HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170619plCC 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: 6/19/2017
Document dates: 5/31/2017 – 6/7/2017
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2017 11:27 AM
1
From:Svendsen, Janice
Sent:Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:21 AM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Sartor, Mike; Eggleston, Brad; Boyd, Holly; Bobel, Phil; Ward,
Marites; Abendschein, Jonathan; Hospitalier, Jon; Watson, Ron; Gitelman, Hillary;
Svendsen, Janice
Subject:6/5 Council Questions for Agenda Items: 4,6,7,8,9,10,14,15
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries by Council
Members Tanaka and DuBois regarding the June 5, 2017 council agenda items listed below:
4: O’Grady Paving – CM Tanaka
6: Cypress Security – CM Tanaka
7: Palo Alto Housing Corporation – CM Tanaka
8: Gas Utility Long Term Plan‐– CM Tanaka
9: Rinconada Pool Re‐roofing – CM Tanaka
10: ITT Antenna Field – CM DuBois
14: Nor. Cal. Power Agency – CM Tanaka
15: Zero Waste Office Renovation – CM Tanaka
Item 4: O’Grady Paving
Q.1. What will the impact be on the other programs where the money for this project is being
taken out of?
A.1. The additional funding is coming from several CIPs as outlined in the staff report. The
additional funding used for this contract will reduce the amount of available funding for
future work done under these recurring CIPs. For example, the additional funding from the
Street Maintenance CIP could mean that a few street blocks would be deferred under a
future project, and the additional funding from the other recurring CIP projects is intended
for the type of work for which it is being used. The additional funding provided from the
Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Fund and the Planning and Transportation Contingency
to support the Traffic Signal and Intelligent Traffic Systems CIP was not allocated to specific
projects and therefore will not have direct impacts.
Q.2. Why was the city only able to find one bidder for the job? Could we potentially find a
bidder that does not charge as much?
A.2. This project was advertised within the normal timeframe (4 weeks) and was sent out
to over 550 contractors and builder’s exchanges. Due to the timing for this project and the
need to complete some of the intersection work at Embarcadero Road and Middlefield
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2017 11:27 AM
2
Road during the school summer break, staff believes the prices were expensive because
contractors are busy. Staff has noticed that prices (in particular concrete prices) have gone
up this year due to contractors’ work demand. It is possible to rebid this project and do the
work in winter and spring, however, the impact of the work at the
Embarcadero/Middlefield intersection will be significant to Walter Hays School and it
unknown whether prices would be lower in the end. Staff does not recommend this
approach.
Q.3. What happens if the additional budget needed for this project exceeds the allotted
$352,148? Have paving projects in the past exceeded their budgets?
A.3.Staff is unaware of any paving project has exceeded the contingency approved for the
project. In the event that the contingency was insufficient, staff would need to return to
Council for an additional authorization before proceeding with the additional
work. Typically contingency is returned to the CIP to use in future construction contracts,
or returned to the Capital Fund in the case of one‐time projects.
Item 6: Cypress Security contract
Q.1. Below it says that the total fiscal year costs of 2017 were $1.7 million, even though the
amount of the contract was less than half of that.
This newly proposed extension is only in the amount of $1.24 million. Did Cypress’s rate go
down ($1.24 million is over 25% less than $1.7 million.), or are we expecting to pay much
more than the agreement again ($1.7 million 2.5x 780 thousand)? Does this new deal reflect
Cypress’s mishaps in 2016? In 2016, one of the rail guards was arrested for ‘lewd conduct’
(http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/03/14/palo‐alto‐lewd‐conduct‐charge‐filed‐against‐
track‐watch‐guard/). Also in 2016, the poor performance of track guards was documented
numerous times by NBC Bay Area. (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Changes‐for‐
Palo‐Alto‐Track‐Watch‐Program‐383195181.html).
These incidents would be concerning for any community, especially the one employing
them. Did Palo Alto not look for other security agencies after these shortcomings? The
greatest appeal of Cypress was that they could prove security for 24/7, but surely they do not
have a monopoly on never‐ending security.
To summarize, the deal itself is confusing, as its rate increases but does not increase to the
amount Palo Alto paid over the past year. Additionally, why Palo Alton continues to employ
Cypress after their shortcomings is confusing, unless there just aren’t that many viable
security firms in the area?
A.1. Track Watch wasn’t fully funded for current staffing levels at the outset of the current
year (FY 2017) back in July of 2016. With increased staffing to include more hours and
locations as well as rovers to cover breaks and supervise, the amendment in December
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2017 11:27 AM
3
2016 was approved to fully fund the remainder of the year increasing the total yearly cost
to around 1.7 to 1.8 Million at current guard staffing.
The 1.24 Million requested for next year FY 2018 is a reduction from the 1.7 Million based
on a transition from human monitors at some locations and hours as the camera project
comes on board later in the Fiscal Year. The per person or per hour cost of the coverage
hasn’t changed much, just the coverage itself.
The current company was selected after a bid process was initiated after numerous
problems with the prior company. The first company had some significant problems with
the behavior and performance of their guards. The second company also had some initial
difficulties with their guards that were ultimately resolved through increased staffing and
the firing of at least one guard.
Various aspects of the work have made it a challenge for guard services. The lack of shelters
and bathrooms have led to guard absences as well as a high turnover rate (75% in some
cases). For the past year or so, conditions and performance have improved. They now have
bathrooms on site. They have shelters that provide some protection from the elements.
They also have roving supervisors who provide breaks and supervision to avoid unstaffed
locations and undesirable behavior. The current company is performing at an acceptable
level. During the prior bid process at least one other company bid for the work with even a
higher cost than the past two. Given the human elements of this type of work covering all
hours of the day and night there’s no reason to think paying even more at this point will
get us a better outcome.
Item 7: Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Q. 1. Why are we agreeing to a new contract as opposed to a contract extension? Has
something changed since the last contract?
A. 1. Consistent with the City’s procurement procedures, the City issued an RFP for these
services before the existing contract was scheduled to expire. Re‐bidding a contract is
intended to ensure the best possible services at the best possible price. While this
competitive bid process ended with selection of the same contractor, a new bid process
always results in a new contract.
Item 8: Gas Utility Long Term Plan ‐GULP
Q. 1. How long will we have to wait for a contract with MuniGas? Is it worthwhile to wait for
the contract with them?
A. 1. The City will need to wait until enough customers sign up to participate in a MuniGas
procurement, then MuniGas will issue a new solicitation. It is uncertain when that will
occur. However, waiting involves virtually no cost to the City, and has the potential to save
roughly $1M per year for gas customers, so staff believes it is worthwhile. Authorization
to enter these contracts was delegated to staff in 2014 (Staff Report 5006).
Q. 2. Why are we terminating the Palo Alto Green Gas Program?
A. 2. The voluntary Palo Alto Green Gas Program has been replaced with the Carbon Neutral
Gas Portfolio program adopted in October of last year (Staff Report 7284). The former was
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2017 11:27 AM
4
a voluntary carbon offset program covering only those gas customers who sign up, while
the latter is a program covering 100% of Palo Alto gas customers.
Item 9: Rinconada Pool Re‐roofing
Q. 1. What accounts for the large difference between Alcal’s bid and the other bids? Why is
Alcal able to offer a much cheaper price? Does that sacrifice any additional benefits or
services the other contractors could have provided?
A. 1. City Staff noted the large difference in Alcal’s bid with the other bidders. Alcal called
the next day after submitting their bid to rescind their bid. A few weeks later, they decided
to honor their bid. City Staff still had concerns about the low bid so they had a meeting
with Alcal to make sure required services would not be comprised as a result of their low
bid. They confirmed their bid was accurate and that they would honor it. City Staff did not
find any reason to deem them an unresponsive or unresponsible bidder.
Q. 2. What was the process of evaluating the bids? Did other standards/metrics play a role
other than price?
A. 2. The public bid process is more restrictive than a private bid process. The public bid
process is more formal and constrained by detailed government‐imposed rules and
regulations. The Invitation for Bid (IFB) process is price determinative and based on the
low bid. The contract has to be awarded based on the lowest bid to the responsive and
responsible bidder. A bid summary table is listed in the staff report.
Q.3. Similarly, was there any lens for sustainability or MWBE (minority and women owned
enterprises)? While there are certainly numerous references to environmental standards,
reviews, and requirements, was innovative sustainability one of the metrics for selecting the
bid?
A.3. Sustainability is already required through California Title 24 standards. See details on
this requirement in the answer to the next question below. Currently, there are no MWBE
requirements in the Invitation for Bid process. However, the bids are open to all qualified
contractors. The City uses a web‐based eProcurement company called PlanetBids.
Q.4. While there were a few references to LEED certification, it was not clear if the overall
project would be deemed LEED certified.
A.4. LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is a green building rating
system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). It is a green building
certification program. Buildings can qualify for four levels of certification. Individual
building elements such as roof types cannot achieve LEED certification but can help obtain
points toward building LEED certification. USGBC does not certify, award credits, endorse
or promote products, nor services related to products. LEED encompasses various rating
systems for the design, construction, and operation of the entire building. LEED
certification is not inexpensive and requires registration and certifications fees.
California’s Title 24 (The California Energy Commission’s Building Energy Efficiency
Standard), Part 6 was established to reduce California’s energy consumption. It includes a
cool roof prescription/requirement to help create energy efficient buildings. It is not only
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2017 11:27 AM
5
a requirement in California but a requirement by the local building code. The roof type
chosen for Rinconada Pool re‐roof meets CA Title 24 requirements.
Q.5. Obviously this would be more of a financial burden on the city (which it likely cannot
take on right now), but in the future, it would be interesting to look into innovative green
roof technologies (LEED certification, living habitat/vegetated roofs, etc.)
A.5. Green roofs can offer several building and environmental benefits but there are also
disadvantages.
1. The cost of installing a green roof is more than double the cost of a normal roof
(just for the roof alone).
2. It is typically not feasible to retrofit green roofs onto existing buildings because
existing buildings cannot support the weight of green roofs, existing roof type
equipment would have to moved, etc.
3. Existing buildings do not typically have exterior access for landscaping
personnel.
4. Green roofs require significantly more facilities and landscaping maintenance,
maintenance energy, and maintenance costs compared to a normal roof.
5. Although most green roofs include a root barrier layer, the roots can penetrate
the waterproof membrane of the roof, causing roof leaks that can cause
structural damage to a building. Roof leaks are more difficult to locate on a
green roof and roof repair requires portions of the green roof to be removed
during repair.
6. Eventual roof replacement of a green roof also requires the entire green roof
(soil, irrigation, plantings, and green roof infrastructure, etc) to be removed and
reinstalled just to replace the actual building roof.
7. Green roofs can contribute to rodent issues inside the building. Rodents are
attracted to the landscaping because it is a source of water and some rodents
create a habitat in the soil.
8. Green roofs are not common and it is difficult finding landscaping contractors
who are trained and certified to work on roof tops.
9. Getting landscaping equipment such as mowers and dethatching equipment is
also difficult.
10. Landscaping irrigation breaks are also more difficult to detect and locate
because green roofs typically use sub‐surface irrigation and not overhead
spray.
Q.6. Under section 01 74 00 of Attachment B, titled “Water, Light, and Power,” the contract
states, “all utilities shall be available to the Contractor for construction purposes at no
charge.” Again, this is a bit more idealistic and likely for future contracts, but it may be
interesting to pursue a route where the contractors are forced to internalize the externality
of resource usages (power, water, etc.) in order to reduce usage and increase efficiency. (Or
maybe set up a different system where they are rewarded a small bonus for staying under a
certain level of water/energy use. Likewise, the City could try a “cap” method, where the
contractor has access to certain levels of water/energy use and then must pay themselves if
they exceed those levels).
A.6. For roofing jobs, utility usage by a contractor is minimal. Most of their operations is
manual labor. Of the utilities mentioned, electricity would be the main utility. It’s use by
the contractor would be minimal. It would be very expensive for the contractor to set up
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2017 11:27 AM
6
temporary electrical power and the cost would be passed on to the City with a
markup. Generator power would add to noise and air pollution. It may also disturb the
building occupants.
Q.7. Because the pool will remain open, the contract states that noise‐producing demolition
work shall be done during non‐business hours. Has there been any evaluation of the
predicted noise levels? While it is good to avoid business hours, I wonder how loud it will be
for neighboring families during sleep hours.
A.7. Working on occupied buildings is always a challenge. This is standard language so if
there is a problem with excessive noise (and sometimes odors), it is already defined that
the contractor may have to work after normal business hours. This avoids the contractor
charging us more for after‐hours work. Roof tear off for this roof mostly consists of scraping
the existing roofing material off by hand and typically not a loud noise activity. If after
hours work did have to be scheduled, it would have to be planned and permitted through
a noise permit with the Police Department. Work would never occur during normal
sleeping hours. Worst case, it would be only for a few hours after 5pm on a weekday or
weekend day time work would be scheduled.
Q.8. In the original drafted contract released for pre‐bids (Attachment B), its states:
“Contractor shall begin work within seven (7) calendar days after receiving the Notice to
Proceed, and shall complete all work covered by this contract within 30 calendar days from
the Notice to Proceed date.” However, under attachment A, it states: “Work hereunder shall
begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed within
forty five (45) calendar days after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to
Proceed.” What accounts for the discrepancy in contract time periods?
A.8.The construction period for this project is 45 calendar days. The 30 day calendar
reference is incorrect and will be corrected.
Q.9. Alcal is based in Sacramento, California. Was there any effort to employ locally owned
contractors?
A.9. Alcal’s corporate headquarters is located in Sacramento, California. They operate out
of eight states across the United States, including California. They have ten regional offices
within California. The nearest regional offices to Palo Alto are Gilroy and
Fremont. Currently, the City does not have an ordinance requiring the hire of locally owned
contractors, therefore it is not a mandate in the solicitation specification. There are no
contractors within the City of Palo Alto that can meet the roofing requirements and
specifications of the solicitation.
Item 10: ITT Antenna Field
Q.1. Will council have an opportunity to discuss preserving the historic transmitter building
at some point in the future, before anything is done to the building? Are any of the antennas
themselves considered historic? Will it be possible to provide access to the public?
A.1.Yes, Council will have an opportunity to preserve the ITT radio building before any
significant action* is taken on the building. Several members of the Historic Resources
Board have raised this point as well. The remaining poles and antenna could be evaluated
for historic designation as well. The building has a number of physical hazards inside.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2017 11:27 AM
7
However, Staff is considering a special, carefully controlled “open house” weekend for the
public. (* limited action has been and will be taken to make the exterior safe and prevent
further vandalism and further water damage.) Long term we will need to assess what it
will take to repair the building to make it accessible for the public.
Item 14: Nor. Cal. Power Agency
Q.1.Intuitively, this program does appear to streamline efforts and thus reduce costs.
However, has there been any cost benefit analysis that looks into exactly how much this will
save the City?
A.1. The NCPA support services program agreement provides a contracting option similar
to other multi‐agency cooperative purchasing agreements such as the National Association
of State Contracting Officials (NASPO)
http://www.dgs.ca.gov/pd/Programs/Leveraged/NASPO.aspx. Staff will review cost vs.
benefit at the time specific services are needed. The decision to use NCPA will be based on
the time and expense involved with conducting an independent procurement compared
against the availability of suitable services and contract cost through NCPA.
Q.2. What has been the need/desire for these additional services outlined in the SSPA?
A.2. As of now staff is looking into bringing a vendor onboard for a refrigerator recycling
program. In the future, the services available through NCPA will vary based on member
agency interest. We anticipate there may be a few instances over the upcoming year that
the SSPA is advantageous to the City. This would grow if we identify additional services
through which NCPA’s SSPA would be advantageous and are successful in convincing NCPA
to procure those services.
Item 15: Zero Waste Office Renovation
Q.1.Is Zero Waste associated with the city of Palo Alto? Why does Palo Alto need to pay for
this renovation?
A.1. The Zero Waste group is part of the Public Works Department’s Environmental Services
Division, located at the Municipal Service Center (MSC) Building C. The Zero Waste office
renovation is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Project PF‐16006, Municipal Service
Center Lighting, Mechanical, and Electrical Improvements.
Q.2. Why did the staff recommend the lump sum base bid of $248,800 submitted by Tochi
be accepted over the other bidders?
A.2. There were three bids for the project. Tochi was the lowest responsive bidder. The
bids received were from:
Joseph Cumiskey Construction Corporation – Bid $572,100
E.R. Brother’s Company – Bid $257,800
Tochi – Bid $248,800
Q.3. What is the probability that the added $24,880 for related additional unforeseen work
actually be needed?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2017 11:27 AM
8
A.3. It is typical for construction projects to budget 10% construction contingency for
unanticipated construction issues that require change orders to the contract. Contractors
are required to formally submit a change order request and receive approval for the change
to the contract prior to performing any additional work. We are unable to estimate how
much of the contingency would be used on this project.
Q. 4. In the environmental review section it refers to the project as a minor alteration, how
is the project a minor alteration and if it is only a minor alteration then why does it cost
$248,800?
A.4. The renovation project is primarily interior and does not change the existing facility’s
impact regarding environmental issues. The designation of the work as minor involves its
potential environmental impacts, not its cost.
Q.5.If the project does not get finished in 120 days will this contract need to be amended and
will the city have to pay more money?
A. 5. The contract requires the contractor to complete the work within 120 days, and there
is potential to charge the contractor liquidated damages of $500 per day if the work is not
substantially completed in this timeframe. In some instances, additional work identified
during the project results in a change order that adds cost to the contract. If that extra
work increases the time beyond the 120 days, the City could be responsible to cover the
contractor’s administrative costs during the additional time as part of the change
order. This is an unusual circumstance, but would be covered through the project’s
construction contingency.
Q.6. Is Tochi a good business for this work?
A.6. Yes, Tochi has the construction experience required for the project. The bid form
includes a Bidder’s Questionnaire which lists relevant completed projects within the last
three years and years of construction experience.
Q.7. Has Tochis license status been checked?
A.7. Yes, the bids require the prime contractor to possess a valid State of California
Contractor’s License, Class B/General Building Contractor. Tochi’s Contractor License
number is #688424. They are also registered with the California Department of Industrial
Relations.
Q.8.Why were all the bids over the engineer's estimate? Is the city of Palo Alto paying too
much for this renovation?
A.8. The staff report incorrectly included an out of date estimate of $200,000 from earlier
in the design process. The correct engineer’s estimate at the time of bidding is
$304,000. While many recent projects have resulted in bids higher than the engineer’s
estimate, the low bid for this project was lower than the estimate.
Q.9. Compared to all of the issues facing Palo Alto how critical is this project compared to
other things? Are there other areas that need the $248,800 more?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/1/2017 11:27 AM
9
A.9. This project will consolidate Zero Waste staff who are currently dispersed in three
areas of MSC Building C for increased efficiency, while also updating the office space area,
and the fire/life safety, mechanical, and electrical systems. The work is not in competition
with other needs because the funding for the contract comes from the Refuse Fund, and
therefore cannot be used for other needs.
Thank you,
Janice Svendsen
Janice Svendsen | Executive Assistant to James Keene, City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2105 | E: janice.svendsen@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Carnahan, David
Sent:Friday, June 02, 2017 3:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: City of Palo Alto: Updated Interview Schedule
Good afternoon Council Members,
Find correspondence from Doug Hagan below.
David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA
O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Doug Hagan [mailto:doughagan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 3:10 PM
To: Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Lunt, Kimberly <Kimberly.Lunt@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: RE: City of Palo Alto: Updated Interview Schedule
Thank you David. Sorry I can’t join the interviews due to my travel schedule. Please feel free to pass on to the Council
that I have enjoyed serving on the Library Advisory Commission and would be happy to continue. Working with Council,
Monique and the Staff, the Commission has had a wonderful opportunity to support the many users and friends of our
Libraries through Library openings and renovations. It’s been rewarding to be a part of the growth in our facilities,
resources and programs in the last few years and I would be excited to continue to serve Palo Alto and take on the
opportunities and challenges some of which I mentioned in my application.
Best regards,
Doug
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:37 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Coale <david@evcl.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 03, 2017 1:21 PM
To:Filseth, Eric (external); Council, City
Cc:Hodge, Bruce; 'Bret Andersen'; 'Sandra Slater'; 'Elaine Uang'
Subject:Re: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
Hi Eric,
Thanks for your response. If we all agree that adding parking is generally undesirable, as it encourages more
people to drive, then we should put in place the less expensive measures first that will actually reduce the need for parking and see how they work before building parking garages. This would be the more fiscally prudent approach and the more sustainable approach, but this was not done. Instead the most expensive "solution" was
chosen while the TMA and bike/ped projects (along with charging for parking), the real solutions, were then left
without funding. That is why I think perhaps the council has lost it's way and needs to refocus on the real
solutions that will actually reduce car use, parking and GHG emissions at a lower cost. Thanks,
David
PS I have been working downtown since February installing solar PV at the All Saints church. I need a car because of all the tools I need, so I have been playing the Palo Alto parking game and have never not found a
place to park, so not sure why the urgent need to spend millions for a parking garage.
On May 31, 2017, at 11:13 AM, Eric Filseth wrote:
David,
Thanks for this. Couple comments.
Although we probably all agree that adding parking is generally undesirable, there’s probably not
universal consensus on exactly how many new parking spaces the city ought to build or not build, in
order to handle a portion of the existing cars likely to be displaced from neighborhoods by RPPPs. Some
people will argue for zero, others for 1,400 (the number of permits sold), and many in between. But
that said:
1. The Finance Committee recommended increasing the full‐price cost of commuter parking
permits (both garage and RPPP) by about 50% over Staff’s recommendation; and using the
difference to fund the $500K the TMA is requesting this year. In addition to supporting TMA,
this will also help encourage people to find other means of transportation than solo vehicles. I
hope you folks will consider supporting this increase when the budget comes to the full council
at the end of the month.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:37 AM
2
2. I had not heard the pound‐for‐pound metric. My working emissions number is 75lbs of CO2 per
square foot of concrete/steel centric construction; I got that from a local sustainable‐
development architect Gil referred me to. So multiply that by the area of the garage for the
GHG impact of actually building it, not including emissions from transporting the materials. If
you’ve got other or more comprehensive numbers, I’d love to hear them.
Thanks, Eric
From: David Coale [mailto:david@evcl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 10:52 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Bruce Hodge; Bret Andersen; Sandra Slater; Elaine Uang
Subject: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
Dear Council,
I am resending this letter to you as the original meeting on the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan in April was re-scheduled to this next Monday and you might have over looked this with all
the other letters concerning the ADU issues that took up all the time at that earlier meeting.
Thanks,
David Coale
Carbon Free Palo Alto
------------
Dear city council,
Happy Earth Day! Here we are once again getting an update on our sustainability plan. While
Palo Alto has made a lot of progress and maybe ahead of many other cities, we think the Council
has lost its way and focus on this, the most important issue of our time – Climate Change.
Here are some recent examples: The greatest reduction in GHG has been the switch to a carbon neutral electricity supply. This is a great achievement and was driven by Carbon Free Palo Alto,
a concerned group of citizens trying to do the best we can to address climate change. As a
follow on to this, the fuel switching effort, was started by a colleagues’ memo written and
proposed by CFPA wanting to see the next steps to address climate change come about in a
timely fashion. The next big reduction is the “green gas” program where Palo Alto buys RECs for our natural gas use. Again largely driven by a concerned group of citizens worried that Palo
Alto is not moving fast enough to really address climate change. The city has been very
supportive of these programs and now calls them their own. Great, Palo Alto is moving forward;
but not because this was council driven, they were followers.
What is council doing? Recently you approved a 339-space parking garage for 23 million. This parking garage will make it easier for people to drive instead of using other means to get
downtown. For each pound of cement produced, a pound of CO2 is generated and for each
pound of steel produced there are four pounds of CO2 produced. So just the building of the
garage will produce a lot of GHG. But the greater GHG emissions will come from the induced
car trips, most of them in SOV that this garage will generate. All of this is in direct conflict with the goals stated in the Sustainability Implementation Plan under the Mobility section – a section
that is addressing the largest piece of the GHG pie for Palo Alto (66%).
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:37 AM
3
In other actions, or non-actions, the council has put on hold indefinitely a bike share program
that would have cost 1 million and has not adequately funded the TMA program to address
parking, congestion and GHG emissions. These are the types of programs along with more housing that can really make a difference. This is a sign of a council that has lost its way to
addressing the most important issue of our time – climate change.
Sustainability must be addressed every day with every action, not revisited once or a few times a
year. This daily vigilance will payback with solutions to most all other issues. We would like to
see the council reprioritize sustainability so that we are not building parking garages that will induce more SOV and traffic and instead spend that money on real lasting solutions that carry us
in a more sustainable way, in to the future we all want.
For instance, if the TMA effort were fully funded at the required level, the parking garage would
not be needed and could then be turned into affordable housing. Now this is really moving us in
the right directions on many fronts and would be probably more profitable in the long run. In these changing times, with the increased use of ridesharing services, it is conceivable that the
parking garage will be obsolete in 10 years or less.
We were very hopeful that the new sustainability office would be able to help keep the council
on track with these kinds of daily decisions, weighing in on these important issues to help guide
the council to a more sustainable future, but this has only happened in a few cases and it has been left up to concerned citizens to address these issues when they have the time and energy to do
so. Again, to us, this is a sign of a council that has lost its way and has not prioritized the most
important issues facing Palo Alto.
Why is this so important? Climate change is a zero sum game (not really a game!) While Palo
Alto may be doing better than our neighbors, we are still far behind what is required to address climate change. Palo Alto is a leader in this area and we have the means to really set the goals
where they should be and to show the way forward on this. Addressing the solutions to climate
change and sustainability in general will pay off in the long run, in almost all areas, and that is
the game we all need to win.
So this is our request to council and staff: reprioritize your efforts and make sure you view every decision through the lens of sustainability and GHG reductions. Seek the assistance of the office
of sustainability in this goal, and never miss a chance to move the needle in the right
direction. This will serve you and all Palo Altons very well, now and into the future. And
remember, as cliché as it is, Earth Day is everyday!
Carbon Free Palo Alto Bruce Hodge
David Coale
Bret Anderson
Sandra Slater
Elaine Uang
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:37 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bruce Hodge <hodge@tenaya.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 04, 2017 7:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Carbon-Free Palo Alto (CFPA) comments to Council about the S/CAP and SIP
Attachments:CFPA Comments to Council on the SCAP SIP May 2017.docx
Please find our comments on the S/CAP ‐ SIP staff report in this enclosed document.
Thanks,
Bruce Hodge
Carbon Free Palo Alto
Carbon Free Palo Alto - May 2017 1
Re: Carbon-Free Palo Alto (CFPA) comments to Council about the S/CAP and SIP.
Related Documents
• SCAP SIP 7305-1 Staff Report, 4-17-17
• Earth Day – S/CAP and SIP feedback to council, 4-16-17
• CFPA Comments to Council about the S/CAP plan, sent 11-26-17
Executive Summary The latest Staff Report on the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP), Sustainability
Implementation Plan (SIP) prompts us to again urge City Council to push for more effective
planning and substantive results from this effort. We do believe that the S/CAP effort to date has
helped increase the common understanding of the scope of the climate challenge and what might be done in Palo Alto. However, we find this first available implementation plan to be too wide ranging, complex and lacking the detail needed to be of much use. The vagueness of this SIP 3
years into the S/CAP process leaves the impression that we will just continue a more or less
“business as usual” approach to climate action in the city. This is not to say that nothing has
being done to address climate change in our community. But the significant steps that have been taken in the last five years are in large part due to pressure from citizen activist groups working outside the S/CAP process (for example, the switch to carbon neutral electricity, the fuel
switching analysis, Palo Alto green gas). We think that these efforts were successful mainly
because they were low hanging fruit (easy to do, relatively inexpensive).
This letter adds clarity to the recommendations, analysis and commentary of our last two letters to Council on this topic (November 2016 letter and on Earth Day 2017). The intent is to
strengthen our request for a more robust and analytic planning approach and for more immediate
and measurable results to improve our chances of reaching our GHG reduction goals together as
a community. Recommendations
1. The SIP should reflect the normal, rigorous city planning approach.
It should clearly indicate the priorities along with budgets, timelines, actions, performance
measures and review points. The proposed SIP only provides a long and wide ranging list of New/Key Actions (we counted 82) in various stages of conception with no plan details. The sheer number of programs seems impossible to manage and the lack of prioritization makes it
difficult for the community to constructively collaborate with the City on solutions.
2. The top programs should include review by experts from the community and beyond. Palo Alto has a deep bench of active and knowledgeable resident experts in transportation,
energy, financing and other relevant domains. Engaging them, for example in the
transportation and building electrification areas, during program development and rollout
would widen perspectives and increase the likelihood of program success and ensure plans
are more attuned to the priorities and ambitions of the community.
3. The SIP should focus on the top emissions sources, transportation and buildings, where
the City is the key to enabling solutions.
More than 90% of community emissions come from fossil fuel use in road transport and
buildings. So, we must wholeheartedly commit to the few scalable solutions where we
Carbon Free Palo Alto - May 2017 2
depend on the City to take action that has the broadest impact across the community. With this in mind CFPA thinks the following areas, selected from the proposed SIP, stand out as
priorities for City and community action.
CFPA Priorities for the SIP
Transportation
Promote electric vehicles (EVs) by utilizing all City communication channels to convey the benefits. Palo Alto’s zero carbon electricity provides a near zero carbon
footprint for EVs.
Enable EV charging infrastructure at home and at work.
Fund Transportation Management Association efforts to spur collaboration among large and small employers to find alternative modes of transportation (including telecommuting) and to fund programs from parking fees.
Awareness campaign about our air-travel footprint, which can double or even
triple the entire household carbon footprint for many frequent fliers living in Palo
Alto.
Buildings
Beneficial electrification with heat pump water heaters as a first step for existing
buildings. CPAU must develop easy to buy and finance electrification measures like
this if we are to see widespread replacement of gas fueled systems in the next few
years.
Collaborate with State officials to identify barriers at the State policy level that
hinder beneficial electrification efforts.
For new buildings and remodels meeting certain criteria, find policy pathways to
require electric water and space heating. Efficient and cost effective solutions are
available today to make new building carbon neutral.
In summary, CFPA finds the lack of substantial progress on our toughest climate challenge -
local fossil fuel use, to be extremely worrying in the face of the worsening climate outlook. It is
frustrating for our active and engaged community to watch the chances of reaching our agreed
80/30 goal diminish over time.
We believe focusing City efforts now on improving the SIP process going forward and starting
implementation on the most important programs will enable all Palo Alto residents to do their
part to help us reach our community climate action goals.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:38 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Coale <david@evcl.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 04, 2017 8:49 PM
To:Friend, Gil
Cc:Council, City
Subject:FYI Comments for tomorrow's council meeting
My name is David Coale, and I am with Carbon Free Palo Alto. First off I would like to thank the Mayor for his
Mayor’s message last Thursday, reaffirming Palo Alto commitment to addressing climate change and
intensifying our efforts in this area. I think that is exactly what we need to do. I think one of the ways Palo
Alto can do this, is to better engage the office of sustainability in our major decisions. I will use the decision to
build the parking garages as an example.
Even though there was a study done to determine whether the garages were needed, the office of sustainability
should have been asked to comment on this. The answer might have gone something like this: "While the
study suggests we might need to provide more parking, before we do that we should look at more sustainable
solutions to building garages that will encourage more people to drive. For the same amount of money, Palo Alto could fully fund the TMA effort and all the bike and pedestrian projects for at least the next 20 years. These projects would reduce traffic, parking and GHG emissions and increase the quality of life in Palo Alto.
Along with the council’s decision to have paid parking and with the increased use of ride sharing services, it
would be unwise to build garages at this time where they would likely be obsolete in just a few years. Even if
the council feels these other programs can be fully funded, perhaps the council should consider building affordable housing instead of parking garages when spending this much money. This would be a much more sustainable use of resources."
This is the type of thing I would like to see the council and the office of sustainability do in the future.
Sustainability must be addressed at every point and not just a few times a year with a large complicated
program that has yet to make any real progress in addressing climate change. The program should be simpler and address the largest emissions first from transportation and buildings. The other items can be addressed as they come before council as long as the office of sustainability is also engaged in the council process as are the
other commissions and committees.
Thank you, and I look forward to working with the council to step up Palo Alto efforts to address climate
change.
David Coale
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Scharff, Gregory (internal)
Sent:Friday, June 02, 2017 7:38 PM
To:David Coale
Cc:cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com; Council, City; Hodge, Bruce; Sandra Slater;
Altieri, Lisa; lvandusen@mac.com; John Kelley; Bret Andersen; Drekmeier, Peter; Debbie
Mytels; Jeralyn Moran
Subject:Re: Special Message from the Mayor - June 1, 2017
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 2, 2017, at 3:54 PM, David Coale <david@evcl.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Scharff,
Thank you for your quick response and reaffirmation to up hold the Paris Climate Agreement
along with a pledge to intensify our efforts in addressing climate change. This is what is really
needed now and into the future and I am glad Palo Alto has been a leader on this.
While reviewing the packet with the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan that is coming before council this Monday, it looks about the same as a year ago and there seems to be very
little real actionable steps, just more study and come back to council again with another updated
plan.
I am hoping you can be a leader for really moving this forward with real programs, and staff to make it happen.
Thanks,
Sincerely,
David Coale
with Carbon Free Palo Alto
On Jun 1, 2017, at 12:57 PM, City of Palo Alto wrote:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:34 AM
2
Mayor Scharff Vows to Uphold Paris
Agreement
President Trump this afternoon announced the United States’ withdrawal
from the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015, marking a major shift from our
international partners, and a move that would hamper our nation’s global
efforts to curb global warming. As a member of the Mayor’s National
Climate Action Agenda, I join at least 60 other mayors from across the
country to declare we will join forces to continue to support, lead and uphold the commitments to the goals of the Paris Agreement. This includes intensifying efforts to meet each of our cities’ current climate goals, for new action to meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius target, and to work together to create the 21st century clean energy economy.
Palo Alto has a strong history of leadership in climate change and sustainability and it is a value our community has supported for decades.
We have taken actions that have led to a carbon neutral electricity supply
at a lower cost than competitors, and adopted a goal to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions at a rate 20 years ahead of the state. Those are the actions
of a city that views climate change as a defining issue for the future, and
critical to our quality of life and economic vitality. To read a copy of the
Mayors National Climate Action Agenda letter, click here.
Greg Scharff
Mayor
Connect with
The City has a variety of e-news topics that may be of
interest to you. Join other e-news topics, update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or
stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your e-mail addres
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:34 AM
3
to log in. If you have questions or problems with the
subscription service, please contact subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com.
This service is provided to you at no charge by the City of Palo Alto.
This email was sent to david@evcl.com using GovDelivery, on behalf of: City of Palo Alto · 250 Hamilton Ave · Palo Alto, CA 94301 · 650-329-2100
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 3:56 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hilary Glann <hglann@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 05, 2017 3:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Feedback on Sustainability Discussion
Hello City Council Members: I am unable to attend tonight’s discussions around sustainability, but wanted to provide
my endorsement of Palo Alto’s efforts around sustainability and carbon reduction, as well as a few points to consider.
As we see Washington DC fail to step up to the fight against climate change, it is critical for our physical and emotional
survival that we are able to take coordinated action at the local level. I was able to see rather unexpected levels of
enthusiasm my neighbors showed for carbon footprint reduction as part of the Cool Block pilot program we participated
in, so I’m confident that if we give our residents tangible and common sense steps to take to reduce their carbon
emissions, many will take them.
I also want to encourage you to take the longer term time horizon into consideration when you are thinking about
making big infrastructure investments that relate to our current dominant mode of transportation – i.e. single drivers in
cars. I know the city is looking to build large garages, but it’s unclear if we will need/want those garages very long after
we have built them. Should we instead do a 6‐month pilot program to provide partially subsidized Lyft Line/Uber Pool
trips to get people to the train or to downtown? Could we work with either Fremont or Union City to identify and
subsidize a parking lot so more people could take the Dumbarton Express to work rather than being forced to drive and
park? I’m sure there are other ideas like this worth considering.
Before we invest in permanent and expensive solutions like parking garages, I’d like to encourage the City to try some
pilot programs first that might solve the traffic and parking problems using OpEx rather than CapEx .
Thanks again for your leadership and commitment to sustainability.
Hilary Glann
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 4:57 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Shelly Gordon <sgordon@g2comm.com>
Sent:Monday, June 05, 2017 4:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Attachments:sierra club c-d letter final.pdf
Dear Council Members,
On behalf of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club, we are encouraging City Council to regulate building demolition
projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
See attached document.
Sincerely,
Shelly Gordon
Executive Committee
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
Palo Alto, CA
June 5, 2017
City of Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto City Hall
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
To: Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, Council Member Dubois, Council Member
Filseth, Council Member Fine, Council Member Holman, Council Member Kou,
Council Member Tenaka, Council Member Wolbach
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council Members:
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter urges the Palo Alto City Council to prioritize
deconstruction (in preference to demolition) and reuse of building materials for
commercial and residential construction projects, as part of the City’s goal to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Palo Alto has a landfill diversion ordinance for waste
management of these materials. But demolition versus deconstruction is an important
aspect as it relates to carbon emissions and should be factored into the City’s 80 by 30
goal.
While employing energy efficient and climate friendly LEED building practices are an
expected part of every construction project, new residential and commercial buildings,
no matter how energy efficient or how benign the building materials, will not produce a
net carbon reduction if it is replacing a building containing salvageable materials that is
then fully demolished and the detritus hauled off to a landfill or recycling center.
It is estimated that a square foot of commercial building space, under construction,
produces 75 lbs of CO2, calculated by the weight and volume of steel and cement. This
adds up to 750 tons of CO2 for a 20,000 sq ft commercial building. In contrast, reuse
from existing homes could yield an initial savings of 35 tons of CO2 per property by
removing the need for the energy locked into new building materials and construction.
In Palo Alto - and neighboring cities such as Mountain View and Menlo Park - where
development projects are under review or in the pipeline, law makers should calculate
the carbon emission costs of demolishing and replacing existing buildings, and require
reuse of existing materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete and cement materials or
interior building materials, such as fixtures, trim, old growth wood, etc. versus using all
new materials.
As an alternative to demolition, deconstruction uses more careful dismantling and local
reuse networks to capture value from a larger percentage of materials in a building.
Whereas demolition emphasizes rapid removal of a building and only captures minimal
value through resale of some commodity materials, which has a carbon impact from
transportation, and energy consumption from machine operation used to transform
materials into commodity products, etc.
The Sierra Club believes that lawmakers should take a close look at the impact of
demolition of buildings being replaced. In Palo Alto some homes that have been
restored, remodeled, or upgraded have been wantonly demolished without adequate
consideration of reuse because some residents can afford to build from scratch and
others are unaware of alternatives. These actions negate carbon mitigation in other
arenas, such as electrification, and the remedy of same should be part of the City’s
overall carbon mitigation goal.
Sincerely,
Shelly Gordon
Executive Committee Member
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Cc: Bruce Rienzo, Chairperson, Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
James Eggers, Director, Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
Mike Ferreira, Conservation Committee Chair, Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/7/2017 7:38 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Perez, Lalo
Sent:Tuesday, June 06, 2017 8:26 PM
To:Robert Moss
Cc:Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:Re: Data Omission, ARC Contract, Agenda Item 4
Thank you Mr. Moss,
We will add a memo to identify the department.
Lalo Perez, CFO
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 6, 2017, at 8:12 PM, Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net> wrote:
There is an omission in the staff report #7703, agenda Item 4, June 12, 2017 meeting. It
is not a big issue, but it should be corrected. On P. 2, Packet p. 67 there is a table
giving the scanning contract costs expected for each department. The last row has a cost of $6,193 for scanning but the department is omitted. The department that will
have items scanned for that amount should be identified. I suspect it is the police
department that was omitted, but whichever department it is should be identified so that
Council and the community will have an idea how many documents for scanning and
preservation each department generates.
Sincerely,
Bob Moss
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/2/2017 1:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Francesco Radicati <f_radicati@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 01, 2017 12:13 PM
To:Council, City; SAhsing@m-group.us; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Please do not approve the proposed hotels on San Antonio Rd
Dear council members, Mr. Ah Sing, and architectural review board members,
I'm writing to register my opposition to the proposed hotels on San Antonio Rd. As a voter, and as a resident
of the Greenhouse complex, I am well aware of the existing traffic problems on San Antonio, which routinely
becomes jammed and impassable between 4.30 and 6.30. These hotels would only worsen the problem, both
in the short term due to construction, and in the long term as it will create more traffic and more noise.
I urge you to reject the proposal, to maintain the local businesses along the stretch of San Antonio Rd., and to
divert resources instead to alleviating the chronic traffic problems we suffer on San Antonio.
Sincerely,
Francesco Radicati
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/2/2017 1:23 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Architectural Review Board
Sent:Thursday, June 01, 2017 8:29 AM
To:Joan Beitzuri; Sheldon Ah Sing
Cc:Architectural Review Board; Council, City; City Attorney
Subject:RE: Where is the Final Published EIR???
Mrs. Beizuri,
The FEIR can be reviewed by clicking the link below.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3133
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Joan Beitzuri [mailto:joan.beitzuri@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 3:49 PM
To: Sheldon Ah Sing
Cc: Architectural Review Board; Council, City; City Attorney
Subject: Where is the Final Published EIR???
Hi Sheldon,
I'm not finding a posting online of the final EIR for Marriott's Hotel projects at 744‐750 San Antonio Road and it is getting
very late in the day.
This means it will put us at a disadvantage at tomorrow's ARB meeting as we will not have any current information that
we could present at tomorrow's meeting. Our concern is that it appears that approving this project has been already
recommended by the staff (per Hillary Gitelman ‐ ARB Staff Report ‐ ID # 8005) even before the final EIR has been
published.
We need a link to the finalized EIR. Please send ASAP.
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/2/2017 1:24 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Julienne Ho <juliennefho@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 31, 2017 5:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Affordable Housing for Teachers
City Council,
Three Social Justice Pathway Paly students did a report on Paly staff commutes in regards to the current debate on affordable housing. We are advocating for an increase in affordable housing for public workers. Our report,
complete with numerical data and graphs, is linked below:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L1k0__cGgpovqB_abj2apg8lpeHQN9KBL6uA6Iy4oTY/edit?usp=sharin
g
Thanks,
Julienne Ho, Juliette Rault-Wang, and Sarai Vasquez
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2017 12:58 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:kemp650@aol.com
Sent:Monday, June 05, 2017 8:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:CAP for Fry's Development in 2018 Budget
Dear City Council,
This is to request that you include budget money in the 2018 budget for a Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) for the Fry’s redevelopment site. We live in the Ventura neighborhood and participate in the Ventura Neighborhood Association on a
regular basis and would like to see this development take our community concerns into account. Thanks,
Susan Kemp
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 4:45 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 05, 2017 4:43 PM
To:Rius, Rafael; Mello, Joshuah
Cc:Tim Lindholm; Beth Guislin; John Suislin; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; Council, City
Subject:Coordinated efforts for Middlefield
Attachments:Middlefield Email Chain June 5, 2017.docx
Josh, Rafael:
Middlefield residents continue to support the work of the PA Transportation Dept. to make Middlefield safer
and saner for everyone. When Rafael sent a schedule update today we started to consider how to reduce the high
number of illegal turns from Hawthorne and Everett onto Middlefield.
As of today, Google Maps still directs people to turn left onto Middlefield from Everett and Hawthorne, in
violation of the new restrictions.
Tim Lindholm, (who works for Google) researched how to submit an update so drivers would not be misled
about their turn options from the side streets.
A request was submitted today but we do not know if/when action will be taken by Google.
The attached word doc has a copy of the email chain.
I am sending this to you because it again demonstrates the value of residents engaging with city staff to jointly
address problems. We (Palo Alto) need to find ways to encourage this type of cooperation to address the many complex issues we face as a city.
I am copying city leadership since they should be looking for new ways to promote this type of cooperation.
Thanks for your work on improving Middlefield safety.
John
EMAIL CHAIN FROM JUNE 5, 2017 about Middlefield Traffic changes
Rius, Rafael
A project Update: The removal of existing striping and implementation of the pilot project striping has been delayed
one week and will begin next week on Monday, July 12th. We apologize for this delay. The signage changes indicating
left turn restrictions at all times have been installed. This is to restrict left turns or through movements out of Everett
and Hawthorn.
Thank you,
Rafael
Rafael Rius, PTOE | Traffic Engineering Lead | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2305 |E: rafael.rius@cityofpaloalto.org
John Guislin
Rafael,
Thanks for the update. Do you know when the police plan to enforce the new turn restrictions?
I see long lines of cars everyday at Hawthorne and Everett violating the updated turn restrictions.
I think it would be useful to have a police presence at these intersections to make drivers aware that these new
restrictions will be mandatory. As you know, the prior restrictions were seldom enforced and drivers became
comfortable ignoring the signs without consequences. Breaking this pattern will likely be a challenge.
Even if there were just a police car visible it would be a signal to drivers that the new rules will be enforced. I think this
would be a useful step before the new striping and barriers are in place.
Thanks,
John
Tim Lindholm
I was thinking of following up on this same point, but now that John has independently broached the subject...
Saturday afternoon I was driving on Hawthorne and counted six of the six cars ahead of me illegally turned left
onto Middlefield.
Thinking that was interesting but possibly a fluke, yesterday evening between 7 and 8pm I was watering in my
front yard and in the meanwhile counted cars for a longer period. Of the 40 I observed, 32 turned left illegally.
Of the 8 that turned right, one immediately crossed over Middlefield into a resident's driveway (tail end hanging
into traffic) and eventually backed out so as to go toward Menlo Park anyhow.
One has to guess that at least some of the remaining 7 actually wanted to go right, not that all of those were in fact obeying the sign.
It's pretty clearly the case that people do not feel any need to respect the signs, despite them now being
impossible to misinterpret. Once the barriers are in place I predict a lot of consternation and trouble with people
turning around in residents' driveways.
-- Tim
Beth Guislin
Hi Tim,
I just checked and Google maps is still suggesting left turns from Hawthorne and Everett on to Middlefield.
I don't see how to submit a correction myself even when I'm signed in. Do you have a way to make the request
for a change?
Thank you, Tim.
Beth
Tim Lindholm
OK, I've suggested those changes now. There doesn't appear to be a way to monitor whether they have acted
on or rejected my changes, and they say it takes "some time" for things to be updated on maps as they have to review the edits. They might follow up with me for more info (as if they look at the StreetView imagery they have now they will not see the new signs.
So we'll see...
-- Tim
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Saturday, June 03, 2017 12:51 PM
To:terry; Paul Dictos; CityManager; Council, City; paul.caprioglio;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; Mayor; Joel Stiner; Steve
Wayte; scott.mozier; steve.hogg; Steven Feinstein; nick yovino; popoff; robert.andersen;
bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Daniel Zack; dwalters;
fmerlo@wildelectric.net; firstvp@fresnopoa.org; Raymond Rivas; Greg.Gatzka; Gary
Turgeon; hennessy; info@superide1.com; jerry ruopoli; Kirk Sorensen; leager; lxcastro93
@yahoo.com; mmt4@pge.com; midge@thebarretts.com;
mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; richard.wenzel; russ@topperjewelers.com;
Tranil Thomas
Subject:Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 12:35 PM Subject: Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>,
dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, 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>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:25 AM
Subject: Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 1:54 AM
Subject: Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:19 AM
Subject: Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3
To: bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:45 AM
2
Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:27 PM
Subject: Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3
To: bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:08 PM Subject: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Wed. May 31, 2017
Mr. Brett Hedrick
Hedrick's Chevrolet
Clovis, Ca.
Mr. Hedrick- GM won't like all that is said here re the Chevy Bolt, but it provides ideas for the Bolt becoming more competitive with the Model 3:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4077778-gms-chevy-bolt-serious-competition-teslas-model-
3?auth_param=5cp2b:1ciu5tr:4c6730354bc78b9187f91ff61edd36c9&uprof=44
I personally like the look of the Bolt just fine.
Tonight I saw my first Bolt on the street. A white one crossing Blackstone in Fresno on Barstow. You may
have sold it. At first glance, the front end looks like a Chevy Sonic. Love those tail lights. Interesting to realize that that car has no engine. It looked just fine to me. It doesn't have to look like a gum-drop.
I looked into the Tesla store at the Stanford Shopping Center last Friday and they have the same Model S,
Model X, and the Tesla chasis sitting right where they were a year ago. They don't move them around. Always a
few people in there. I still think that GM would benefit from having a store in the Stanford Shopping Center, although Tesla is the only car maker that does have a store in there. Whenever Mary Barra came out for a
Stanford Board of Trustees meeting, she could make an appearance at the GM store. People would be surprised.
As you read more about electric cars, a new concept has entered the discussion: If we could get widespread
inductive charging, with very frequent inductive charging, the batteries in the car could be reduced in size, capacity, cost. It will be a long time before there is that much inductive charging in or on the ground though.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:45 AM
3
I hope that GM is talking to Dr. Mike Zimmerman of Ionic Materials Co. about his superior lithium-metal
battery. I further hope that his batteries can go into the Chevy Bolt (and Volt) (and plug-in version of the
Cadillac CT6) when his batteries are marketed. GM et. al. should work with Ionic Materials to make that possible.
www.ionicmaterials.com
L. William Harding Fresno, Ca.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Sunday, June 04, 2017 1:19 PM
To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; nick yovino;
info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; bretthedrick; Doug Vagim; Cathy Lewis;
huidentalsanmateo; Steven Feinstein; firstvp@fresnopoa.org; fmerlo@wildelectric.net;
Raymond Rivas; Gary Turgeon; igorstrav .; Joel Stiner; Mark Kreutzer; Kirk Sorensen;
leager; Leodies Buchanan; Mark Standriff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com;
Mayor; CityManager; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; russ@topperjewelers.com;
richard.wenzel; Steve Wayte; Tranil Thomas; terry; thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov;
yicui@stanford.edu; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov
Subject:Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3
Update on Sunday, June 4, 2017 To all-
Read the article I enclose at the top of this email, re Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3. Pretty heady stuff. When
the cost of a battery gets down to $100 per Kwh, the gasoline powered car is dead. Read near the bottom of the article remarks by S.V. venture capitalist Marc Andreessen. He says that when
you squint at Tesla one way it looks like Apple in 2007-08 when it released the iPhone. Great tech by they
hadn't sold any yet.
When you squint at Tesla another way, it looks like Apple in 1992 with the MacIntosh.
Remember, $1,000 invested in Apple in 1992, was worth $895,000 at the end of 1999 at the top of the dot-
com bubble.
Get those limit orders in for Tesla.
LH
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 1:35 PM
Subject: Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 12:55 PM Subject: Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:46 AM
2
To: bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 12:50 PM
Subject: Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3
To: terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, Paul Dictos <paul@dictos.com>, CityManager <citymanager@fresno.gov>, "city.council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, "paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>,
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer
<mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, Steve Wayte
<steve4liberty@gmail.com>, "scott.mozier" <scott.mozier@fresno.gov>, "steve.hogg"
<steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, Steven Feinstein <steven.feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>, popoff <popoff@pbworld.com>, "robert.andersen" <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>,
bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, Leodies Buchanan <leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>, Cathy Lewis
<catllewis@gmail.com>, Chris Field <cfield@ciw.edu>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, dwalters
<dwalters@sacbee.com>, fmerlo@wildelectric.net, firstvp@fresnopoa.org, Raymond Rivas
<financialadvisor007@gmail.com>, "Greg.Gatzka" <Greg.Gatzka@co.kings.ca.us>, Gary Turgeon <garyt@michaelautomotive.com>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, info@superide1.com, jerry ruopoli
<jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, Kirk Sorensen <kirkfsorensen@gmail.com>, leager <leager@fresnoedc.com>,
lxcastro93@yahoo.com, mmt4@pge.com, midge@thebarretts.com, mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com,
"richard.wenzel" <richard.wenzel@aecom.com>, russ@topperjewelers.com, Tranil Thomas
<soulja92y@hotmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 12:35 PM Subject: Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>,
dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, 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>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:25 AM
Subject: Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 1:54 AM
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:46 AM
3
Subject: Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:19 AM
Subject: Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3 To: bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:27 PM
Subject: Fwd: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3
To: bretthedrick <bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:08 PM
Subject: Chevy Bolt v. Tesla Model 3 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Wed. May 31, 2017
Mr. Brett Hedrick Hedrick's Chevrolet
Clovis, Ca.
Mr. Hedrick- GM won't like all that is said here re the Chevy Bolt, but it provides ideas for the Bolt
becoming more competitive with the Model 3:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4077778-gms-chevy-bolt-serious-competition-teslas-model-
3?auth_param=5cp2b:1ciu5tr:4c6730354bc78b9187f91ff61edd36c9&uprof=44
I personally like the look of the Bolt just fine.
Tonight I saw my first Bolt on the street. A white one crossing Blackstone in Fresno on Barstow. You may
have sold it. At first glance, the front end looks like a Chevy Sonic. Love those tail lights. Interesting to realize
that that car has no engine. It looked just fine to me. It doesn't have to look like a gum-drop.
I looked into the Tesla store at the Stanford Shopping Center last Friday and they have the same Model S,
Model X, and the Tesla chasis sitting right where they were a year ago. They don't move them around. Always a
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:46 AM
4
few people in there. I still think that GM would benefit from having a store in the Stanford Shopping Center,
although Tesla is the only car maker that does have a store in there.
As you read more about electric cars, a new concept has entered the discussion: If we could get widespread
inductive charging, with very frequent inductive charging, the batteries in the car could be reduced in size,
capacity, cost. It will be a long time before there is that much inductive charging in or on the ground though.
I hope that GM is talking to Dr. Mike Zimmerman of Ionic Materials Co. about his superior lithium-metal
battery. I further hope that his batteries can go into the Chevy Bolt (and Volt) (and plug-in version of the
Cadillac CT6), maybe the Malibu hybrid, when his batteries are marketed. GM et. al. should work with Ionic
Materials to make that possible.
One S.V. venture capitalist provided a million or two to get Ionic Materials started. Now he devotes almost
all of his time to it.
www.ionicmaterials.com
2017 Cadillac CT6 Plug-in: 31 miles of EV range. Enough for a lot of (rich) people to get to work and back
with stops at Walmart and the gym. Now get a Plugless charger from Evatran in you garage and not have to
fool with cords, at least at home.
MSRP for the plug-in version of the Cadillac CT6 starts at $75,095, so it won't be for everybody. It is a
beauty. The non-plug-in version starts at more like $57,000. It's not German, so you'll save $40,000 or
$50,000. Many people will lose friends by not driving German. I suppose that most rich Republicans drive
German since so many of their ideas originated in Germany.
http://www.cadillac.com/hybrids/ct6-plug-in.html
L. William Harding Fresno, Ca.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 5:00 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Esther Nigenda <enigenda@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 05, 2017 3:51 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Bobel, Phil
Subject:Health and Environmental Concerns
Dear City Council,
As I am a neighborhood preparedness coordinator for Leland Manor, neighbors have asked
me to voice some of their health and environmental concerns regarding construction on our
streets.
1. Street sweeping is not possible for many months with the many construction trucks and
cars parked on our street. Can the City require builders not to park on our street on
street sweeping days?
2. When construction dewatering is needed, leaves gather all around the dewatering hoses
and even if construction trucks are moved, the street sweeper cannot clean from the
dewatering site to the storm drain. We ask that dewatering applicants be required to
clean along dewatering hoses at least on a weekly basis.
3. Frequently, dewatering hoses have leaky connections and water pools on the
street. With all the news about mosquito-borne diseases, neighbors worry about water
ponding under the dewatering hoses. We request that applicants be required to remove
any ponding water caused by their dewatering hoses within 24 hours.
4. Construction dust: we didn’t notice much of this during demolition but later there was
a lot of dust for weeks when a nearby construction site cut roof tiles, pavers and stone for
the façade of a recent construction (see photo below). The air quality was not good for the
workers or for the residents. When finally notified, Public Works contacted the builder and
the issue was promptly resolved. However, instead of waiting for residents to report this
issue, it should be a normal expectation that air pollution is not allowed. Preferably,
most cutting would be done in a controlled environment with safeguards in place for
the workers.
These are small but important steps that applicants/builders can take that are protective of
residents’ and workers’ health and of the environment. We find that builders are, for the
most part, mindful of construction hours and other City requirements. We would
appreciate if our recommendations were included of what we expect of them as good, if
temporary, neighbors.
Thank you for considering our neighborhood’s suggestions,
Esther Nigenda
Leland Manor Neighborhood
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 5:00 PM
2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Glowe <davidandglowe@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 04, 2017 4:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:I Support Castilleja
Dear City Council,
We support Castilleja School! To maintain the high educational standards and to continue to nurture young minds, the
school must be allowed to modernize. Updated classrooms and new equipment is necessary. Increased enrollment will
maximize on the efficiency of scale. This is very reasonable especially since the school has committed not to exceed the
current traffic count.
All the conciliatory efforts to mitigate noise, traffic, and changes to the neighborhood have been rejected by those
opposed. The contentious nature of the opponents of Castilleja's plan to modernize is disheartening.
The school should not need a parking garage. There is ample parking in the neighborhood. Since when does
homeowner's property encompass/extend to the curbside parking? Besides, the school has implemented off site
parking and shuttle service to reduce the number of cars arriving to the school. That can easily continue. The school
couldn't possibly "want to" lower their central circle area and the pool. It will be an exorbitant cost for no benefit to the
mission of the school. However, this plan did address the original concerns of the neighbors of no parking for increased
enrollment and possible increased noise. Yet, now the neighbors in opposition claim they never wanted a garage.
We are direct neighbors on Bryant Street. Over the last few years, we have seen a significant reduction in traffic and cars
parking on the street. Traffic is only heavy twice a day for no more than 15‐20 min. It is a barely noticeable
inconvenience. As far as noise is concerned, it is only during normal business hours 8‐5pm. Personally, there is nothing
more joyous than the sound of vibrant, healthy children.
Please allow the school to increase enrollment and modernize it's buildings. Since the opposition no longer favors the
garage; in the efforts to reduce construction time and excessive costs, the garage and sound reduction portion should be
reevaluated to ease the neighbors concerns.
Sincerely,
Glowe and David Chang
1345 Bryant St.
cc: Mayor Scharf
City Manager
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/2/2017 1:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andrew Tanner <andrewtanner80@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 01, 2017 7:53 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Increased SFO air traffic
Dear Mayor Scharffer,
The increase in air traffic flying over Old Palo Alto is out of control. It seems that every other minute there is a plane on approach to SFO flying overhead and it is getting noticeably worse. I was even woken by a low flying
jet at 12.50am last night.
Something needs to be done! If you could please petition the FAA for a more equitable distribution of flight
routes on approach to SFO, that would be great.
Thanks
Andrew Tanner
1951 Waverley St
Palo Alto CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jose Vazquez <djosevazquez@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 04, 2017 10:26 PM
To:Council, City
Dear beloved individuals at the City Hall and Chamber of Commerce in Lafayette, CA and the Contra Costa County Superior Court. I worked from 5 pm - 10 pm on May 30, 2017 I was called to start working on that day therefore I was put to work. No phone call was directed to me after one day so I proceeded to call the company chef who authorize me to work and he had advise me that he had hired someone else already after I called after one day of work. Miguel and De Carvalho Rancho Cantina
3616 Mt Diablo Blvd, Lafayette, CA 94549 www.ranchocantina.com I am requesting information about what website I can go to or what part of government or public entity is in charge of
providing new restaurants that are establish the rules for contracting personnel. Is there such an organization that provides guidance for contracting personnel for the first time to small business owners when opening a business for the first time? Because I would like to explain to them what is happening to me, that the labor department of law that knows all to well
the behavior of small business owners from previous cases. Sincerely Felony Armed Robbery Degree awarded by the The San Mateo County Superior Court.
* Note: I have put my guns away and have learned from my past mistakes while being rehabilitated during my stay in jail.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had a 1st interview on Coupa Cafe offices in 538 Ramona St. Palo Alto,CA and another 1st interview 2 years ago never
been given to the 2nd interview by the business ventures run by Venezuelans. They claimed and even wrote on my Job Application with INK that I will be working as a dishwasher for 11.00 per hour. I read that the minimum wage is 12.00 per hour and more at 13.50 per hour in the future.
They pay for job advertising to recruiting companies Instawork and Craigslist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bills Cafe in Middlefield Road at Palo Alto,CA that place with the cafe shop right next to it and the manager Nick,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:48 AM
2
that place I will have to call a cop and an ambulance and the fire department to explain to them my rage on concrete
terms.
In other words I would love to get personnel personally involved just by the asshole characteristics of that Manager who is afraid
of me but not afraid of government officials and his employees or employers he is afraid because he can take advantage of these entities but not of myself, I just want to make him pay monetarily of course and other work situations.
The deparment of Health and hazards division might argue that there no regulation for ear protection but when the
decibels are higher than normal and for the employer not to be hold responsible then a proper lawsuit is appropiate that is if it's enforce up to this date I have not being paid in full
and this man has bribed me with a check and not paid my rightful pay.
There is no sign either in doors or walls about the minimum wage or the pay days, the dishwasher gloves are kept hidden inside of a locker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Natalya Komissarova a dentist of 3200 Fulton St Golden Gate Dental fail to disclose to me that the existence of
government facilities that could pay my dental cleaning procedures and later charge me a bill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2017 12:59 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 06, 2017 9:49 AM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Subject:Not So Idle
Attachments:IMG_1840.JPG; IMG_1841.JPG; IMG_1842.JPG
Bravo to Sierra Club and the young citizens who surveyed idling
vehicles. Now they have a chance to see how local politicians
respond to objective information.
Today, as I picked up my Daily Post at corner of Lytton/Waverley
around 8am, I noticed two mid-size white buses idling noisily while
waiting to pick up passengers at the train station. Later a smaller
van arrived and it too idled for an unnecessary period of
time. Photos attached.
I handed a copy of today's Daily Post with its front page coverage
of "Idling" to two of the three drivers and suggested they give the
paper to their supervisors. One driver was extremely polite and
appreciative. Another was rude and unreceptive.
The coup de grace came later as I departed Starbucks. Directly in
front of the Apple Store was a giant bus full of Apple international
visitors unloading for a special tour at 830am. The bus was idling
but departed relatively quickly. As I walked home, I noticed the
bus continuously circling downtown commercial core apparently
due to lack of an appropriate parking place. This driver got a copy
of the Daily Post.
I am somewhat reluctant to pester Council or City Staff. Having
attended an ample number of the recent Finance Committee
meetings, I have rich appreciation of the imbalance of city staff
workload vs available resources.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2017 12:59 PM
2
Nevertheless, this is a case study for the policy issue the Council
avoids. Growth and success is creating cumulative negative
impact. The persons, business leaders and property owners
creating negative impact in Palo Alto must held more accountable
and bear the burden of remedy.
PS As I completed my walk home, I walked by the known
Downtown North residential street holding areas for "Lyft/Uber"
drivers. Only 1 of 3 drivers had their engines idling. Photos
mercifully are not attached.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/2/2017 1:22 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 01, 2017 2:24 PM
To:Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:#PaloAlto Mayor and Vice-Mayor are reactionary fools Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press
on Twitter
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
6/1/17, 3:18 PM
#PaloAlto Mayor and Vice-Mayor are reactionary fools who think metaphorically with theirs buttox and impune the worst in everything @POTUS twitter.com/pafreepress/st…
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2017 3:37 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 06, 2017 1:47 PM
To:Lum, Patty; Watson, Ron; Keene, James; Council, City; Perron, Zachary; Keith, Claudia
Cc:Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external)
Subject:Patty Lum - Another milestone reached in exposing Elder abuse
Turn in your badge an weapons Ms. Lump
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 3:56 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mel Liu <melliu02@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 05, 2017 2:59 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:DuBois, Tom; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman,
Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Scharff, Greg; Tanaka,
Greg; Greg Tanaka; Wolbach, Cory
Subject:Petition to DivestDAPL and Align Our Money with Our Values TONIGHT
Dear Palo Alto City Council members,
The big banks are funding destruction of our one and only planet. From mazaskatalks.org: "Communities, tribes, and cities are divesting billions from the Dakota Access Pipeline. The fight is
not over. These same banks are backing the new expansion of the DAPL system into the Bayou
Bridge pipeline, as well as FOUR proposed tar sands pipelines that together would add over three
million barrels of the dirtiest oil in the world to flow across turtle island every single day:
Keystone XL (TransCanada) - 830,000 barrels per day
TransMountain (Kinder Morgan) - expansion from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels per day
Line 3 (Enbridge) - expansion from 390,000 to 915,000 barrels per day
Energy East (TransCanada) - 1.1 million barrels per day
Last Thursday, June 2nd, in Palo Alto "Dozens rally against Trump's withdrawal from Paris climate agreement"
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/06/02/dozens-rally-against-trumps-withdrawal-from-paris-climate-
agreement.
We are pleased that Mayor Scharff has taken a stand to uphold the Paris agreement https://medium.com/@ClimateMayors/climate-mayors-commit-to-adopt-honor-and-uphold-paris-
climate-agreement-goals-ba566e260097.
But more is needed. From Jamie Henn of the Guardian: "The best way to resist Trump ditching Paris? Divest
from fossil fuels" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/03/resist-trump-ditching-paris-divest-fossil-fuels?CMP=share_btn_tw.
Last Tuesday, May 30th, the "Berkeley City Council unanimously passes Wells Fargo divestment plan"
[3/30/17] http://www.dailycal.org/2017/05/31/city-council-unanimously-passes-wells-fargo-divestment-
plan/ and http://lastrealindians.com/berkeley-passes-resolution-to-establish-socially-responsible-investment-policies-begins-process-to-divest-from-wells-fargo/.
We are petitioning Palo Alto City Council to divest from DAPL and to align its money with its values in policy
and in action. Specifically:
We, the undersigned, urge the Palo Alto City Council to direct city staff to expeditiously divest the City’s
financial portfolio of all entities providing financing to the Dakota Access Pipeline and Energy Transfer
Partners as well as any other infrastructure construction designed to extract or consume fossil fuel.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 3:56 PM
2
Furthermore, we urge the City of Palo Alto to conduct its business with financial institutions that have
values aligned with ours, and lending practices that support, rather than harm, our communities and our
shared climate.
We have collected nearly 400 individual signatures of support and endorsement from over 16 local, statewide,
national and global organizations with less than 3 days lead time (Green Party of SCC, Transition PA, Students
for Haiti Solidarity, Raging Grannies Action League, Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, Divest Silicon Valley,
350 Silicon Valley, Silicon Valley DSA, SF DefundDAPL, Idle No More SF Bay, Climate Hawks Vote, Fossil Free California, Lakota People's Law Center, Physicians for Social Responsibility (USA), Last Real Indians,
and Mazaska Talks)
Seattle's ordinance on socially responsible banking can serve as a
model: https://seattle.legistar.com/ViewReport.ashx?M=R&N=Text&GID=393&ID=2664562&GUID=39E0B1D3-B740-4C78-A061-3628A4C01639&Title=Legislation+Text.
And Santa Monica's experience can help us too:
In summary, we urge you to Divest from DAPL TODAY and send a clear message to the country that we put our money where our mouth is.
Sincerely,
Melanie Liu 2003 Edgewood Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
melliu02@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Janet Dafoe <janet.dafoe@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 03, 2017 10:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please join in and sign this! Paris Accords.
http://resistancereport.com/
Thank you, Janet Dafoe
Ron Davis
433 Kingsley Ave
________________ Janet L. Dafoe, PhD
"Let us put our minds together and see what world we can make for our children."---Sitting Bull.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 2:41 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keene, James
Sent:Monday, June 05, 2017 1:58 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Eggleston, Brad; Sartor, Mike; Shikada, Ed; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:Public comments regarding Arastradero Project
Council: Additional information from staff, in this case PW, in response to comments you have received from
the public.
The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project has been under development for 15 years. It is a safety and
streetscape improvement project that extends far beyond simply grinding and repaving the street. The
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor is a busy east‐west corridor that stretches 2.3 miles and passes over a dozen
schools, parks and community centers. The project includes:
installing almost 40,000 square feet of landscaped median and bio‐retention areas,
installing dozens of bulb‐outs and upgrading over 90 curb ramps to meet current ADA standards
installing a cycle track along portions of Arastradero Road
widening sidewalks to improve bicycle and pedestrian travel to many schools and parks
signal modifications for 10 intersections
installation of a new signal at Louis Road
SynchroGreen adaptive timing improvements to help smooth the flow of traffic
The project has received two grants totaling $1.45M and has been tentatively awarded $250K for the
SynchroGreen adaptive timing. Lastly, the project includes a thin grinding and overlay of the entire road
surface to transition the conform areas from the new medians and bulb‐outs and to prevent creating a
patchwork look to the roadway. The grinding and paving portion represents a relatively small portion of the
project, roughly 10‐15% of the construction cost. This project will enhance the appearance of the corridor
while improving the travel conditions for all modes of transportation.
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!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Public Records Request Tracking System <public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 03, 2017 3:30 PM
To:Carnahan, David; Keene, James; Council, City; Stump, Molly
Cc:Scheff, Lisa; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Keith, Claudia
Subject:Public Records Request Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Ms. Stump: You MUST provide specific reasons under the law for denying ANY, ANY of our requests
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
6/3/17, 4:21 PM "warning to all government officials that they may pay a steep price for stiffing the public on records
requests" #PaloAlto @PaloAltoPolice twitter.com/pafreepress/st…
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/7/2017 7:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com
Sent:Wednesday, June 07, 2017 6:03 AM
To:Carnahan, David; Stump, Molly; Council, City; Scheff, Lisa; Watson, Ron
Subject:Re: CPRA Response Letter2 - MPP_Taser W779-050917
please produce a copy of the actual letter / correspondence dated May 29th 2017 or as mandated by law, your
legal reasons for not doing so...
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 5, 2017, at 9:39 AM, public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com wrote:
kindly point out the date May 29th? And please try to put forth greater effort and spell my name
correctly
thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 5, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Mr. Peterson‐Perez,
Find the City’s previous response and Settlement record attached.
David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA
O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Public Records Request Tracking System
[mailto:public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 4:00 AM
To: Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: CPRA Response Letter2 ‐ MPP_Taser W779‐050917
Please produce CPRA response letter date May 29th 2017
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2017 3:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Stolee <rstolee@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 06, 2017 3:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received
Second Email to the City Council. I would appreciate an answer to the below email: 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, except next to Stanford. This issue was brought up with Stanford at our meeting discussing the impact on GUP on the College Terrace Community. Would appreciate developing a solution to this problem. Richard Stolee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2017 12:59 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 06, 2017 9:37 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Remarks Last Night re Proposed PAFD Budget
FYI.
Text of my prepared comments for last night's oral communications follow; includes material I skipped to trim
down to two minutes. -Fred Balin
2385 Columbia Street
-----
Fire Department ...
1.3 million dollar proposed cut.
No details in budget, nor probe at Finance Committee.
It is equivalent to a reduction of about 10 full-time firefighters and would create a significant impact in response services.
How might it play out?
Our fire engines run a crew of 3; and for round-the-clock service, 3 crews, that's a total of 9. So you could shutdown an engine in one of our 6 stations in the flats.
At the Foothills station, you discontinued fire-engine service last year.
Your ladder truck: 100-foot elevation, packed with rescue equipment, a 4th person up at the tiller.
You could drastically curtail its availability.
Or, reduce ambulance service.
But ours is far superior to the county's, and, oh yes, it’s a big income generator, now at over $3 million a year
for emergency transports.
A win-win, as long as it does not impact other apparatus.
Currently, 3 ambulances are available around the clock.
2 with dedicated staffing. 2-person crews, always ready.
But the third is cross-staffed. Ambulance and fire engine share the same crew of 3.
If the ambulance is out on call, the fire engine is out of service … for an hour, if there is transport to emergency
care.
5 a.m., December 30th. Department responds to full first alarm on Louis Road with report of resident trapped inside.
First engine on scene in 2.5 minutes,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2017 12:59 PM
2
Joined by other engines, ladder truck, and ambulance.
Fortunately, cross-staffed ambulance, not out on call.
All fire suppression apparatus available. Resident found outside the building; fire knocked down in 30 minutes. Well executed. Thank you!
But when cross staffing increases significantly what is the re-calculated risk from fire.
Still low? But when it hits YOU, you assume it all. Correcting a false rationale for the cuts:
It has nothing to do with the Stanford contract re-negotiations.
Beginning May 2012, SLAC discontinued our department's engine service, and, correspondingly, in the city’s
Fiscal Year 2013 budget, the 9 full time equivalents were removed; a wash. It appears the city wants to save some money at the expense of public safety, under the radar, and behind a false
pretense.
And with a combination of cross staffing and apparatus reduction, maintain revenues, while creating a subtle but real brownout that folks may not immediately notice.
Before you consider deducting a penny, hold a public hearing to clearly specify deployment changes, impact on
service, and valid rationale; and then provide adequate time for the public's response.
Thank you.
##
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 8:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 05, 2017 7:03 AM
To:Lum, Patty
Cc:Council, City; Watson, Ron; Keith, Claudia; Perron, Zachary; Keene, James; Scharff, Greg;
Kniss, Liz (external)
Subject:Senior Citizens - Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
6/5/17, 8:01 AM
#Seniorcitizens are our most vulnerable & cherished in society & should never be abused by
@PaloAltoPolice nor protected by any city council twitter.com/pafreepress/st…
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/7/2017 7:39 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 06, 2017 5:13 PM
Subject:The June/July 2017 Issue of the Palo Alto VOTER
Attachments:June-July VOTER.pdf
The Palo Alto VOTER
The June/July 2017 issue is attached as a PDF. Please save this to your desktop and enjoy!
On the front page:
Don’t Miss the LWVPA
Summer Social
at the spectacular
Foster Gallery
Tuesday, August 29, 6:30 pm
With guest speaker:
Jane Woodward, Founder and Director of the Foster Gallery and
Founder and CEO of MAP http://web.stanford.edu/~woodward/
--
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 209
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 903-0600
LWVPA !2 June/July, 2017
Our Annual Meeting was on May 23. Thanks to the many of you who came. We heard a delightful and
insightful reflection from LWVPA member and Palo Alto Vice Mayor, Liz Kniss. You elected a dynamic
board – which includes four new members: Aisha Piracha-Zakariya, David Springer, Lisa Peschcke-Koedt
and Ellen Smith. We look forward to their special contributions. Going off board, but continuing with their
portfolios are Mary Alice Thornton, who will chair the invaluable Fundraising Committee and manage
League-a-Thon, and Liza Taft, who will continue in her excellent role organizing Voter Registration
opportunities, distributing the VOTER around town, plus many other helpful and important tasks. I thank
you for giving me the opportunity to serve as your board president for another year.
This coming year promises to be as challenging and as exciting as the past year.
Last November, we were all reminded of the importance of Making Democracy Work - and of the League’s unique role
in ensuring that we protect our democratic principles and that we can overcome the negative pressures on our rights to a
good education, adequate housing, health care, due process for all, sustainable environment … the list goes on. Many in
our community recognized the special role of the League and became League members or attended our excellent and
timely Speaker Events.
Our League has come of age in our community and we have the members to be able to serve. What will be your role?
Exiting news! At LWVC Convention, our League won a special “Strike While the Iron is Hot” Award for “demonstrating the
depth and breadth of League work through a series of eight public forums, partnering with the local newspaper and
promoting through diverse public partners.” Special thanks to Maureen O’Kicki for envisioning and arranging these events.
See page 3.
At Convention, your six LWVPA delegates enjoyed meeting other League leaders and members – and learning how they
are reacting to the challenges and opportunities that we currently face. We attended numerous informative workshops and
caucuses, heard inspiring speakers, debated and voted on by-laws changes, budget, new leadership, and the LWVC
program for the next two years.
The recommended LWVC program that we voted on has no new studies, but includes the following three Issues for
Emphasis for 2017-2019:
1. Making Democracy Work in California, with a focus on election reform, voting rights, expanding the electorate, and
money in politics
2. Natural resources, including climate change, water, and land use/CEQA
3. Response to changing federal policies and budget actions that have an impact on California in areas such as health
care, immigration, the environment, and tax reform.
To find out more about what occurred at Convention please go to LWVC website https://lwvc.org and click on
Convention in the upper left.
When we return, the six of us will share with you our Convention enthusiasm, new knowledge and ideas to help make
our active local League even more responsive to community needs in these broad and important areas.
Bonnie Packer
Bonnie Packer President
president@lwvpaloalto.org
Aisha Piracha-Zakariya
1st Vice President
Ellen Forbes
2nd Vice President,
Communications,
Webmaster
Karen Kalinsky Secretary, Collaborations Co-chair
Steve Levy Treasurer, Housing and Transportation Chair
Diane Rolfe
Edu. Co-chair and
Collaborations Co-Chair
Sigrid Pinsky
Edu. Co-chair
Karen Pauls
LAT support
Veronica Tincher
New Voices for Youth
Valerie Stinger
Budget Chair
Paige Costello & Mindy
Anderson Facebook Admin.
Mary Jo Levy League Presentations
Liza Taft
Voter Reg., VOTER Distr.
Mary Alice Thornton Fundraising Chair
Karen Douglas County Council Secretary
Paula Collins Auditor
Nominating Committee Chris Logan, Chair Nancy Smith Ellen Springer Lynne Russell
LWV of Palo Alto: Officers, Directors, Off-Board Roster (650) 903-0600, www.lwvpaloalto.org
OFF-BOARD
Jeannie Lythcott
Voter Services
Megan Swezey
Fogarty &
Lynne Russell
Membership
Lisa Ratner
Advocacy
Maureen O’Kicki
Program/Events
Organizer
Sue Hermsen
VOTER Editor
Tory Bers
Publicity/Media
David Springer
Voter’s Edge
Ellen Smith Board Development Chair
Lisa Peschcke-Koedt Civic Savvy Chair
DIRECTORS
Message from our President
OFFICERS
LWVPA !3 June/July, 2017
Your Board
•Approved the following delegates to the state
convention, to be held June 1-4 in Sacramento: Collins,
Forbes, Kalinsky, Packer, Peschcke-Koedt, and Ratner.
•Approved efforts of the National Voter Corps to seek
collaboration with other Leagues and other organizations.
Discussed
•Applying for a LWV of California Visibility Award,
with application to be drafted by Forbes.
•An effort initiated by the Beth Am Justice Committee
and Bay Area Forward to form a Broad Based
Organization (BBO) for community organizing in Santa
Clara and San Mateo Counties under the umbrella of
the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF).
•Plans for the Annual Meeting, with the speaker to be
Palo Alto Vice Mayor Liz Kniss; and honorary
presentations to be made to Phyllis
Cassel, Nonette Hanko and Lanie
Wheeler, recognizing 50-plus years
of membership in the League and
outstanding contributions to our
community.
Learned about
•The meeting of the Sanctuary Committee, which
discussed immigrant issues – including the Palo Alto
Police Department’s policy vis-à-vis ICE (U.S.
Customs and Immigration Enforcement) and possible
collaboration with the ACLU.
•Voter registration drives for newly eligible voters held
at Palo Alto and Gunn High Schools.
•Packer speaking at the City Council meeting regarding
the League’s position on Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADU’s).
Karen Kalinsky, Secretary
Your Board
•Welcomed new Board members Aisha Piracha-
Zakariya (1st Vice President), Lisa Peschcke-Koedt
(Chair, Civic Savvy), David Springer (Voter’s Edge/
Smart Voter), and Ellen Smith (Chair, Board
Development)
•Thanked outgoing Board members: -Liza Taft, who will continue her leadership of Voter
Registration, Healthcare and VOTER distribution in
an Off-Board capacity; and -Mary Alice Thornton, who will continue her
leadership of Fundraising and League-a-thon in an
Off-Board capacity.
Your Board decided
•To publicize the VoteRiders fundraiser to be held on
June 11.
•To join SV@Home with a $100 donation, and ask the
Collaborations Committee to propose criteria for
joining other organizations in the future.
•To have the chairs of the Nominating and Membership
Committees serve as members of the Board
Development Committee.
•To offer complimentary LWVPA memberships to our
event speakers who live in or near Palo Alto.
Discussed
•The Summer Social, which will be held on Aug. 29 at
7:00 pm, at the Foster Gallery, with speaker Jane
Woodward and docent-led tours of the art collection.
•A review of the LWVPA Policy Sheet to be conducted
by the Board Development Committee.
•Plans for a board retreat in June, focusing on our
organizational structure and committee goals and
strategies.
Learned about
•A meeting some board members attended with Maria
Love, Director of the Santa Clara County Office of
Immigrant Relations, and others at county offices in
San Jose to hear about the county’s response to
immigrant needs.
•A meeting between some of our board members and
some board members of the South San Mateo County
League to discuss how we might coordinate and
cooperate with each other on housing, transportation,
and other issues in common.
•The Board Development Committee membership:
Ellen Smith (Chair), Megan Swezey Fogarty, Chris
Logan, Lynne Russell, and David Thornton. Karen Kalinsky, Secretary
Board Meeting Highlights April 2017
Board Meeting Highlights May 2017
LWVPA Wins “Strike While the Iron
is Hot” Award at State Convention
LWVPA was honored at the
State League Convention
for our outstanding Speaker
Series. Kudos to Maureen
O’Kicki who arranged the
events, Ellen Forbes who
lead the publicity efforts of
the Communications
Committee and completed
the award application, and to everyone who
participated in the planning and staging of our eight
inspiring events.
LWVPA !6 June/July, 2017
Palo Alto Vice Mayor Liz Kniss kicked off our 2017 Annual Meeting with an
insightful talk about current and historic issues of our community and their cyclical
nature. She encouraged us to stay positive in our efforts against the problems of today
by remembering that, in our past, we have made progress when faced with similar
problems.
Also at our Annual Meeting, we honored three members, Phyllis Cassel, Nonette
Hanko, and Lanie Wheeler, who have each served in the League for 50 years. It was
inspiring to hear them share their League experiences. They are three amazing and
accomplished women.
We then completed our Annual Meeting business, voting to approve the nominating
committee's recommendations, the Board recommended program for 2017-2018,
recommended changes to our bylaws and recommended position updates to our
Natural Resources and Housing positions. Thank you to Joyce Tavrow for acting as
parliamentarian, Maureen O’Kicki for arranging the speaker, Karen Kalinsky for
coordinating the Annual Meeting Kit and to the Board for providing the delicious food.
Sue Hermsen
Vice Mayor Liz Kniss Speaks at Annual Meeting
LWVPA’s Early Childhood Education Committee
Makes Plan to Meet Important Goal in 2018
LWVPA’s Early Childhood Education (ECE) Committee met on Friday, April 21 for a luncheon meeting with 11
motivated members. Our goal was to plan the agenda for our committee’s activities/events that promote ECE leading
up to the November 2018 local, state, and federal elections.
The ECE Committee reaffirmed unanimously our belief that we must educate the public to why our community, state
and nation need universal, high quality childcare for all children from birth to age 5. The reason: We must enable our
children to function in a 21st century society and economy as productive, caring individuals. As stated by one of our
members: “It is more than a problem, we have a local, state and national crisis.”
In the next 18 months these are the activities we wish to achieve to educate our community on the crisis facing our
children regarding the lack of ECE:
1) Show the film: “The Raising of America” to the general public in partnership with the other leagues, and especially
the Palo Alto Council of PTAs. Cubberley Theatre was discussed as a possible venue.
2) Have a panel discussion of legislative leaders and advocates for ECE to educate the community. (Berman, Jerry
Hill, Joe Simitian, etc.)
3) Follow and perhaps encourage the State League to support a soda and marijuana tax that may be on the 2018 ballot.
4) Support the work of the State League in reforming Prop 13, the Property Tax Split Roll Reform that updates
commercial and business assessments. This will not affect individual homeowners, only businesses.
5) Host educational forums regarding education and ECE..
6) Fundraising to help ECE----Fund a Need.
7) Increase awareness of the need to help children, and families in the immigrant and refugee community so impacted
by ICE and become involved in directly helping children.
Other Actions:
1) Sharon Keplinger volunteered to become a LWV Observer for the PAUSD;
2) Linda Heinigen and Carole Stein volunteered to draft proposed updates to our local League position in line with the
State League position which is more detailed than ours.
Diane Rolfe
Vice-Mayor Kniss addresses our members at the Annual Meeting
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/2/2017 1:08 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Allen Podell <alpodell@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Town and Country traffic improvements
Dear City Council members,
Here is an abbreviated plan for doubling the flow by the T&C.
Going west on Embarcadero, have a turn into Town and Country(T&C) before anything
else, to peel off the traffic. Have a CCW route around the center, outside the busy areas,
eventually terminating at Encina Ave. Eliminate congestion at the entrance. No cross
traffic.
Ban U turns on El Camino at the intersection with Embarcadero. A U turn would be
permitted at the northwest entrance to T&C, when the light at the corner allows a left
from El Camino into Embarcadero. At this time, pedestrians would be permitted to cross
to the center island. They would proceed to the other side when the left turn signal for
Embarcadero is on. No pedestrians would be permitted to cross El Camino from the T&C
when the Embarcadero light is green. There would be uninterrupted flow of traffic from
Embarcadero westward.
There is much more that could be done, but that would require the close cooperation of
the T&C management. For example, when left turn traffic is entering T&C, left turn
traffic could be exiting at the same time. I would be happy to map it all out for you.
Lydia Kou has seen some of my ideas.
Sincerely,
Allen Podell
alpodell@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 04, 2017 6:03 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 05-23-17 Policy & Services Committee meeting -- FTTP
item
Council members,
Here's a transcript of the FTTP & wireless item from the 05-23-17 Policy & Services Committee meeting. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57895
I have added my comments (paragraphs beginning with "###".) (The City will post an official transcript eventually, but I wanted to comment now.)
SUMMARY
Please consider the possibility that the best way to accomplish the purposes of "FTTN," which staff has proposed as
"Option 2," is to design citywide municipal FTTP and then choose a subset of it to build first. That will assure that what gets built will actually be what FTTP needs.
Please consider the possibility that the City should deploy citywide municipal FTTP by itself, rather than partnering with a
private-sector entity. The trouble with a public-private partnership is that the private partner would necessarily have goals different from the City's. I think it's clear that the City can come up with the necessary financing.
Thanks,
Jeff
------------------- Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
#########################################################################
05-23-17 P&S video, FTTP & wireless item: http://midpenmedia.org/policy-services-committee-32/
2:28:06:
Chair Wolbach: Item 2 of the evening: staff and Utilities Advisory Commission recommendation that the Policy & Services
Committee make a recommendation that Council recommend Option 2 for the municipal fiber-to-the-node network (FTTN) for fiber and broadband expansion, and expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities, and discontinue consideration of City-
provided Wi-Fi in commercial areas. So, I'll kick it off and let the City Manager take from here.
2;28:33:
City Manager Keene: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee members. And I would implore -- I really hope we could do this in an hour. I don't think it's actually 1) all that complicated -- the options. 2) We are not going to be able to gat to
Council until after the break, on the recommendations of the Committee here.
### The Tentative Agendas document in Council's 05-22-17 packet said the FTTP & wireless item was (tentatively)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:48 AM
2
scheduled to come to Council on 06-19-17, i.e., before the break. So why did it slip? At the 03-28-17 Policy & Services
Committee meeting, Council Member Kniss asked that the FTTP & wireless item, then scheduled for 04-25-17, be rescheduled because she couldn't attend on 04-25-17. Keene participated in the consensus decision to reschedule it for
05-23-17. (Then, as it turned out, Council Member Kniss was unable to attend the 05-23-17 meeting anyway.)
And 3) this is not time-sensitive in a crucial way, I would just say, only in the sense that 1) I know there's a lot of interest on the Council.
### Recall Council Member Burt's 09-28-15 back-of-the-envelope calculation that citywide municipal FTTP might bring
"about $10 million a year in savings to residents that would accrue as a result of competition."
And 2), I think it is safe to say that we've been discussing this, actually, even longer than we've been working on the Comp Plan Update. But not quite as long as we have been talking about what to do about the Public Safety
Building. And, actually, on all of those other -- both of those other things, where we -- actually, the Council's made decisions. We're nearing the end on the Comp Plan. And we have a way forward on the Public Safety Building.
### If City Manager Keene had really wanted to speed things up, he could have refrained from talking about non-
agendized things like the Comp Plan and the Public Safety Building.
So we're hoping tonight the Committee can help move us ahead, in a positive way. So, with that, Jonathan, you guys want to --
2:29:49:
Jonathan Reichental: We're ready. We're good. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, City Manager Jim Keene. It's great to be
here. Chair Wolbach and Council members, I'm Jonathan Reichental, the City's Chief Information Officer. And we're going to start off with just a few updates, to bring you up to speed on some of the things we've been sharing with you over
the last couple years. And including some perspective on some emerging tech that I think is very important in the context of this larger discussion. So, I want to -- just a few points on the vendor space.
| Updates
| * AT&T Fiber network upgrade | * Comcast DOCSIS 3.1 launch
| * Future gigabit applications and services, including emerging 5G deployments | * Point-to-Multi-Point RFQ update
| * Activities in other Bay Area cities
2:30:29:
We have -- AT&T announced last year, as you know, the -- that they were going to bring their gigabit service to Palo Alto. Called AT&T Fiber. And, as far as we know, they still are committed to doing that.
### How would we know? AT&T is famous for "Fiber to the Press Release."
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140307/04485626475/weve-entered-age-fiber-to-press-release.shtml
I attempted to reach out to them in the last few days, but was not able to get a sort of -- an update of this week. But as of my last update, just a month or two ago, they were still in the planning phase to begin an initial roll-out in Palo Alto. And
then more broader later on.
### Recall that "AT&T Fiber" is a marketing term that AT&T uses to describe a suite of services, not all of which are FTTP-based.
2:31:08:
We heard from Comcast that they still intend to come to Palo Alto with their upgrade -- their box upgrade -- their
technology upgrade -- on their existing system, to bring gigabit to -- at Comcast offering. As you know, they enable this through a new version of a particular technology called DOCSIS 3.1. Not terribly important, but that's just the technology
they use to enable it. When we last met with them, just a couple months back, they notified us that they would do a "soft launch" in Palo Alto in 2017, and then, later on, a more formal, highly-marketed implementation.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:48 AM
3
### Comcast's DOCSIS 3.1 product offers "up to" 1 Gbps down but "up to" only 35 Mbps up.
2:31:54:
OK, so, I did have a piece that I was just going to read, that I did share with our Community [sic] Advisory Committee
### A.k.a. the Citizens Advisory Committee on FTTP & Wireless
http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/technology_committee.asp
and with the UAC, prior to this. 'Cause I think there's some good developments that are contextually important. I consider one of my most important roles to be an advisor to the Council and the City Manager, even if it's unpopular. So, I'm going
to do one of those today. [laughs] It's worth noting, even in the short time I've been involved in this project how much the landscape has changed. Just in about three years -- you know, just three years ago, there was no AT&T Fiber,
### AT&T started using the marketing term "AT&T Fiber" last year.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/10/att-names-11-new-metro-areas-for-gigabit-fiber-internet/ But their GigaPower product has been around since 2013 (initially at "up to" 300 Mbps upload, but later at "up to" 1-Gbps
upload). http://austin.culturemap.com/news/innovation/11-06-13-att-reveals-which-neighborhoods-will-get-first-high-speed-gigabit-
internet/ And AT&T has been "using FTTH for greenfield installs" since 2006 or possibly earlier.
http://www.nyquistcapital.com/2006/03/30/att-project-lightspeed-and-the-jedi-mind-trick/
no DOCSIS 3.1,
### DOCSIS 3.1 was "first released in October 2013." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS
But actual deployments started last year.
no Google Fiber,
### Google announced its intention to deploy 1-Gbps FTTP somewhere on 02-10-10. https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html
It launched a beta test network at Stanford University in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber
and, to the extent it is today, no Facebook Terragraph, no millimeter wave,
### Millimeter waves (say 30 GHz to 300 GHz) have been used for lots of things for a long time.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/United_States_Frequency_Allocations_Chart_2011_-_The_Radio_Spectrum.pdf
This 2013 article overviews the opportunity. http://www.electronicdesign.com/communications/millimeter-waves-will-expand-wireless-future
and no 5G.
### There still is no 5G. A specification is expected by 2020.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/5g-imt-2020-specs/
And all of those things are just a set of new technologies and new considerations that are on the list that weren't there before. It's becoming very clear now to me, as we look out at the future and we see developments, that the future is going
to be wireless-intensive. Now, when I say that, I know that people are ready to push back strongly on it. By saying the future is wireless, it doesn't discount the enormous importance of fiber backhaul. And, in fact, as we move more to a
wireless world, we will require more fiber, to bring the information back to the providers of -- you know, the data centers around the world.
### Let's be clear about who "we" are. If "we" (the City) cede the wireless space to the incumbent carriers, then "we"
won't need the backhaul for wireless, the incumbents will need it. A FTTP fiber infrastructure can include fiber strands for wireless backhaul. Remember Michael Render's observation: "To make advanced wireless work, you have to run fiber
down every street and put an antenna on every third light pole, so it makes sense to do it in conjunction with FTTH. …
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:48 AM
4
The very best way would be to build them at the same time to make the most efficient use of all resources; second best
would be to design as much as possible for both kinds of networks.” http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Jan_Feb/BBC_Jan17_BroadbandForecasts.pdf
Just to give you a sense of this -- and I'm only going to talk you through it -- in the United States in 2013, one in ten
households were exclusively wirelessly connected to the internet for their access. In 2016, that number had increased to one in five. Effectively, 20 percent of U.S. households are now mobile-only access to the internet. In three years, the
number doubled. Part of those numbers are definitely people with lower income, because it's cheaper to have mobile access.
### Well, it's not necessarily cheaper for power users, but low-income people can't afford to be power users.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/10-of-Broadband-Users-to-Go-Wireless-Only-in-Next-Year-139087
But the most current data shows that the speed of dropping wired for wireless in the access to home is now equivalent in all income ranges.
### The trouble with citing factoids like this in oral presentations rather than staff reports is that references are not
provided. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/04/18/new-data-americans-are-abandoning-wired-home-
internet/?utm_term=.9e6b85806605
So, why is the future wireless? Because, whether it's smart homes, smart cities, wearable technology, connected cars -- self-driving cars -- the internet of things, or even next-generation health care, it will all be powered by wireless technology.
2:34:44:
In fact, there is now a fifth generation of cellular technology, which is called 5G, for fifth generation, that we see beginning
to emerge as a specification, and we think by 2020 it will be in the mainstream.
### Others say that 5G won't see real products until about 2020, and that "4G will be the dominant wireless technology until at least 2030 and maybe longer."
https://potsandpansbyccg.com/tag/5g/
Now, that sounds like a long time ago -- long time to go -- but it's just a couple of years. And there's lots of experimentation happening. And when we talk about 5G, we're not just talking about cellular phones -- or smart phones,
that have fast connectivity. We're actually saying fixed wireless, which is 5G connectivity from your home. And so, this is how people have the potential to connect to the internet. That's the strategy that the big telcos will be taking. And I'll give
you a sense of the sort of speed. 4G LTE -- which is typically what a lot of use on our smart phones -- that's approximately about a 5-12-megabit download, 2-5 megabit upload. And so, to put that to comparison, the International
Telecom Union has specified -- or suggested the final specification for 5G. At a minimum, it should be 20 gigabits for download peak data rate, and 10 gigabit uplink. So, I'm going to do the math for you. If you round 4G to an average of 10
megabits, 5G is going to be 2,000 times faster. Two thousand times faster.
### It's not legitimate to compare 4G average per-user speeds with hypothetical 5G peak speeds to be shared by an entire cell.
The average broadband in the U.S. today, to the average home, is 50 megabits. Fifty megabits. Is the average. 5G will
be 400 times the current speed.
### It's not legitimate to compare average per-user wired speed with hypothetical 5G peak speed to be shared by an entire cell. It's also not legitimate to pick the "average" wired connection when what we really care about is the wired
connections Palo Alto could be offering: 1-Gbps symmetric, or even 10-Gbps symmetric.
When I was in Dubai last year, at Etisalat, who is the local telco companies -- telco company -- they experimented with 5G and they reached 36 gigabits -- excuse me, 36 gigabytes -- gigabits, excuse me -- GIGABITS per second. That's very,
very fast. Very fast. OK. What's required for this? Well, there's going to be a lot of City construction. All cities that adopt this will need to put in a lot more cells -- cell towers -- than we have today, and just -- small units -- small cells. And they
would have to be in high-volume density. Just to give you a sense of the space -- Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile are in current tests. And, of course, as you know, from my last update, Google is looking at a wireless solution that uses similar
technology to 5G to bring fiber-to-the-home -- or, fiber-to-the-neighborhood and then to the home.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:48 AM
5
### That is, fiber-to-the-neighborhood and then wireless-to-the-home.
Verizon has a 5G fixed wireless test in eleven geographies and different environments in the U.S. And they want to launch SOMETHING in 2018, which is next year.
### They want to launch, before the 5G specification is even finalized?
Just a couple other tidbits on this. AT&T is experimenting in Austin and Indianapolis with 5G. And Turin, in Italy, has
committed to be 100 percent 5G in the entire city by 2020. In this year's Mobile World Congress, which is the big telecom event, the entire event was about 5G. Big players, like Qualcomm, Eriksson, Intel, Nokia, and other mobile leaders are all
betting their future on it. So, that was just a contextual item. That's an emerging technology, that we anticipate -- or I certainly anticipate -- will be a very significant player here in just a few years.
2:38:36:
Two more items, real quick?
2:38:37:
Jim Fleming: Sure.
2:38:37:
Jonathan Reichental: We wanted to make you aware that one of the items that was on the Council list of action items -- to
get a -- to build out a network for our public safety professionals is going to hit the street this -- is scheduled to be on the street this week. So, a lot of good work went to that, and we should be getting responses to that pretty soon, for being
able to come back and ask for -- to get a decision from Council on whether we should pursue that.
### To be clear, the item that will hit the street is the RFP.
And one other item I just wanted to share, just to put things in context, there is quite a lot of activity in the region around high-speed internet. I wanted to just mention San Jose and San Francisco. So, in San Jose, the Mayor did a sponsor --
is sponsoring a project that Price Waterhouse Cooper (or PwC) is doing to develop a broadband and digital inclusion vision for the city.
### Google "'price waterhouse cooper' 'san jose' broadband vision <past-year>" no hits.
### 01-13-17: "Op-Ed: City of San Jose Tackles Challenge of Digital Equity"
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2017/01/13/op-ed-city-of-san-jose-tackles-challenge-of-digital-equity/
That's just really kicked off and will take many months to see where that goes. And then, in San Francisco, there is -- the Mayor also -- of San Francisco -- spun up an advisory council made up of industry experts and academics to explore high-
speed internet for all of San Francisco.
### I thought the San Francisco Municipal Fiber Blue Ribbon Panel came from Supervisor Mark Farrell, not the mayor. https://medium.com/@MarkFarrellSF/press-release-supervisor-mark-farrell-forms-municipal-fiber-blue-ribbon-panel-
2dccfaf74029
And we should be seeing a series of reports over the next few months. A report of last year on a potential cost came in at a little over a billion dollars, to build a fiber-to-the-home network in San Francisco. And it would operate at a deficit. So
their conclusion was, some sort of partnership to get there.
### This 03-15-16 report (103 pages) considered a number of options. http://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/55357-FAC1.pdf
The construction cost to connect ALL premises (the "utility-based" model) was estimated to be $867.3 million. The construction cost to connect only subscribing premises (the "demand-based" model) was estimated to be $393.7
million. One method considered to finance the utility-based model was to charge all premises a monthly utility fee (of, say, $25 for a residence and $115 for a business premises).
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:48 AM
6
### This 03-14-17 article says that a public option would cost $1.1 billion, and that the Municipal Fiber Advisory Panel
recommended pursuing a PPP model with a $26 monthly utility fee for all premises. http://statescoop.com/advisory-panel-revives-san-franciscos-citywide-gigabit-fiber-plans
In both the San Jose and San Francisco examples, much of the focus is on people who just don't have internet. There
still is large populations -- thousands of people -- who don't have ANY type of access. And then there's also a group of people who have only access to very slow or bad internet.
So that concludes my updates. I'm going to now, I think, ...
2:40:44:
**: (unamplified): ** go through ** real quick, or ...
2:40:47:
Jonathan Reichental: Yeah, I'll -- 'cause we don't need to spend time on this. Today, we'll be presenting you with ...
| Discussion
| | Fiber Optic Expansion Options
| 1. Identify potential FTTP funding models | 2. Develop FTTN business case; engage consultant FTTN and FTTP network design; identify poten[tial] partners and
"last model" funding models | 3. Pause municipal FTTP development efforts; incre[ase] transparency and predictability for third pa[rty] providers
| | Wireless Recommendations
| * Expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities | * Discontinue consideration of commercial Wi-Fi
... staff and UAC's making recommendations to you to recommend to Council three potential pathways around the
question of fiber. And then, we will have a recommendation around the two wireless items that we've been carrying for a few months to come back to you and make a recommendation. And Jim Fleming's going to talk us through the different
options.
2:41:19:
| Option 1 -- Municipal FTTP | * Citywide FTTP build costs and "take rate" requirements
| . Estimated $78M construction, $8M O&M, and 72% take rate | * Key Goals for network ownership: ubiquity, local authority, and open access
| * Potential FTTP Financing tools | . General Obligation Bonds
| . Revenue Bonds | . Fiber Optic Fund Reserve
| . Ongoing internal subsidies
Jim Fleming: Chair Wolbach and Council members, my name's Jim Fleming. I'm a Senior Management Analyst with Palo Alto Utilities Department. As Jonathan said, tonight we're going to review the three options for fiber and wireless
expansion, as described in the staff report.
Option 1 is to explore potential funding models to build a municipally-owned, ubiquitous fiber-to-the-premises network, based on an "open access" model. To provide some background, the 2015 Fiber to the Premises Master Plan indicated
that, assuming the network achieves the 72 percent take rate required to positively cash flow the enterprise, the City will require an estimated overall capital investment of approximately $78 million to build and operate a citywide fiber-to-the-
premises network. Take rate is defined as the number of homes or businesses that actually use the network. The Master Plan also stated that if approximately $20 million from the fiber optic fund reserve was used to help finance the network,
then the take rate required would be about 57 percent. Annual operations and maintenance costs would be about $8 million. The City's key objectives for network ownership includes ubiquitous coverage, local authority, and open access.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:48 AM
7
### The 09-28-15 staff report analyzed a FTTP network where the City would be the only retail service provider. That is,
it did not analyze a network that offered "open access" to retail service providers. The 09-28-15 staff report's estimate of operations and maintenance costs is not applicable to the "open access" model, because much of the operations
cost would be incurred by the retail service providers, not the City.
An "open access" network -- or model -- is defined as an arrangement in which a network is owned by the City but would be open to multiple internet service providers to offer a gigabit-speed broadband and other services. In terms of potential
funding models, a key consideration for network implementation is how to fund both capital construction costs and ongoing operational expenses. Acknowledging that capital and operating costs associated with a full-scale citywide build-
out will be significant, the City will likely have to seek outside funding and/or internal subsidies to support construction and the fiber-to-the-premises network start-up costs. Potential financing models include bond issuances, such as general
obligation of revenue bonds, use of the Fiber Optic Fund Reserve, and ongoing internal subsidies.
### Here, Fleming does not mention the possibilities of user financing or smart grid revenues.
2:43:43:
At this point, we're going to discuss fiber-to-the-node, which is Option number 2. Fiber-to-the-node is a municipally-owned network that could provide infrastructure to neighborhoods for private last-mile connections to provision services to homes
and businesses.
| Option 2 -- Municipal Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) | * FTTN an incremental step to FTTP
| - Develop business case | - Estimated one-time construction costs: $12M-$15M; ongoing O&M cost is unknown
| * Engage engineering consultant for preliminary FTTN and FTTP design | * Public outreach to determine business case for FTTP
| * Determine marketplace interest in last mile buildout | * Engage stakeholders to identify priority characteristics of prospective service providers
Fiber-to-the-node would be an incremental step to fiber-to-the-premises. The recommended action item for Option 2 is to
develop a business case for a fiber-to-the-node network to provide a platform for public safety and utilities wireless communications in the field, smart grid, and smart city applications, and new dark fiber licensing opportunities.
### Do any of these opportunities actually require nodes? Somehow, I don't think this is what UAC Commissioner
Danaher had in mind when he asked about a business case.
The business case would determine the benefits to the City, and also quantify the return on investment.
### Keep in mind that the City, unlike private-sector companies, doesn't have get a "return on investment" (ROI) in order to justify what it does. It can do things for the good of the community.
This option also includes a recommendation to engage an engineering consultant to prepare a preliminary design of the
citywide fiber-to-the-premises network, in addition to identifying potential partners and/or service providers, and last-mile funding models. The estimated one-time fiber-to-the-node costs are in the range of $12 [million] to $15 million. But
ongoing operations and maintenance costs are unknown at this time. In regard to business case development, a number of approaches could be considered, and staff requests the Committee's feedback on next steps. Preliminarily, staff would
recommend proceeding with the following four steps, if Council directs proceeding with Option 2.
2:45:16:
The first step is to engage an engineering consultant, to initiate a preliminary design for fiber-to-the-premises and fiber-to-the-node.
### I recommend doing a preliminary design of a citywide FTTP network but NOT of a FTTN network. Then, the City
should consider what subset of the FTTP network would serve the purposes of a FTTN network.
This design will need to make certain assumptions, driven by business case models, public-private partnership opportunities, and potential technologies for last-mile service delivery. The components of developing a fiber-to-the-
premises network design includes identifying the types of services which will be carried over the network, and cost
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:48 AM
8
estimates for the geographic layout of fiber routes and outside plant, neighborhood nodes, and integration of electronic
transmission equipment. Upon completion of the design and confirmation of the business model, the consultant's scope of services will be structured to enable full citywide fiber-to-the-premises design, but with the expectation that
authorization to proceed will occur in phases, based on cost estimation, community interest, and/or partnership agreements before incremental last-mile development.
2:46:18:
The second step involves Utilities staff developing a public outreach program to solicit neighborhood interest in
participating, and verifying the business case for fiber-to-the-premises. Residents will be advised that, as envisioned, the City would fund extension of the fiber network to the neighborhood with the understanding that residents may be
responsible for some or all of the cost to reach individual homes.
### Given all the viable funding methods, why would the City even consider (as it did in 2012) -- let alone ask premises owners to consider -- funding ALL of the network with user financing?
An up-front cost estimate per home would be communicated, with cost estimates to be refined as the evaluation
proceeds. Residents will also be advised that decisions have not been made regarding service providers. Also, depending on the level of interest expressed, a handful of neighborhoods may be selected to proceed with preliminary
network design.
2:47:06:
The third step involves IT staff exploring marketplace interest in two ways. The first is establishing the level of interest in financial participation in the last-mile build-out, and second is the level of interest in providing gigabit service to
neighborhood residents. Participation in both these efforts could be described as integrated or separable levels of involvement.
2:47:40:
The fourth step -- and this would be subject to positive responses to the first three steps -- staff would engage community
stakeholders in identifying priority characteristics of prospective service providers. Topics would likely include characteristics such as services to be provided, customer service expectations, and policies on issues such as data
privacy.
2:47:56:
| Option 2 (continuation) Potential Last Mile Funding Models | * User-Financing (voluntary)
| * Assessment Districts, including Mello/Roos/Community Facilities Districts | * District formation process builds in confirmation of resident support before proceeding
| * Public-Private Partnership potential for last mile expansion
Potential funding models for the last mile include user financing. User financing is an approach that relies on homeowners to pay, on a voluntary basis, for some or all of the cost to build out the City's existing dark fiber backbone
network into residential neighborhoods. Homeowners and businesses would voluntarily finance system build-out costs by paying a one-time up-front connection fee that could range from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars.
### The 05-23-17 staff report says the fee "could range from $800 to $5,000, or more." I objected to that
description. Changing the wording to a fee "that could range from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars" doesn't address my objection. Is the intent that each connected residence would have to pay the same fee (despite the
fact that some residences would cost the City more to connect than others)? Is the intent that the up-front connection fee would cover only some of the cost?
Another potential funding model is the creation of assessment districts, which may be used to finance new public
improvements or other additions to the community. Generally speaking, an assessment district is formed with property owner ballot -- excuse me, with property owner mail ballot proceedings involving each property that will be assessed in
the district. Owners vote yes or no, and are weighted by the assessed.
### By the assessed what?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:48 AM
9
### Would all premises in a district have to pay something -- not just all subscribing premises?
It's important to note that under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, cities and other local government agencies can form a community facilities district to finance certain facilities and services. These districts can levy a
special tax, and issue bonds secured by that tax, upon approval by 2/3 of the registered voters -- or, property owners within the district.
Another last-mile approach is to explore the potential for a public-private partnership, where the City and a private entity
would work together to achieve mutual goals for a fiber-to-the-premises network.
2:49:35:
| Option 3 -- Pause Municipal FTTP and Increase Transparency and Predictability for ISPs | 1. Pause internal efforts for municipal FTTP
| 2. Identify additional resources to streamline third party network upgrades, where feasible (e.g., permitting and inspections)
| . Make available useful information about City assets and facilitate access to City infrastructure | . Streamline and publicize local processes
Option 3 is to pause municipal fiber-to-the-premises development efforts and increase transparency and predictability for
third-party providers for their network expansion. In light of the anticipated upgrade plans that Jonathan referred to a few moments ago, the cable and telco incumbents -- ah -- incumbents and -- is another option -- is pausing any further
municipal fiber-to-the-premises development at this time. As previously noted, obtaining sufficient market share in acquiring new customers is necessary to financially sustain a City fiber-to-the-premises offering. This would be a major
challenge under present market conditions. In the interest of improving broadband in Palo Alto, the City would identify resources and improve coordination of City policies and processes to facilitate network upgrades by the incumbents and
other independent internet service providers. To that end, the objective of this recommendation is to enhance transparency and predictability for third-party providers.
2:50:47:
Access by third-party providers to infrastructure data and assets such as poles, conduits, and rights-of-way is essential to
encouraging broadband improvements. Ensuring efficient and predictable processes that enhance deployment is equally important, as with any public project. In order to implement this strategy, staff will need to identify additional internal
and/or external resources, to better facilitate planning approvals, environmental reviews, permitting, inspections, and legalreviews. It's important to note that the work to identify these resources and the associated agreements were well
underway when staff was working with Google Fiber, from 2014 to 2016, to manage the anticipated large volume of activities to build their fiber network in Palo Alto.
2:51:35:
We're going to move along to wireless recommendations.
| Recommendation Expand Wi-Fi to Unserved City Facilities
| Proposed sites: | * Common areas at Cubberley and Lucie Stern
| * Golf Course Pro Ship and Café | * Lytton Plaza
| Estimated one-time cost for equipment and installation: $165,100 | Estimated monthly dark fiber license fees for new sites: $6,240
| Funding sources: | * Equipment and installation costs: Fiber Optic Fund Reserve
| * Allocate monthly costs to General Fund
There are two staff recommendations for wireless. The first recommendation is to expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities. The expansion of Wi-Fi technology at unserved City facilities and public areas was evaluated with the
Community Services Department. Most City facilities already have Wi-Fi access. The plan is to expand that coverage to common areas in the Cubberley Community Center, Lucie Stern, the Golf Course Pro Ship and Café, and Lytton Plaza. A
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 7:48 AM
10
high-level cost estimate for the recommended sites is $165,000 for installation, and approximately $6,200 for monthly
recurring charges. Funding for this project is recommended to come out of the Fiber Fund.
### I think this is inappropriate. The Fiber Fund exists to fund the fiber network, not wireless.
And the monthly recurring charges will be allocated to the respective departments, consistent with the City's existing charge-back model.
2:52:41:
| Recommendation Discontinue Consideration of City Wi-Fi in Commercial Areas
| * Widespread commercial Wi-Fi coverage in high-traffic commercial areas | * Lack of demand for City-branded Wi-Fi services
The second wireless recommendation is to discontinue consideration of City Wi-Fi in commercial areas. There is already
widespread commercial Wi-Fi coverage in high-traffic commercial areas. And there is a lack of demand for City-branded Wi-Fi services.
2:52:58:
So, to recap, in terms of the recommendation --
| Staff and UAC Recommendations
| Fiber Optic Expansion Recommendation: | * Option 2. Develop FTTN business case; engage consultant for FTTN and FTTP network design; identify potential
partners and "last mile" funding models | Wireless Recommendations:
| * Expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities (staff proposes including the Golf Course Café and Pro Shop) | * Discontinue consideration of commercial Wi-Fi
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission recommendations are as follows. For fiber optic expansion, staff and the UAC
recommend Option 2, which includes developing a fiber-to-the-node business case, engaging a consulting firm for fiber-to-the-node and fiber-to-the-premises design, and identifying potential partners and last-mile funding models. For
wireless, staff recommends expanding Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities, including the Golf Course Café and the Pro Shop. The UAC did not recommend expansion to the golf course facilities, but staff IS recommending that. And also,
again, to discontinue consideration of commercial Wi-Fi in high-traffic areas, such as University Ave and California Ave.
So that concludes my remarks and presentation.
2:54:06:
Chair Wolbach: Thank you, staff. And I just want to confirm that, City Clerk, we have not yet received any public comment cards. If there's any member of the public that would like to speak to this item, turn in your cards right away. It
looks like we do not.
### Sorry I couldn't attend the meeting.
All right. I'll turn it to colleagues for any questions, comments, motions -- go for it. And I told the City Manager we'd try to be out of here by nine o'clock, for staff.
### I think that was inappropriate.
2:54:32:
Council Member DuBois: Hopefully, we have more than fifteen minutes. (laughs)
2:54:35:
Chair Wolbach: If we need to go slightly over, you know, for important questions, I'm sure that's fine.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/2/2017 1:10 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joan Marx <joan_marx@arczip.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 01, 2017 2:30 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Martineau, Catherine; Elise Willis
Subject:urgent matter needs your attention
Attachments:829LaParaTreeMitigation.pdf
Honorable City Council Members and Canopy Staff:
Please see the attachment below.
Joan Marx
To Whom It May Concern:
The roots of the 300 year old Valley Oak at 829 La Para have been seriously damaged by
the violation described below.
Since the Neighbors of 829 La Para find that the Developers of 829, James Witt and Steve
Simpson, have violated the terms of the Conditions of Approval Revised and that City Staff of
the Department of Planning and Community Environment have not acknowledged or
prevented this violation, even when notified beforehand, we request the following:
1. Immediately, there is one condition in the Building Plan which should be modified to provide
partial mitigation: a wooden deck is to be constructed 10 ft. from the trunk, after the house is
completed. The deck can be mounted on grade level piers, without excavation, instead of the
current plan which shows excavation for a pier and beam foundation for the deck.
2. The Department of Planning and Community Environment (PCE) examine their internal
communications, particularly in regard to Urban Forestry, in order to prevent future violations
and corresponding coverups when Palo Alto residents are striving to optimize conditions for
Protected Trees threatened by development.
A. Description of Violation.
1. The Conditions of Approval Revised (CAR) include the following: "in order to better protect
the root system of the tree, the foundation shall be pier and grade beam" (#1.a.)
a. Pier and grade beam foundation is recommended by arborists in order to "better protect the
root system" of an endangered tree for the following reason. This foundation minimizes
excavation and consequent damage to the roots below ground since it requires only (1)
localized excavation from grade level for intermittently spaced vertical piers and (2) quite
shallow excavation, e.g., 6-8 inches from grade level, for the horizontal beams.
In contrast, the more usual foundation (spread foot or perimeter) excavates a
rectangular box beneath the entire house interior, with deep cuts along all four walls,
severance of roots at those walls, and destruction of all roots within the box. (Matheny and
Clark compare foundation depths and impact, Trees and Development, 1998, p. 53.)
b. The pier and grade beam foundation for the house at 829 is described by the Arborist's
Report, Revised (Kielty, November 2016, ARR) in terms which match the standard description
of pier and grade beam:
"Grade beam depth should be reduced as much as possible. A depth of 6-8 inches is
acceptable. The distance between the piers should be as large as possible. The foundation
at the back of the home will first need to be hand dug to the required grade beam depth
(italics mine) in order to expose all roots growing in this area. . . . Pier locations will need to be
dug to a depth of 3 feet by hand" (p.4).
Note: The neighbors suggested pier and grade beam for the greater protection of the
Valley Oak's roots, and the ARR then incorporated pier and grade beam for "the foundation at
the back of the home when closest to the tree" (p.4); the Developers subsequently decided to
use pier and beam for the entire foundation (Claire Hodgkins, email to me, Dec. 9).
2. Amalgamation of Two Foundations.
Instead of installing a pier and grade beam foundation as required and agreed to, the
Developers amalgamated two foundation styles. They did install piers for pier and grade
beam foundation, but they first dug a 2 ft. deep trench across the width of the house, 15 ft.
from the trunk, exposed and cut all roots in the trench, and then excavated a rectangular box
excavation for the entire house interior as they would for a perimeter foundation.
This box excavation to a depth of about two feet, with cuts from grade level at the house's
perimeter, was dug by machine.
3. Self Contradictory and Destructive Result of Amalgamating Foundations.
a. Oak tree roots are found in the top 3 ft. of soil (Oaks in the Urban Landscape, p.226).
b. All lateral roots coming from the trunk, to a depth of 2/3 of the root layer, were cut off at a
15 ft. distance from the trunk as for a perimeter foundation.
c. All roots below 2 ft. within the box were compressed by a Caterpillar.
c. The pier holes within the dripline of the tree (46 ft.) were then hand dug to a depth of 3 ft.,
as described in the CAR (#14 ) but starting not at grade, as assumed, but 2 ft. below grade,
i.e., 2-5 ft. down. Hand digging is meant to allow for location of roots and even avoidance of
roots by shifting the pier location. Here roots to a depth of 2 ft. have already been destroyed.
d. The excavation for shallow grade beams described in the ARR,"6-8 in. [from grade] is
acceptable" is literally not possible.
In sum, constructing a pier and grade beam foundation for the sake of saving tree roots as
outlined in the CAR became a sham when pier and grade beam was inserted into a perimeter
style excavation. All the roots that could have been saved by localized excavation for pier and
shallow grade beam were lost.
B. Responsibility for the Violation and Resulting Excavation of Roots.
1. The Developers, James Witt and Steve Simpson, chose to use pier and beam foundation,
described by their arborist, Robert Kielty, for the entire house. The CAR clearly states which
foundation, pier and grade beam, is to be used and for what purpose, "to better protect the
root system of the tree." They violated this condition when they included a box excavation for
the crawl space in the Building Plan.
Note: The Developers had a history of multiple documented violations of the CAR in
building the driveway, before any excavation for the house was attempted. City Staff met with
the Developers on March 22nd to demand they fulfill the CAR and prevent future violations.
(Jodie Gerhardt, email to me, March 24th.) The Developers had also falsified the Valley Oak's
dripline on the site plan, placing it at 34 ft. instead of 46 ft.
2. The Department of Planning and Community Environment (PCE) is responsible for
inspecting and coordinating the Building Plan with the CAR. The box excavation to a depth of
12 in. on the Building Plan should have been noted and denied by the City Planner, Claire
Hodgkins, and Walter Passmore, the Urban Forester.
Note: Canopy Staff member Elise Wilkins wrote Claire Hodgkins and Walter Passmore
specifically requesting attention to any inconsistencies between the Site Plan and Building
Plans (email, Dec. 2nd) and Claire promised a careful review with Walter Passmore (email,
Dec. 5th).
3. The Director of Current Planning, Jodie Gerhardt, consistently denied any conflict with the
CAR from Wednesday night, March 22nd through the beginning of excavation on Tuesday
March 28th in spite of six explanatory emails, including photos, outlining the conflict.
All large lateral roots were severed in the trench, by the Developers' arborist, during the
period Saturday March 25th to Monday, March 27th, with the approval of the Urban Forester
(Jodie Gerhardt email to me, March 27).
4. At a 15 minute emergency meeting, Tuesday morning March 28th, during the excavation,
Assistant Director of Planning Jon Lait did not acknowledge the foundation violation and stop
the excavation; instead, he limited the investigation to the question of the depth of the
excavation. The Building Plan shows a 12 in. excavation; Mr. Lait ordered that a Building
Inspector be sent out to see if the excavation were deeper and thus in violation of the Building
Plan.
Note: the Neighbors asked for the meeting to stop the excavation. Attendees were the
following: Jon Lait, Jodie Gerhardt, Claire Hodgkins, Walter Passmore, Dave Dockter,
Residential Arborist, and three neighbors: George Irwin, Ben Irwin, Joan Marx.
Walter Passmore, the Urban Forester, not a Building Inspector, visited the site at
approximately 1:30 p.m. Approximately one half of the box excavation at 2 ft. deep was
complete. He reported that the excavation was "consistent with our [City's] expectations,"
thereby evading the specific charge to report if the depth exceeded 12 in. and continuing his
approval of the box excavation (Jon Lait email to me, March 29th).
C. Mitigation for Negligence and Resulting Damage to Tree Roots.
1. The 5 ft. wooden deck, to be constructed after the house is completed and the Tree
Protection fencing taken down, is designed to begin 10 ft. from the trunk and to excavate for a
pier and beam foundation. It should be built instead without excavation of any kind, thus
saving a span of roots 5 ft. long and over 30 ft. wide, very close to the trunk, from damage.
a. The current design calls for a pier and beam foundation 10 ft. from the trunk, with
excavation for the piers.
b. The Building Plan notes that this pier and beam foundation should "be constructed with pier
holes dug by hand and located to avoid severing or damaging any roots greater than 1 inch in
diameter." Yet 1 inch roots, which could be cut according to this note, are sizable; they are
counted and listed in the ARR. (Of course all smaller roots, including feeder roots, would also
be lost.)
c. Precast piers are commonly used for decks and require no excavation.
2. Improved honesty and professional integrity on the part of PCE in the future cannot restore
vigor and optimize health for the 300 year old Valley Oak; the damage to this community
resource, which the Neighbors worked hard to prevent, has been done.
However, the PCE can and should improve their practices to prevent future coverups and
falsifications to aid developers.
a. Conflicts between Conditions of Approval and Building Plans must be noted and swiftly
addressed by the City's professional planners, most particularly by the Urban Forester.
b. Notification of violations should be responded to in a timely manner by Staff. If more
evidence is needed, then that evidence should be requested instead of ignoring the violation.
c. In this case, when the Neighbors asked for a Second Arborist's opinion, one they would pay
for, the City refused to demand that the Developers allow access for this Second Arborist, and
the Developers consistently refused such access. Yet a professional, one not paid for by the
developers and able to think creatively about optimizing the tree's health in the context of
building a large home on this unique site, would have saved all parties, Developers, the City
and the Neighbors, an extraordinary amount of time, effort and money. We would ask that the
City allow such a Second Arborist opinion in the future.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/5/2017 10:16 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nancy Lewis <nandinaberry@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 05, 2017 8:52 AM
To:rebecca.atkinson@cityoifpaloalto.org; Council, City
Subject:Verizon cell node project proposal
Attachments:Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Permits Under BMC Chapter 16_10.pdf
Dear Ms. Atkinson and City Council Members:
I am weighing in with my objections to the proposed Verizon cell tower project which will include my neighborhood, Barron Park. Here are my objections:
1) Cell towers and nodes degrade the quality of deep residential areas. Despite Verizon’s overly cheerful website which promotes the idea that we are “helping” Palo Alto, I fail to see their concern for the actual impact of placing cell nodes near homes. Barron Park in particular bears a lot of brunt from the VA Hospital, Surf Air, CSI, the FAA’s new flight paths and lower approach heights, not to mention
the already existing recent cell node encroachments. 2) Verizon puts forth a sugary statement that cellphone towers are absolutely safe, but a quick internet search will reveal that their
confidence is unfounded. There is no definitive opinion about the safety of cell radiation. 3) Cell phone nodes are ugly and add a dimension of industrialization to a neighborhood. Please see the attached PDF of Berkeley’s aesthetic guidelines for cell towers.
4) Several bird species currently use the power pole in front of my house. Hawks use it for an eating platform, woodpeckers, mockingbirds and jays use it for territory sounding. Wildlife is already beleaguered.
In looking at the city’s website I couldn’t find the information on where exactly the cell nodes will be located. Please make this available on the website.
Sincerely, Nancy Lewis
667 Kendall Ave Palo Alto
CITY OF BERKELEY
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM
GUIDELINES FOR PROJECTS REQUIRING
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENCROACHMENT/EXCAVATION PERMITS
These guidelines have been prepared and adopted to establish a uniform set of criteria to guide
implementation of the requirements of BMC Section 16.10.050 regarding installation of any
equipment used to provide telecommunications services if any part of the facility will be located
in, above, or below the City of Berkeley public right-of-way including, but not limited to,
overhead aerial installations, installations in existing conduit, installations in new conduit that
requires excavation of public streets, or equipment that is installed on a public sidewalk.
Because it is not practical to incorporate detailed design standards in BMC Section 16.10, the
Code authorizes the City Manager to adopt additional guidelines, regulations, and standards to
address their aesthetic effects as well as other features that could present a physical hazard or
otherwise degrade the character of residential and commercial neighborhoods.
To facilitate administration of the permit program, the guidelines incorporate relevant
provisions of BMC Section 16.10.050 and relevant provisions of BMC Chapter 23C.17, which
establishes zoning regulations applicable to wireless telecommunications facilities on property
outside of the public right-of-way. Additional sources for these guidelines are standard
conditions imposed on projects subject to regulation under BMC Title 23 (Zoning Ordinance)
and other regulations of the Berkeley Department of Public Works.
The objective of the guidelines is ensure that the design, operation, and siting of facilities in the
public right-of-way will occur in a manner that protects and promotes public safety, community
welfare and the aesthetic quality of the City consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of
the Berkeley General Plan and Public Utilities Code Sections 7901 and 7901.1. At the same
time, recognizing that the construction of antenna system components on telephone poles may be
necessary in areas where installation of base stations on buildings is not feasible, the guidelines
provide for managed development of wireless telecommunications infrastructure in accordance
with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The guidelines are intended to achieve the following specific objectives:
1. Foster an aesthetically pleasing urban environment, protect and preserve public safety
and general welfare, and protect the character of residential and adjacent
neighborhood commercial areas by preventing visual blight and clutter from
inappropriately designed and sited wireless communication facilities to the extent
allowed by applicable state and federal legislation;
2. Promote location and design of facilities to minimize interference with pedestrian and
vehicular traffic, avoid damage to street trees, and protect historic and cultural, and
natural resources by preventing degradation of their surrounding setting;
City of Berkeley, Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Permits Under BMC Chapter 16.10
March 15, 2011
Page 1
3. Minimize noise, trajjic disruption, dust, air pollution, and other short-term impacts of
construction activities and day-to-day operation;
4. Meet the needs of the City's residents, businesses, and visitors for reliable
communication services by providing for the installation of appropriately designed
antenna system components in the public right-of-way in areas where installation on
buildings or other sites is not feasible;
5. Ensure that underground installations do not degrade public streets and sidewalks;
6. Provide opportunities for citizens to comment on the location and design of overhead
facilities, such as pole-mounted antennas, and above-ground structures, such as phone
pedestal boxes, to make installations more responsive to neighborhood concerns about
their aesthetic and environmental effects;
7. Provide greater certainty to both applicants and interested members of the public while
ensuring compliance with all applicable public works requirements;
8. Provide a mechanism for taking advantage of improvements in wireless technology
improvements that would allow further reductions in the aesthetic and environmental
impacts of telecommunications facilities as such changes in technology occur.
I. EXISTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Existing laws and City ordinances require that, in general, telecommunications
facilities located within the public right-of-way in the City of Berkeley conform to the
following requirements:
B. Applicable BMC Regulations. Facilities shall be located, constructed, installed, and
maintained in compliance with all applicable requirements of BMC Title 16 (Streets,
Sidewalks and Other Public Property);
C. Applicable Fe9eral and State Requirements. Carriers and their agents shall comply
with applicable regulations and standards of any other governmental agency with
jurisdiction over the installation or operation of wireless telecommunications facilities
including, but not limited to, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal
Aviation Administration, and the California Public Utilities Commission. The City
Manager may require the Applicant to provide evidence that the Applicant has
obtained all approvals required to construct, install, and maintain the proposed facility
and that such approvals have been reviewed in compliance with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et
seq.);
D. Notification Requirements. Under BMC Chapter 16.10, at least 30 days before
beginning construction, the Applicant shall provide written notification of any
proposed above-ground installation in the public right-of-way to all owners and
residents within 500 feet of the proposed location.
1. The notice shall include a description of the proposed installation, including
the proposed dimensions, design, color, type of facility, proposed location
and identification of alternative locations (including undergrounding) that
would meet project objectives.
City of Berkeley, Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Permits Under BMC Chapter 16.10
March 15, 2011
Page 2
2. The Applicant shall maintain a log of all calls and correspondence received
in response to the notice including the date received, name, property address,
comment, and resolution. A copy of the log shall be provided to the City
prior to construction.
E. Construction Period Requirements
1. Construction shall be coordinated with other utility companies or applicants
installing infrastructure in the public right-or-way as provided for in BMC
Section 16.10.050.
2. When projects require excavation, the Applicant shall determine whether
surplus conduit is available in the project area and whether joint trenching or
boring will be feasible.
3. Facilities that require excavation shall be installed within existing facilities
whenever sufficient excess capacity is available subject to reasonable terms
and conditions.
4. Construction shall be scheduled and conducted so as to minimize
interference with public use of the right-of-way including access to the right-
of-way from private property.
5. Noise-producing site preparation and construction activities shall only occur
on weekdays between the hours of 8 am to 7 pm in residential areas and
between the hours of 7 am to 7 pm in commercial areas, or as designated on
permit notes or attachments.
6. All trucks and equipment shall use the best available noise control
techniques and equipment including improved mufflers, intake silencers,
ducts, engine enclosures, and noise-reducing shields or shrouds.
7. hnpact tools such as jackhammers, pavement breakers, and noise drills shall
be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever feasible to avoid noise
associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
8. When the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler shall be
used on the compressed air exhaust to lower noise levels.
9. External jackets shall be used on tools where feasible to achieve noise
reductions. To the extent possible, quieter procedures should be used such
as drilling instead of jack hammering.
10. Stationary noise sources should be located as far as possible from sensitive
receptors. If location within 20 feet of homes, schools, neighborhood parks,
and retail businesses is necessary, stationery sources should be muffled and
enclosed with temporary sheds.
11. Trucks and other vehicles should not be permitted to idle when waiting at or
near the construction site.
12. Construction sites shall be watered at least twice daily to control dust caused
by site preparation and construction activities. Increased watering may be
necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Whenever
possible, reclaimed water should be used for this purpose.
City of Berkeley, Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Permits Under BMC Chapter 16.10
March 15, 2011
Page 3
13. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, paving materials, and other loose
materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of space between the
top of the load and the top of the trailer.
14. Sweep streets, if possible with water sweepers using reclaimed water, at the
end of each workday if soil, sand, or other material has been carried onto
adjacent paved streets or sidewalks.
15. Best Management Practices shall be used to prevent oil, dirt, and other
materials from construction equipment or activity from washing into the City
storm drainage system.
16. Excavation and trenching activities shall not disturb the root systems of trees
measuring 24 inches or more in diameter. Protective fencing should be
installed around street trees within or adjacent to the work area to prevent
damage to branches, trunks, or root systems.
17. If any cultural resources are discovered during excavation, trenching, or
other construction activities, work shall be stopped immediately and the
Director of Planning and Development shall be notified.
18. Directional boring should be used instead of trenching whenever possible to
minimize interference with vehicular traffic and may be required by the City
when working in streets that have been recently resurfaced or resealed.
19. When trenching is necessary, all trenches shall be covered at the end of each
workday. The total time that a trench may remain open in any segment of
the road system should not exceed one week.
II. SITE SELECTION GUIDELINES
A. Based on potential aesthetic impact, the order of preference for selecting locations for
installations in the public right-of-way is as follows:
1. Areas that are located in commercial or manufacturing districts and are not
within a designated landmark district, or located within 100 feet of a
property that is designated as a City Landmark or is an historic resource as
defined by the State Public Resources Code.
2. Any neighborhood commercial district;
3. Any residential district;
4. Any location within 100 feet of a City park, property designated as a City
Landmark, or property that contains an historic resource as defined by the
State Public Resources Code;
B. Facilities and equipment shall only be installed where equipment will not interfere
with existing or future City uses of the right-or-way, the rights of private property
owners, other utility fixtures and services, water hydrants or mains, wastewater
stations, traffic control systems, or any other service or facility that benefits the City
or the health, safety, or welfare of its residents.
C. If a property or business owner objects to an installation in the right-of-way along his
or her property, the City Manager may require the provider to identify at least one
City of Berkeley, Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Permits Under BMC Chapter 16.10
March 15, 2011
Page4
feasible alternate location, if possible, subject to compliance with these guidelines
including approval of adjacent owners.
D. Facilities shall be installed within existing underground ducts or conduits whenever
such ducts, conduits, manholes or other facilities have volume or capacity that is
available or will be available for third party facilities. Utility boxes, power units, and
similar fixtures shall be installed completely underground partially buried unless the
City Manager finds that undergrounding would result in maintenance and operation
problems that would interfere with service. Overhead facilities may be installed on
existing utility poles where deemed appropriate by the City Manager.
E. Facilities that transmit and/or receive electromagnetic signals including wireless
communication services shall not be located closer than 100 feet to any existing legal
dwelling unit, residentially zoned parcel, licensed day care facility or other
educational facility unless the Applicant submits to the City non-ionizing
electromagnetic radiation (NIER) calculations prepared by a qualified electrical
engineer licensed by the State of California showing that NIER levels at these
locations comply with FCC Maximum Permissible Exposure Limit for human
exposure or any more restrictive standard adopted by the State of California or the
Federal government. For information elsewhere
F. Overhead Facilities. Overhead facilities may be installed on existing utility poles
when the City Manager finds the proposed installation in accord with these guidelines
and necessary to meet the Applicant's service objectives. No support structures other
than utility poles are permitted.
1. The City Manager may approve the replacement of an existing pole if the
new pole has the same or better appearance than the existing structure.
2. Overhead facilities shall not be installed in the public right-of-way where
there are no existing overhead utility facilities or where a project has been
implemented to remove existing overhead facilities.
3. No facility shall be installed on a utility pole that is less than 25 feet in
height.
4. To the extent permitted by law, new utility poles over 40 feet are prohibited.
Regardless of the height of new utility poles, telecommunications facilities
shall not be installed on new poles at a height greater than the minimum
necessary to comply with General Order 95 and P, G & E safety
requirements.
G. Above-Ground Installations.
1. Pedestals, amplifier units, equipment cabinets, and similar above ground
installations shall, where feasible, be located at least 6 inches from any
sidewalk and 2 feet from driveway and curb edges. As required by the State
Fire Code, pedestals must be at least 3 feet from fire hydrants. Installations
must leave a minimum horizontal clear space for the path of travel of at least
6 feet. The City Manager may require more clear space for travel in heavily
used commercial areas to provide sufficient room for pedestrian traffic.
City of Berkeley, Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Permits Under BMC Chapter 16.10
March 15, 2011
Page 5
2. Above-ground installations shall not be placed in front of the primary
entrance to a residence or retail business or at any other location where they
would unduly interfere with the operation of a business, including blocking
views of the entrance or display windows.
3. Above-ground installations in residential districts should generally be
located at least 1,500 feet apart from one another.
4. Above-ground units should not be sited at any location where the removal of
vegetation will be necessary unless the City Manager determines that no
other location is feasible and replacement landscaping is provided in accord
with these guidelines.
5. No unit higher than 3 feet shall be placed in any location that would interfere
with vehicular sight lines at street comers, driveways, and other points of
ingress or egress or obstruct the view of any traffic devices installed or
authorized by the City.
6. Proposed facilities shall not be located where they would reduce the amount
of space available for on-street parking spaces or interfere with access of the
public or workers to meters, fire hydrants, or other objects of street hardware
in the right-of-way.
7. Above ground facilities should not be placed at any location where they will
be in a direct line of sight of a significant or sensitive view corridor, would
adversely affect a scenic vista, or would materially impair the significance of
an historical resource or unique archeological resource. When alternate sites
are not available, facilities must be camouflaged, screened, or otherwise
designed to minimize their visibility as provided for in these guidelines.
H. Expert Review. In the event an Applicant claims that compliance with the foregoing
standards is unreasonable or infeasible for technical reasons, the City Manager shall
have the discretion to require peer review by an independent, qualified consultant to
evaluate technical and other aspects of an application. The Applicant shall provide the
City with written authorization for the City Manager to do so.
1. The Applicant's authorization shall include a written agreement by the
Applicant to advance or promptly reimburse the City for all reasonable costs
associated with such consultation. In the alternative, the City Manager may
require the Applicant to submit a cash deposit for the estimated cost of such
consultation, and to replenish said deposit if consumed by reasonable costs
associated with such consultation.
2. Such consultation is intended to be a site-specific review of technical aspects
of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and shall address all of
the following:
a. Compliance with applicable radio frequency emission standards;
b. Height analysis;
c. Configuration;
d. The appropriateness of granting any requested exceptions;
City of Berkeley, Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Permits Under BMC Chapter 16.10
March 15, 2011
Page 6
e. The accuracy and completeness of submissions;
f. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies;
g. The validity of conclusions reached; and
h. Any specific technical issues designated by the city.
III. DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
A. Providers shall take all reasonable steps to modify proposed plans to accommodate
public concerns and shall describe such changes in the application filed with the City.
B. The color, design, and landscaping of above-ground installations may be varied from
these guidelines in response to the request of property or business owners so long as
the City Manager approves such changes.
C. Providers shall use the smallest and least visible antennas, equipment cabinets, and
other facilities to accomplish the operator's coverage and service objectives.
D. When feasible and consistent with the purposes and requirements of these guidelines
and applicable requirements, providers shall make unused space on existing poles
available for future co-location of other telecommunication facilities, including space
for different operators providing similar, competing services.
E. Overhead Facilities.
1. Subject to the limitations recognized by paragraph (C), facilities installed on
existing utility poles should not be larger, more obtrusive, or more readily
visible than the existing facilities and devices affixed to the pole.
2. No more than 1 antenna array may be attached to a utility or street light pole.
3. An antenna enclosure attached to the top of a utility or street light pole shall
be cylindrical in shape, shall not exceed 4 feet in height, and shall not have a
diameter greater than the diameter of the pole.
4. Equipment Enclosures. A maximum of 2 equipment enclosures and 1 meter
box may be attached to a utility or street light pole, as follows:
a. A primary equipment enclosure installed on the same utility or street
light pole as the antenna enclosure(s), preferably facing the street or
perpendicular to the street, shall be no larger than approximately 4
cubic feet in volume, with a width not exceeding approximately 12
inches and a depth not exceeding approximately 10 inches, and shall
be as small as reasonably possible with current technology. An
electric meter and a cut-off switch may be located outside of the
primary equipment enclosure;
b. A secondary equipment enclosure installed on a utility or street light
pole that is near the utility or street light pole to be used for the
antenna enclosure(s) and primary equipment enclosure, preferably
facing the street or perpendicular to the street, shall be no larger than
approximately 4 cubic feet in volume, with a width not exceeding
approximately 12 inches and a depth not exceeding approximately 10
inches, and shall be as small as reasonably possible with current
technology.
City of Berkeley, Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Penni ts Under BMC Chapter 16.10
March 15, 2011
Page 7
c. In lieu of a separate meter box, the City Manager may allow a larger
primary equipment enclosure if the Applicant demonstrates that the
enclosure will contain an electricity meter and cut-off switch,
provided that the width of the enclosure does not exceed
approximately 12 inches and the depth does not exceed approximately
10 inches, and is as small as reasonably possible with current
technology.
d. The bracket supporting an equipment enclosure shall not extend more
than the minimum necessary to support the equipment.
5. Supporting Elements. If applicable law, or generally applicable written rules
of the pole owner, require a supporting element for any antenna enclosure
such as a cross-arm or pole top extension, such supporting element shall be
no larger, longer, or bulkier than is necessary to comply with applicable law
or such generally applicable written rules.
F. Colors and materials for facilities shall be chosen to minimize visibility. All visible
exterior surfaces shall be constructed of non-reflective materials and painted or
textured using colors to match or blend with the primary background.
G. Utility Boxes and Cabinets. Facilities shall be compatible in scale and integrated
architecturally with the design of surrounding buildings or the natural setting.
1. Above-ground and partially buried ancillary equipment including support
pads, cabinets, shelters, and buildings shall be designed to be architecturally
compatible with surrounding structures and/or screened using appropriate
techniques to camouflage, disguise, and/or blend into the environment
including landscaping, color, and other techniques to minimize their visual
impact.
2. Ground-mounted utility boxes, equipment cabinets, power supply units and
similar facilities shall be painted dark forest green or another approved color
that will camouflage or disguise the facility, and/or blend it into the
surrounding environment
3. If the City Manager determines than an equipment cabinet is not or cannot
be adequately screened from surrounding properties or from public view or
architecturally treated to blend in with the environment, the equipment
cabinet shall be placed underground or outside of the right-of-way subject to
the requirements of the BMC Chapter 23 (Zoning Ordinance).
4. Above-ground utility boxes in residential districts, and power supply units,
shall generally not have dimensions that exceed a United States Postal
Service mail box or the following dimensions:
Height: 48 inches
Width: 48 inches
Depth: 24 inches
5. Power supply units must be enclosed by a fence with mesh and slats of dark
forest green or other color designated by the City Manager to match the
color of the unit.
City of Berkeley, Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Permits Under BMC Chapter 16.10
March 15, 2011
Page 8
H. When facility lighting is needed for security or safety reasons it shall be designed to
avoid glare and minimize illumination on adjacent properties.
I. No advertising shall be placed on any above-ground telecommunications facilities or
equipment. Informational signage required by these guidelines may include an
identifying logo.
J. Screening. Above ground facilities shall be screened as required by the City
Manager.
1. Screening shall be of a sufficient height and density to screen the facility
from the public sidewalk and parkway.
2. The City Manager may require the Applicant to submit a tree protection plan
prepared by a certified arborist for the installation of any
telecommunications facility located within the canopy of a street tree, or a
protected tree on private property, or within a minimum of a 10-foot radius
of the base of such a tree. Depending on site-specific criteria (e.g. location of
tree, size and type of tree etc.), the City Manager may require a radius
greater than 1 0 feet.
K. All facilities shall be designed to be resistant to and minimize opportunities for
unauthorized access, climbing, vandalism, graffiti, and other conditions that would
result in hazardous conditions, visual blight, or attractive nuisances. The City
Manager may require the provision of warning signs, fencing, anti-climbing devices,
or other techniques to prevent unauthorized access and vandalism when, because of
their location and/or accessibility, antenna facilities have the potential to become an
attractive nuisance. The design of the fencing and other access control devices shall
be subject to design review by the City Manager.
L. At the time of modification or upgrade of facilities, existing equipment shall, to the
extent feasible, be replaced with equipment of equal or greater technical capacity and
reduced size so as to reduce visual impacts.
M. Each owner or operator of a telecommunications facility shall provide signage
identifying the name and phone number of a party to contact in event of an
emergency. The signage shall be attached to the base of any utility pole or light
standard to which equipment is affixed. Dimensions shall not exceed 8 1/2 inches by
11 inches.
N. The exterior walls and roof covering of all aboveground equipment shelters and
cabinets shall be constructed of materials rated as nonflammable in the Uniform
Building Code. Openings in all above-ground equipment shelters and cabinets shall
be protected against penetration by fire and windblown embers to the extent feasible.
IV. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES
A. Telecommunications facilities and related equipment, including lighting, fences,
shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair, free from trash,
debris, litter and graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any
cause shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible so as to minimize occurrences
of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility
City of Berkeley, Aesthetic Guidelines for PROW Permits Under BMC Chapter 16.10
March 15, 2011
Page9
'
Link to FAQs about the project:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Electrification+D
ocuments/PCEP+ FAQ. pdf
Link to the jobs that will be created by this project:
http://www. caltrain .com/Assets/Caltrain+ Modernization+ Program/Electrification/Ca
IMod+Jobs.pdf
###
I
Seattle, Davis, Santa Monica, Alameda, Oakland and San
Francisco in divesting from DAPL.
The City of Palo Alto has a long history of action on climate
change and sustainability including the following.
• In December 2009, the Council passed Resolution 9013
recognizing "the externality costs associated with burning
fossil fuels for energy production and transportation" and
accepting "the concept of true-cost pricing".
• In March 2013, the City adopted the Carbon Neutral Plan
and later that year became "the first city in America whose
electricity supply is 100 percent carbon-neutral".
• In February 2015, the Council adopted Resolution 9493
"urging Cal PERS to divest from publicly traded fossil fuel
companies".
In light of the imminent dangers from human-caused climate
change and the resolutions adopted by the US and 194
countries at COP21 in Paris, we urge the Council to divest from
all financial institutions having investments in the Dakota
Access Pipeline and its construction entity, Energy Transfer
Partners, as well as any new fossil fuel infrastructure.
The Dakota Access Pipeline is a particularly egregious project
because it tramples on the human, land, air and water rights of
Native American peoples.
Based on the City's Feb 2017 Investment Activity Report, our
research shows that the City's main banking partner is DAPL
financier US Bank (holdings exceed $1 OM) and that the City has
another $7M in cash and investments with other DAPL
financiers including Chase, Goldman Sachs, HSBC and Wells
Fargo. In addition, the City has $16M invested in the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA), which operates numerous coal and fossil
fuel power plants and the controversial Watts Bar Nuclear
You may receive updates from
Melanie Liu, the creator of this
petition.
Edit Subscription Preferences
I'll Flag As Spam
Action Network is an open platform that empowers individuals and groups to organize for progressive causes.
We encourage responsible activism, and do not support using the platform to take unlawful or other improper
action. We do not control or endorse the conduct of users and make no representations of any kind about
them.
GET HELP
Full documentation and tutorial videos are available here
GET IN TOUCH
Send us an email with your name and your message at support@actionnetwork.org and we'll get back to you
as soon as possible.
WANT TO PARTNER WITH US?
Action Network partners get access to our full range of tools, including the ability to upload activists and
subscribe them to your list. create custom-branded email and page wrappers, and more. Join organizations
large and small who've made the switch'
Learn more about our partnerships--+
GET AROUND ORGANIZE
Home Create Pel•t1on
Our 7oolset Create Event
Partnerships Create Ticketed Event
FAQ Create Form
Find A Group Create Fundraiser
Help & Videos Create Lener Campaign
API Docunientallon Create Email
SQL rv111 ror DocumentationCreate Report
11. Amie Neff (zip code: 94306)
12. Ana Ulln (zip code: 94301)
13. Ananya Dad (zip code: 94306)
14. Andrea Fraume (zip code: 95136)
15. Angelina Hadley (zip code: 94546)
16. Anne Frahn (zip code: 94301)
17. Adrian Avalos (zip code: 94306)
18. Arielle Diamond (zip code: 94115)
19. Alberto Roman (zip code: 95116)
None!
20. Asher Kohn (zip code: 94301)
21. Carol Liu (zip code: 94303)
22. Audrey Weber (zip code: 94304)
23. Ava Lindstrom (zip code: 94306-4164)
Palo Alto generally has a great environmental record--let's keep it going and join Oakland and San
Francisco in divesting from DAPL!
24. William Cane (zip code: 94301)
25. Barbara Saxton (zip code: 94043)
26. Brinley Bowes (zip code: 94024)
27. Beatrix Cashmore (zip code: 94303)
28. An anonymous signer (zip code: 94002)
clean water is needed by all.
DEFUND the pipeline.
29. Rebecca Levin (zip code: 94061~3444)
30. Lori Hart Benlnger (zip code: 95124)
Seattle. Washington has done it. Davis, California has done it. I am asking the same of San Jose as
well! Please stop supporting banks that fund environmentally horrendous projects for private
enterprises.
31. Benoit Dupln (zip code: 94087)
32. bette klernan (zip code: 94304)
33. Betty Romo (zip code: 95137)
34. davld bezanson (zip code: 94066)
One of the funding banks is Wells Fargo. I will soon be closing out all of my accounts there and taking
my biz down the street to a more conscientious bank.
35. Ashutosh (zip code: 95123)
36. Bill Hiiton (zip code: 94087)
37. Kris Morrella (zip code: 95135)
Do what is right!
38. Bruce Naegel (zip code: 94040)
39. Bob Jung (zip code: 94024)
40. bonny parke (zip code: 94306)
41. Daune Turner (zip code: 94401)
42. An anonymous signer (zip code: 60625)
43. Brian Haberly (zip code: 95112)
44. Brittany McGee (zip code: 16925)
45. Betty McNamara (zip code: 94306)
46. Byanca Franco (zip code: 95122)
LIFELINES OVER PIPELINES
47. Margaret Bernadette Castor (zip code: 94028)
I grew up along the Missouri river. Let's not destroy the natural resources there, and ignore the native
tribes sacred grounds.
48. Carol Uyeno (zip code: 94303)
49. Patrick Cashmore (zip code: 94303)
50. Catherine Christen (zip code: 94303)
51. An anonymous signer (zip code: 95123)
52. carol wardley (zip code: DAB 1PN)
Native people's deserve clean water and appreciation of their beliefs
53. Chris Maukonen (zip code: 44125)
54. Charmaine Leonard (zip code: 94109)
55. Chasity Salvador (zip code: 94309)
56. Chelsey Flesher (zip code: 93955)
57. Cheryl McGovern (zip code: 95112)
58. Chris Bedford (zip code: 94043)
#NODAPL (please)
59. Christine Selberg (zip code: 94301)
Requesting that Palo Alto divest from banks funding pipelines--money talks-this is not socially
responsible to support these banks!
60. Claire Amkraut (zip code: 94303)
61 . Concetta Ferrell (zip code: 95008)
62. Cornella Lorentzen (zip code: 94612)
63. Laura Cortes (zip code: 95207)
64. Patti Berryhlll (zip code: 94025)
65. Judy Cowling (zip code: 48198)
66. Cristina Reynoso (zip code: 95126)
67. Cynthia Obyrne (zip code: 93436)
68. Cynthia Hanson (zip code: 94043)
69. Darlene Yaplee (zip code: 94301)
70. Darshana Maya Greenfield (zip code: 94025)
Put our money into our future -and a clean, sustainable, just planet!
71. Davena Gentry (zip code: 94301)
72. David Jones (zip code: 94002)
Our children are watching
73. Dolna Smith (zip code: 95812)
74. Don~a Booth (zip code: 94040)
75. Desiree Dockter (zip code: 94303)
76. francesca kautz (zip code: 94306)
Respect Native American Rights and Mother Nature.
77. Dave Vick (zip code: 95030)
78. Diana Giiiespie (zip code: 94110)
79. Diane Farrar (zip code: 94306)
80. Dina Gllholy (zip code: Ox16 1 za)
81. Dave Joki (zip code: 94303)
82. Debbie Mytels (zip code: 94303)
83. Debbie Mytels (zip code: 94303)
We need to withdraw our financial assets from those who are irresponsibly using them to pollute
Earth's atmosphere and destroying our children's future.
84. Elaine Dodd (zip code: 94301)
85. Barbara Doll (zip code: 95035)
86. Dorothy Fadlman (zip code: 94025)
87. Donna Pioppl (zip code: 94306)
88. Dr. Maria Michael (zip code: 94523)
We must all come together in a higher consciousness to protect Grandmother Earth for the next
seven generations. We implore you to think about all the children and the future. Please send a clear
message that your money be used in an appropriate way and not support fossil fuels or anything that
will put our Grandmother Earth in anymore jeopardy. We are the LAkota/Navajo Elder in this photo in
the front. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach to to us.
89. dinmani savla (zip code: 94040)
As a progressive and environmentally friendly community, this sort of financial connection is not
befitting to the city.
90. Diane Shores (zip code: 03037)
91 . David Sprowls (zip code: 95014)
92. dan walls (zip code: 94305)
93. Esmat Baradar (zip code: 95120)
Pis. Understand the dangers of your divesments in DPL construction. It will create many risks
nationally. As a concerned grandma I have researched the huge damages the pipeline is already
creating.
Thank you for not Divesting.
94. Eva Baker (zip code: 94080)
95. Edie Keating (zip code: 94306)
Changing investments to align with opposing climate change is worthwhile and should be done.
Changing an active financial partner bank is complicated, and it is also a worthwhile change, even if it
cannot take place as quickly. I hope Palo Alto will leave behind these unethical entanglements now
before they truly become bad investments.
96. Edith Eddy (zip code: 94301)
Sending oil through the Dakota Access Pipeline is culturally abhorrent, environmentally harmful and
morally repugnant.
97. Elizabeth Russell (zip code: 94303)
98. Eleanor G Vick (zip code: 95030)
99. Erin Angell (zip code: 95011)
100. steve eittreim (zip code: 94303)
we all need to step up in this fight against the fossil fuel industry which is shortchanging my
'... . ,.
Comments to Palo Alto City Council
Approval of Environmental Impact Reports
June S, 2017
I am Keith Bennett, speaking tonight on behalf of Save Palo Alto's Groundwater. The
mission of our organization is to effect City policies that protect our groundwater and to
protect the aquifer; the shallow aquifer provides valuable and under-appreciated
services, especially for storm water management.
City Staff and the ARB have recommended approval of the Environmental Impact Report
for the proposed Marriott Hotels on San Antonio. However, this report does not include
any quantitative analysis of the impacts of these hotels on our groundwater.
Groundwater is not perceived as a resource, The proposed structures have over 14,000
square feet of underground parking extending 2-levels below ground. Groundwater will
need to be pumped to at least 20 feet below ground surface in the 2-level underground
are area (for 36 cars), 13 feet lower than the water table. In addition, the site includes
much-larger additional underground parking for an additional 250+ cars, which will
require dewatering to more than 10 feet. In comparison, dewatering to construct a 10-
foot deep, 3,500 square foot basements single family residence in 2016 where the
groundwater was 9 feet i.e. the groundwater only needed to be lowered by about 3 feet
was 30+ million gallons. This project has at least 4 times the area further below the
water table and about 10 times or more of the area where dewatering is required. How
much water will be pumped and dumped? No estimate is provided. The declaration of
"no significant impact" is partly based upon the 2004 EIP Associates report was has been
shown to be incorrect by more than a factor of ten.
Approving this project without changes to either the project and EIR is equivalent to
carte-blanche to pump as much water as needed, independent of the environmental
impacts. And, as we've shown with measurements for single family residences, the
groundwater table can be lowered, over hundreds of feet from the dewatering site,
even for much smaller projects.
Furthermore, the impacts of very large, impervious, underground concrete structures on
storm water storage and flows are not considered at all. The plan includes provisions to
percolate stormwaters in the ground onsite. But, where does the water go?-much of
the site will no longer be able to absorb groundwater, not simply because the surface is
impervious, but because the underground storage volume is impervious? What are the
impacts on short-term stormwater flows through our soils of such large structures?
Palo Alto needs to require careful analysis of the impacts of underground construction
when reviewing EIRs, and EIRs lacking data and quantitative analysis to support their
assertions should not be approved.