Youth Council
May22, 2017
Transportation and Traffic in Palo Alto: Understanding Student Concerns and Implementing Solutions
Background
Traffic has long been a contentious issue in the Palo Alto community, one that has the potential to affect residents'
quality of life. As representatives of the youth population, the Palo Alto Youth Council decided to study this issue
from high school students' perspectives by creating and conducting a survey. The Outreach Subcommittee of
PA YC gathered and analyzed survey responses from a total of 172 students from Palo Alto High School, Gunn
High School, and Castilleja School.
School and Grade Breakdown of Respondents
What school do you attend?
112 responses
What grade level are you?
172 responses
e Palo Alto Hfgh School e Gunn Hlgll Sd\Oot
e C8stilleja e Other
e Freshman
• Sopnomotl! e Junor e Senior
. . ..
Significant Findings
In the first portion of the survey, students were asked to answer general questions about traffic in Palo Alto. Among
survey respondents, the most popular form of transportation to school is biking (44.8%), followed by being driven
by parents (41.3%), and driving oneself (37.8%). 73.8% of respondents indicated that traffic is most problematic
between 7:45 and 8:15 AM, during the morning commute to school. \X'hen asked to choose the most dangerous
areas of Palo Alto for bikers, the most popular choices were downtown Palo Alto, Alma Street, highway entrances,
and Churchill Road (near Paly). However, respondents who bike to school were asked to quantify their level of
concern about safety while biking on a 1-10 scale (with 1 representing not concerned at all and 10 representing
extremely concerned), and 60.4% put 4 or lower. Nearly 70% of respondents said that they had been deterred from
driving somewhere in Palo Alto due to concerns about traffic; of those people, the overwhelming majoricy said
downtown Palo Alto was the location.
In the next portion of the survey, students were asked about traffic issues specific to their respective high schools.
The results showed that a significant amount of students from Palo Alto High School believe that an inconvenient
traffic issue is that the traffic lights near Town and Country were not synchronized. The majority of students from
Gunn High School reported that they were somewhat frequently late to school, around three to five times per
month (due to traffic, not poor time management). An overwhelming majodty of Castilleja students felt that the
relationships between students and neighbors is unfavorable. They feel that the concerns about parking near their
school have created uncomfortable tension and are being prioritized over their education.
In the third part of the survey, students indicated whether they strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree,
disagree, or strongly disagree for a series of statements about traffic in Palo Alto. While 35.5% of students said they
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "Drivers in Palo Alto frequently engage in unsafe behavior," 68.6%
said the same about the statement "Bikers in Palo Alto frequently engage in unsafe behavior." 56.4% said they
disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement "The quality of my life is significantly reduced because of issues
with traffic," and nearly a quarter of respondents saying they did not agree or disagree with the statement. In
response to the statement "Building more complexes in downtown Palo Alto, namely housing, is a good idea, even
if it does increase traffic," a plurality of students said they disagreed or strongly disagreed, although 35.5% said they
did not agree or disagree. 66.2% believe that the Ci[)' of Palo Alto should be doing more to resolve issues with
traffic.
. .
Solutions
In the section of survey in which students could propose ideas to improve traffic management, a significant number
of respondents indicated a need for more bike bridges throughout the city. Respondents from Palo Alto High
School are strongly in favor of synchronizing the traffic lights near Town and Country. Castilleja students feel that
increasing transparency between the school and the surrounding neighbors pertaining to information about parking
difficulties would help ease the tension surrounding the issue. In response to a broad question about overall
combating Palo Alto traffic, many respondents indicated that the youth population would benefit from more people
directing traffic. In summary, respondents seemed to prioritize taking measures to improve safety, primarily for
bikers.
parents away. She is working full-time and paying her fair share of taxes
and contributing positively to society. She says that people in her
community are hiding at home because they are afraid to be picked up by
ICE. This constant fear is not healthy for any of our community members
and is especially traumatic to children who see their parents hiding in fear.
We must help our community feel safe and make our city a Freedom City.
We respectfully ask the City Council and the Human Relations Commission
to meet as whole to pass the following resolution on an urgent basis.
Immigrant rights in our community are at risk. The city of Palo Alto has
already started the process by being a "Safe City,'' but these policies are
not enough to give peace of mind to our communities in these uncertain
times. We ask that Palo Alto become a "Freedom City.''
We realize that there may be concerns around Trump's threats to defund
sanctuary cities. This is a very important concern. Several cities and
counties have filed lawsuits against this Executive Order, challenging its
constitutionality on multiple grounds. On April 251h, 2017, ''a federal district
court granted an injunction, forbidding the government from taking action to
implement or enforce the Order until further notice. The court found that the
Order is likely to be proven unconstitutional, and so it must be stopped
before it causes irreparable harm.'' (for further information, please view this
link from PennState Law's Immigration Legal Resource Center.)
Now be it resolved that:
#1) T/1e Judicial Warrant Rule: A Palo Alto official, employee or agent
shall require a judicial warrant prior to detaining an individual or in
any manner prolonging the detention of an individual at the request of
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and
Border Protection (CBP).
#2) No Facilitation Rule: A Palo Alto official, employee or agent shall
not arrest, detain, or transport an individual solely on the basis of an
immigration detainer or other administrative document issued by ICE
or CBP, without a judicial warrant.
#3) Defined Access/Interview Rule: Unless acting pursuant to a court
order or a legitimate law enforcement purpose that is unrelated to the
enforcement of a civil immigration law, no Palo Alto official, employee
or agent shall permit ICE or CBP agents access to Palo Alto facilities or
any person in Palo Alto custody for investigative interviews or other
investigative purposes.
fl4) Clear Identification Rule: To the extent ICE or CBP has been
granted access to Palo Alto facilities, individuals with whom ICE or
CBP engages will be notified that they are speaking with ICE or CBP,
and ICE or CBP agents shall be required to wear duty jackets and
make their badges visible at all times while in Palo Alto facilities.
#5) Don't Ask Rule: A Palo Alto official, employee or agent shall not
inquire into the immigration or citizenship status of an individual,
except where the inquiry relates to a legitimate law enforcement
purpose that is unrelated to the enforcement of a civil immigration law,
or where required by state or federal law to verify eligibility for a
benefit, service, or license conditioned on verification of certain status.
#6) Privacy Protection Rule: No Palo Alto official, employee or agent
shall voluntarily release personally identifiable data or information to
ICE or CBP regarding an inmate's custody status, release date or home
address, or information that may be used to ascertain an individual's
religion, ethnicity or race, unless for a law enforcement purpose
unrelated to the enforcement of a civil immigration law.
#7) Discriminatory Surveillance Prohibition Rule: No Palo Alto official,
employee or agent shall authorize or engage in the human or
technological surveillance of a person or group based solely or primarily
upon a person or group's actual or perceived religion, ethnicity, race, or
immigration status.
#8) Redress Rule: Any person who alleges a violation of this policy may
file a written complaint for investigation with Human Relations
Commission.
#9) Fair a11d Impartial Policing Rule: No Palo Alto official employee or
agent shall interrogate, arrest, detain or take other law enforcement
action against an individual based upon that individual's perceived race,
national origin, religion, language, or immigration status, unless such
personal characteristics have been included in timely, relevant, credible
information from a reliable source, linking a specific individual to a
particular criminal event/activity.
Please help our friends, families and neighbors get redress when abuses and
mistakes occur and help ensure our friends, families, and neighbors are
protected from discrimination.
The Trump Administration has asserted, falsely, that if localities do not help
advance Trump's mass deportation agenda, they are violating federal law.
Sanctuary policies do not violate federal law. The following rule, which is
the only applicable federal law in this area, would help ensure that Palo Alto
establishes its clear intent not to violate federal law. While not a necessary
addition, this rule may be a useful complement to the above policies.
1373 Rule: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and 8 U.S.C. § 1644, federal law
prohibits Palo Alto official, employee or agent from imposing limits on
maintaining, exchanging, sending, or receiving information regarding
citizenship and immigration status with any Federal, State, or local
government entity. Nothing in Palo Alto policies is intended to violate 8
U.S.C. § 1373 and 8 U.S.C. § 1644.
Please note that in the Kate Steinle case, the judge dismissed the claim
against San Francisco over the "sanctuary citf' policy.
Again, on April 25t\ 2017, a federal district court granted an injunction,
forbidding the government from taking action to implement or enforce
Trump's Executive Order attempting to defund sanctuary cities until further
notice.
For further information or if you have any questions, please contact us at
lrimawil@gmail.com or kiranfionagaind@gmail.com or you can reach out
directly to PeoplePower at info@peoplepower.org. For information about
the progress of PeoplePower efforts in other Santa Clara County Cities,
please contact Liza Turchinsky at liza@turchinsky.com.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Your Palo Alto Constituents
When car ownership fades, this parking garage will be ready for its n... http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-car-future-real-estate-201704 ...
I of4
. ~ru-> ;L-c}u}~ }-? )
When car ownership fades, this parking garage will be ready Y
for its next life
If fewer people were lo own and drive their own cars, parking lots and garages cou:d be converted to other uses Architecture finn Gensler llluatraled how a parking
structure might be tumed Into ollices. (Gensler)
By Roger Vincent
.APRIL 19, 2017, 3:00 ~
CO. ~CIL ~EEQNG £/¢2=/I/
[ ] Placed Before Meeting
{ ~eived at Meeting
0 ne of the country's biggest apartment developers is working on plans for a grand residential complex in downtown Los
Angeles that includes what appears to be an ordinary garage.
There will be row upon row oflined stalls at street level and two floors underground to store nearly i,ooo cars of tenants and
visitors to the trendy Arts District, where parking is relentlessly hard to find.
But when it's completed in about four years, the ample garage will be one of the first of its kind in Los Angeles: It's designed to
eventually serve other uses.
AvalonBay Communities Inc. has planned the garage for a time when ride-sharing services such as Uber and self-driving taxis whittle
down car ownership until parking places become expendable.
That might mean its level rather than inclined floors common to many garages could someday be converted into shops, a gym and a
theater.
~our world is going to change radically and we are going to be alive to see it. It's not a generation away, it's 10 years away," said Los
Angeles architect Andy Cohen, who is not involved with the project but has created a presentation he gives to clients about the
architectural implications of the transportation revolution.
4/17/2017 4:14 PM
When car ownership fades, this parking garage will be ready for its n... http://www.latimes.com/business/Ja-fi-car-future-real-estate-201704 ...
2of4
.
Avalon Bay is not the only real estate developer that has bought into the idea. Rick Caruso, the owner of the Grove and other upscale
shopping centers, is working with Google to prepare for the arrival of self-driving cars and is looking forward to eventually swapping
mall parking spaces for apartments, restaurants and stores.
The strategy reflects a consensus among some developers and planners that California's vaunted car culture is inevitably going to run
out of gas -as inconceivable as that might be for many adults who have spent decades controlling their own destiny behind the wheel.
Cohen, co-chief executive of architecture firm Gensler, predicts car ownership will peak around 2020 and then start to decline, with
more Americans relying on some form of ride-sharing than their own vehicles by 2025,
That means cars gradually would disappear from home garages, curbs and parking structures, freeing up acre upon acre of real estate
for new uses.
~one of the great changes in the next 20 years is going to be redevelopment of parking garages," said Christopher Leinberger, chairman
of the Center for Real estate & Urban Analysis at George Washington University.
There is a lot to work with: About 500 million parking spaces serve this nation of nearly 326 million people, according to Gensler.
Parking infrastructure covers an estimated 31590 square miles, an area larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined.
The public is already fascinated with the race to perfect self-driving cars, which would free up garage space even if most Americans were
to own one of the new high-tech vehicles.
A car could drop off a couple at the front door of their apartment building and then disappear into a garage untrammeled by wandering
humans where vehicles delicately park themselves inches apart. The total amount of garage space needed to maneuver and park a car
would be more than cut in half, Leinberger said
But he expects self-driving cars to become commodities, not possessions. People will summon them only when they need them, so the
rate of car ownership should drop drastically, he predicts.
~cars will be wandering the city 24-7, so you don't need to own one," Leinberger said. ~You just rent it as you need it."
How cities would look and function if far fewer people owned cars is impossible to say, however, so the best real estate developers can
do now is start hedging their bets.
Residential landlord Avalon Bay has been expanding the number of electric-car charging stations in apartment complexes it is building
in West Hollywood and Hollywood and making prominent drop-off points for ride sharing.
But it has far more dramatic car-related ideas for the 475-unit apartment complex it is planning for downtown L.A.
The Virginia-based company, which operates nearly 84,000 apartments in 10 states, is beginning to plan for a future with fewer -and
autonomous -cars.
"We're just starting to do this as a company on a nationwide level," said Mark Janda, senior vice president of development.
Preliminary concepts for the Arts District project set to start construction in 2019 presume that demand for parking will fall in years
ahead.
Garage floors are typically slanted to eliminate the need for ramps, but Avalon Bay will make these floors flat so that they can more
easily be repurposed when parking demand dips.
Janda envisions portions of the two levels of underground parking being converted to a gym, a theater and perhaps other recreational
uses when cars can park themselves two or three deep in tighter spaces.
The first floor could be reconfigured to plug in more shops and restaurants and enable smooth and constant pick-ups and drop-offs.
"We are designing it so in the future, if demand for parking decreases dramatically, we have the flexibility to go back to the city and ask
4117/2017 4:14 PM
When car ownership fades, this parking garage will be ready for its n... http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-car-future-real-estate-201704 ... ..
3of4
for additional entitlements to change uses from parking to whatever," Janda said.
Cohen, the L.A architect, advised that garages on the drawing board also have higher-than-normal ceilings -up to 13 feet -to
accommodate future uses such as offices. He also would place elevators and stairs in the middle the way they are in offices. And he
would put what he calls knock-out panels in the ceiling and floors to create future light wells.
The exterior design cannot be an afterthought too, he said. If the garage is above ground with offices above, it has to look like the rest of
the building so windows can be added after the conversion.
But don't expect that developers today will start constructing projects without a garage, Janda said.
"People in California still rely on their cars and expect to be able to park them," he said.
For that matter, despite what some believe is the inevitability of a transportation revolution, many builders are reluctant to pay for
flexibility until changes in driving habits are more pronounced, said Los Angeles real estate attorney Justin Thompson of Nixon
Peabody.
A lot of developers may think, "Well, that's going to be on the back burner for a while," Thompson said, "but the progressive developers
are going to factor this in."
Shopping center magnate Caruso counts himself among the more progressive. He said he is committed to spending millions of dollars
preparing for autonomous cars, and he's already working with a division of Google called Intersection to improve the arrival and
departure experience at his high-end developments.
Intersection is developing technology that integrates beams, sensors, license-plate recognition and phone apps that can radically
improve the experience, he said.
When the concierge knows you are about to arrive, he might mix a cup of coffee the way you like it to hand to you as you alight. The
goal, Caruso said, is to make coming and going to the shopping center as frictionless as possible.
He's already experienced the changes wrought by Silicon Valley.
The Grove, in L.A 's Fairfax district, is one of the city's busiest Uber destinations, Caruso said, with thousands of people arriving and
departing every day at the mall's designated ride-sharing point.
This popularity of ride sharing has convinced him that more big changes in driving habits are coming as autonomous cars gain a share
of the auto market.
He expects that between ride sharing and autonomous cars he might have to start converting his parking garages to other uses as soon
as 2025 or 2030.
Surface parking lots at his suburban malls such as the Promenade at Westlake and the Commons at CaJabasas could turn from asphalt
into verdant mixed-use complexes with apartments, offices and more stores and restaurants.
The big garages at the Grove and Americana at Brand in Glendale could see the addition of grocery stores and other retail outlets on the
ground floors.
"As you go above that, it gets more complicated," he acknowledged. The towering garages "may become obsolete and have to come
down and be replaced."
While the prospect of dramatic changes in the way people get around stirs the blood of developers like Caruso, the anticipated
years-long transition period to widespread autonomous vehicle use holds some dread for the general manager of the Los Angeles
Department of Transportation, Seleta Reynolds.
"I think it's going be very chaotic, tt she said.
4117/2017 4:14 PM
When car ownership fades, this parking garage will be ready for its n... http://www.latimes.com/business/la-ti-car-future-real-estate-201704 ... ,,. ..
4of4
'' This isn't a fleeting moment, some interesting blip that will
come and go. This will change traffic in L.A. in a very
positive way.
-Rick Caruso, owner or the Grove
Falling parking fees and fines could take a big bite out of public budgets and landlords' income, Reynolds said. And the time period
when "a vehicle drives itself until a human intervenes is probably going to be the worst, but that is a place we are going to have to
muddle through."
Other challenges and technical improvements loom to be worked out, Reynolds said. If cars know where they are going, do streets still
need curbs? Perhaps some streets could be electronically "closed" after rush hour and used fo:r recreation.
"We should be focusing on strong neighborhoods and social cohesion," Reynolds said. "That's the promise of autonomy if we're really
able to get it right."
Caruso dismisses skeptics who say Angelenos will never quit driving their own vehicles -and that ride sharing and autonomous cars
are just a passing fancy.
"This isn't a fleeting moment, some interesting blip that will come and go," he said. "This will change traffic in L.A in a very positive
way.w
rogcr.\•inccnt@latimcs.com
Twitter: @lrogcrvinccnt
ALSO
Apple rccch•cs permit to test self-driving curs in California
Doing auto repairs at an HOA parking lot? Herc's u crash course in the ,;otntions
Robert\\'. Taylor, 'isionnry figure in the birth of personal computing and the Internet, dies at 85
Copyright O 2017. Los Angeles Times
4/17/20174:14 PM