HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170904plCC 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: 9/4/2017
Document dates: 8/16/2017 – 8/23/2017
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 | 8/21/2017 8:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 20, 2017 9:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Memo of Understanding with Pets In Need
Dear City Council Members:
I am writing to urge you to authorize the City Manager to sign the letter of intent with Pets in Need to commit up to
$60,000 for a capital campaign planning study for a new animal shelter. Staff has done an excellent job in studying this
issue and detailing the steps to be taken to move ahead with this process. An assurance has been issued that the current
staff running the Shelter will be offered positions with the City for which they are qualified. this project has the support
of Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter and the Palo Alto Humane Society. When there was a proposal to close the
Shelter in 2012, the Chamber filled with residents who opposed that possibility. I hope you will authorize the signing of
the Memo of Understanding with Pets In Need and help this process to move along.
Sincerely,
Beth Rosenthal, PhD
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 2:27 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2017 2:01 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:Work Plan for Fiber-to-the-Premises
Council members,
On 08-21-17, Council will consider an item 11, about how to move forward with municipal fiber.
08-21-17 agenda:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59056
08-21-17 staff report:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59071
The 08-21-17 staff report is very similar to the 08-23-17 staff report to the Policy & Services Committee.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57822
Please see my comments about that staff report here (pages 23-27).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58111
Here's an "Executive Summary" of my comments about the 08-21-17 staff report:
1. I recommend that Council direct staff to engage an engineering consultant to design a citywide municipal FTTP
network, thereby getting a better estimate of what such a network would cost, as well as a plan for
moving forward. Further, I recommend that Council direct staff to identify appropriate approaches for funding a citywide
municipal FTTP network. Finally, I recommend that Council direct staff to identify a subset of the citywide municipal FTTP
network design that could be constructed as a first step, if constructing the entire citywide network in one step seems too
difficult, and to identify what this subset would achieve, including how many premises would be "passed" (so that they
receive FTTP services). (This recommendation combines pieces of staff's Option 1 and Option 2.)
2. I recommend that Council direct staff NOT to pursue what staff is calling an FTTN approach (and what I'm calling a
fiber-to-the-nothing (FTTØ) approach). Anything that FTTØ might have accomplished can better be accomplished within
the framework of FTTP.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
PS: I am a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee on FTTP & Wireless, but in this message I'm expressing only my
personal views.
PPS: I'm unable to attend the 08-21-17 Council meeting. This FTTP item was previously scheduled for 08-28-17 (as I
learned at the 07-20-17 CAC meeting).
PPPS: Please see more detailed comments on specific aspects of the staff report below. My comments are paragraphs
starting with "###". The other paragraphs are excerpts from the staff report.
##############################################################################
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 2:27 PM
2
Comments:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59071
--- page 1 ---
... a municipal-provided Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) network ...
### There's no excuse for staff's using the term "fiber-to-the-node" (and its acronym, "FTTN") to mean what staff means:
fiber to a bunch of nodes and then NOTHING to premises. I have called such a network a fiber-to-the-nothing (FTTØ)
network. It puts Palo Alto out of step with the rest of the universe. What the industry means by FTTN is fiber to nodes
and then copper (usually twisted pair) to premises. (That wouldn't be a good idea either.)
... engage an engineering firm to design a FTTN network including an expansion option to build a citywide Fiber-to-the-
Premises (FTTP) network; ...
### It would be better for the engineering firm to design a citywide FTTP network and only then identify the subset of that
design that could serve the purposes which staff is recommending that Council agree to for a FTTØ network.
... work to identify potential partners and/or service providers, ...
### I think it's obvious that the City doesn't want to cede ANY control of its emerging citywide municipal FTTP network to
a "partner," unless Council is absolutely convinced that the City is incapable of deploying a citywide municipal FTTP
network on its own. Council has already noted that the 09-28-15 staff report is missing vital detail, which staff has said
consultant CTC is unwilling to provide. Other cities have been able to find consultants willing to provide a lot more detail.
### I have no problem with the City's looking into subcontracting parts of the network's construction and operation to
entities willing to provide those services, as long as the City remains in control.
### Consider, as a thought experiment, how difficult it would be for the City's electric utility to meet the City's needs and
goals if it were a public-private partnership, and the private partner had to agree to everything the City wanted to do.
### On 04-20-15, at the last joint study session with UAC, Council Member Burt said, "I've been concerned that we, as a
City, have been overly enamored with chasing the Google 'unicorn.'" I would generalize that concern to include all FTTP
public-private partnerships.
... including identification of last mile funding models; ...
### Such as funds accumulated by the City's fiber utility to date, revenue bonds backed by fiber utility revenues,
Calaveras Fund funds in support of smart grid, etc.
On May 23, 2017, the Policy and Services Committee specifically moved ...
### There's no analogous description in the staff report of what UAC specifically moved.
--- page 2 ---
... ii. Reach out to other communities on the approaches post Google and share strategy and funding models; ...
### Fine, although I don't assume that all of the Cities that were willing to consider letting Google come in and deploy
Google Fiber are now convinced that they need some kind of FTTP, let alone some kind of municipal FTTP.
... v. Draft a communication strategy ...
### This item refers to how the City should tell its citizens what the City is trying to do regarding
telecommunications. Fine, but first, it would be good if Council and UAC knew what the City should be trying to do.
... such as general obligation bonds requiring a ballot measure with two-thirds voter approval, ...
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 2:27 PM
3
### Does anyone think GO bonds are a good option? If not, why even mention it? Why would GO bonds be better than,
say, revenue bonds backed by fiber utility revenues?
... the estimated build costs for a FTTP network is between $50 million to $78 million; ...
### This is misstated. The 09-28-15 staff report claims (without sufficient supporting data) that the FTTP network they
chose to write about would cost $77.6 million. Elsewhere, staff said that if the Fiber Fund paid for part of the network,
then the City would only have to figure out how to pay for the rest.
... Develop a business case for a Fiber-to-the-Node network [1], which may be a platform for Public Safety and Utilities
wireless communication in the field, Smart Grid, and Smart City applications, and new dark fiber licensing opportunities; ...
### Note the use of the word "may." Is the business case for FTTØ going to be limited to what it "may" be good for?
... the estimated build cost to build a FTTN network is between $12 million to $15 million, ...
### Council and the public don't know much about how this estimate was arrived at. For example, how many nodes
would there be, and what would a node consist of?
... Direct staff to identify additional resources and opportunities to assist Internet service providers committed to deploying
gigabit-speed broadband service; ...
### In other words, staff's "pause" option ("Option 3") would not just stop striving for municipal FTTP temporarily, it would
actively help the private sector to make any future municipal FTTP attempt that much harder. Note that the City wouldn't
do this if it believed that the "free market" was capable of delivering what the community needs.
--- page 3 ---
In general, the UAC indicated that Option 1 is too challenging since voter approval will most likely be required.
### According to my transcript of the 04-05-17 UAC meeting (pages 92-124 here):
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57737
UAC didn't say that by their vote. UAC, by vote, opted for Option 2 (FTTØ). During the discussion, Chair Cook said that,
"There's no way you can do Option 1 without putting it to a vote." He also said, "I really just think Option 1 is not viable
unless we get mass -- you know, REALLY big support there. And I'm not saying we shouldn't go and ask for that, but
we'd really have to get it." I don't think he was saying that it was a legal requirement, necessarily. I don't think he was
trying to say that if voter approval is required, then Option 1 is too challenging.
Regarding Option 3, the UAC stated that the support of third party network upgrades should be considered a standard
activity by the City.
### Again, per the transcript, I don't think UAC voted to say this. During the discussion, Chair Cook said, "And Option 3
just seems like probably what we should be doing anyway until we come up with a decision. I really don't like Option 3 at
all." I think Chair Cook may have meant that the City should meet its legal requirements when the telecom incumbents
ask for permits, etc., not that the City should actively encourage the private sector to make upgrades.
--- page 4 ---
Additionally, the City should consider deploying Fiber-to-the-Premises in one neighborhood as a pilot project, thereby
limiting the City's exposure and gauging the level of community interest.
### Yes, Commissioner Ballantine said, "... take one neighborhood and build it all the way out. Then, all of a sudden, you
can get your data." He also said, "You know, you're armed with the data, and the cost is marginal." The motion UAC
voted on included this FTTP pilot idea, I believe, although the process was a little informal.
Moreover, staff should identify applications and services that require gigabit-speed broadband such as virtual reality,
telemedicine, telepresence, or telecommunication, and develop a strategic plan outlining phased deployments of these
applications.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 2:27 PM
4
### I don't think this makes much sense, and I don't think that's what UAC said. If the City deploys FTTP at all, it should
deploy FTTP capable of providing 1-Gbps symmetric bandwidth, with the inherent capability to be upgraded to 10-Gbps
on a per-premises basis. So it makes no sense to be talking about a strategic plan to phase in deployments of this
infrastructure, depending on when applications want to make use of it. If the City chooses to provide just Internet service,
then it's not up to the City to provide applications.
### Commissioner Schwartz said she was "less concerned with speeds and feeds," so she wanted staff reports to explain
what applications required what speeds. Given that there are myriad applications, that's a tall order.
FTTN has the potential to be foundational technology ...
### Another way to say this is that FTTØ is only half a technology, and you don't know what it will do until you know what
it will do it with.
... Policy and Services Committee Recommendations
### According to my transcript of this P&S Committee meeting (pages 71-93 here):
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58241
At 3:13:14, Council Member DuBois moved as follows. So, I mean, it's kind of summarizing my comments. I mean, I am
essentially moving your recommendation to focus on fiber-to-the-node. But I'd like to see a few changes before it comes
to Council, in terms of defining more clearly what the goals are. With the fiber-to-the-node. To reach out to other cities on
approaches, kind of post-Google. And share funding models if we can. To include some ROI estimates. And to present
maybe a high level idea of what a roll-out strategy would be. With an estimate of how many homes would be
passed. And to flesh out a little bit more the communication strategy. So, like, what will we be asking residents, and
when. And the second part is to expand the Wi-Fi to the unserved City facilities. But, look, you know, consider, I guess, if
any of those facilities are going to be rebuilt in the near future. So. That's it."
... with the following general comments:
### Perhaps staff means that these were comments made by one or another individual Council member but weren't
necessarily part of the motion adopted.
* FTTN benefits and the costs should be made clear to residents and with measurable goals and an understanding of
what kind of private partners would be interested in the FTTN network.
### No Council member talked about making FTTN benefits and costs clear to residents.
### Council Member DuBois said, "... I think we should really articulate measureable goals." Like where is the fiber going
to go.
### Council Member DuBois said, "Like -- I guess I know it's kind of the point of the business plan -- but understand if any
-- what kind of partners might be interested in working with us."
* A FTTP pilot has already been done; the City should not consider conducting another pilot.
### Council Member DuBois said, "There's a little bit of talk about a pilot. And I'll just say that my initial reaction was, I
don't really want to see us do another pilot. We've done pilots in the past." OK, that was an initial reaction. What does he
say now?
### The City did a 67-home FTTH Trial in 2001, to see whether City staff could make it work (they could), and to see
whether customers would like it (they did). I agree that there's no need to run another pilot just to answer those questions
again. From the start, the City intended to dismantle the 2001 FTTH Trial after only one year of operation. It actually ran
more than four years before being dismantled. I agree that the City shouldn't do any more such pilots with the intention of
dismantling them.
* A fiber rollout strategy should be developed with an estimate of how many homes will be passed by the network.
### Staff's FTTØ idea proposes to "pass" NO premises. (To "pass" a premises is to make it possible to connect the
premises to FTTP by just adding a drop.)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 2:27 PM
5
--- page 5 ---
--- page 6 ---
... many of the easements where the City must build are privately owned, which may require every drop cable to be
placed in conduit.
### Council could ask staff to explain further. How many such premises are affected? How many premises are owned by
someone other than the easement owner?
... other recent analyses performed by CTC for municipalities have shown a required take rate in the mid-40 percent range
in order to maintain positive cash flow.
### Fort Collins, CO, is considering a FTTP plan they think will work with a 28.2 percent take rate. Their consultant is
Uptown Services, not CTC.
http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=show_related&vid=72&dt=SUMMARY+AGENDA&rid=August+8%2C+2017
(From this URL, click on item "02" to get an 88-page staff report. The 28.2 percent take rate is mentioned on page 29.)
--- page 7 ---
As of June 30, 2017, the Fiber Optic Fund has accumulated approximately $27 million dollars in reserves.
### The 2Q17 Utilities Quarterly Update (posted 05-03-17) says $22,245,000.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57459
The 3Q17 Utilities Quarterly Update hasn't been posted yet.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/reports.asp?code=CAPALO_8
I think it's unlikely that the Fiber Fund will have grown by $7,755,000 in just one quarter.
--- page 8 ---
In effect, these dark fiber licensing opportunities for the wireless carriers and builders of shared wireless infrastructure
may facilitate a new opportunity to increase revenues under the existing business model.
### The primary goal of increasing dark fiber revenues ought to be adding FTTP to the City's fiber utility. FTTØ is not the
best path to FTTP.
CTC advises that there are variations of the concept of building some subset of the physical plant to entice private
investment.
### Generally, because enticing private investment would give up City control, it's a bad idea.
For example, Lincoln, NE ...
### This is a bad example. A Nebraska state law forbids municipalities to deploy FTTP.
http://www.baller.com/wp-content/uploads/BallerStokesLideStateBarriers11-1-16.pdf
So "enticing" is Lincoln's only option.
Holly Springs, NC ...
### Another bad example. A North Carolina state law makes municipal FTTP essentially impossible. (Cities like Wilson
and Salisbury, that deployed FTTP before the law passed, are allowed to continue operating it.)
--- page 9 ---
--- page 10 ---
An up-front cost estimate per home would be communicated (e.g., estimated range of $800-$5,000) per home for wired
service ...
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 2:27 PM
6
### In a scenario where customers pay an up-front connect fee, Council must decide whether all subscribing premises
should pay the same fee or whether the fee for a given premises should depend on the cost to the City for that
premises. Fort Collins, CO, estimates that the cost to the city per premises connected will be $591.78 (on average) and
the cost to the city per premises passed will be $855 (on average) (or $984 if you include a 15 percent
contingency). Council should also decide what fraction of the City's costs should be covered by an up-front connect fee.
... paying a one-time upfront connection fee that could range from $800 to $5,000 or more.
### Or more?
The City would provide a wholesale transport-only service to one or more ISPs on an "open access" basis ...
### I think the question of whether the City provides retail services or "open access" to ISPs that provide retail services is
completely independent of whether subscribers must pay an up-front connect fee.
Property owners could self-organize, ...
### Council should ask staff to explain what staff means by this.
--- page 11 ---
The City's existing dark fiber enterprise is viable, because it is a niche service with little or no competition.
### At the 08-02-17 UAC meeting, Bob Evans, cofounder of the Fiber Internet Center, said he used to use the City's dark
fiber exclusively, but now he also uses dark fiber from AT&T sometimes because he was unhappy with the City's rates.
--- page 12 ---
--- page 13 ---
* Comcast now provides a 1GB and 2GB service in Palo Alto.
### Staff should know better than to use "GB" to mean gigabit (per second). "GB" means gigabyte. Comcast offers a
service using DOCSIS 3.1 (a hybrid fiber-coax technology) that is "up to" 1-Gbps down and "up to" 35-Mbps up. Since
hundreds of users share a coax segment, during peak times customers won't get the "up to" speeds.
### Comcast also offers a FTTP service, Gigabit Pro, which is "up to" 2-Gbps symmetric (i.e., both down and up). But it's
usually priced at about $299 per month, and there's a connection fee, and it's not available unless the customer is within
1/3 mile of Comcast's existing fiber infrastructure, and maybe not even then.
Comcast has launched DOCSIS 3.1 technology citywide to offer multi-gigabit services to its residential customers.
### Nonsense. The "up to" 1-Gbps download speed isn't "multi"-gigabit. The 35-Mbps upload speed isn't even close.
The DOCSIS 3.1 specification supports Internet speeds of 10 Gigabits per second (Gbps) for downloads downstream and
1Gbps upstream -- the level of speeds typically only available with a fiber optic connection.
### These speeds have to be shared by the hundreds of users on a coax segment. An individual user can get only "up
to" 1-Gbps down and "up to" 35 Mbps up.
For business services, bandwidth will be scalable from 1 Mbps to 10 Gbps ...
### What self-respecting business would settle for 1 Mbps?
--- page 14 ---
In the FTTP Master Plan, CTC noted that it's important to recognize that the rebuild reinvestment [of the City's dark fiber
network] does not increase the attractiveness of the fiber to encourage a partner to build FTTP.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 2:27 PM
7
### Good point. I don't want to encourage a "partner" to build FTTP. But why wouldn't CTC's warning also apply to
FTTØ?
... the City is finding that incumbent telecommunications providers are more inclined to explore incremental ...
--- page 15 ---
... expansions or, where the scope of the project is larger, above ground builds on utility poles.
### Council should ask staff to provide more details. Did any telecom provider say it was planning a large undergrounded
deployment and later say it would be aerial instead?
As a result, staff is reevaluating the approach to dig once and has met with AT&T, Comcast and other companies that
may propose large scale excavation projects in the future.
### To me, this seems unnecessarily subservient. Why shouldn't the City have a dig once ordinance that applies equally
to all? I don't agree that such an ordinance would be pointless unless large-scale projects were planned.
... Wi-Fi ... Funding is available in the FY 2018 operating and capital budgets for the Fiber Fund for the contract
amendment and one-time installation fees.
### The Fiber Fund shouldn't be raided to pay for Wi-Fi. It's a moral outrage.
--- page 16 ---
### This document doesn't have a signatures page, so the public can't easily determine who's responsible for it. This is
bad policy.
--- page 17 ---
### Exhibit A starts here.
--- page 18 ---
### Who came up with the wording of Council Member DuBois' motion for the action minutes? What he actually said is
recorded here (at 3:13:14, on page 88).
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58241
--- page 19 ---
--- page 20 ---
### Exhibit B starts here.
Overview of Municipal Broadband in California
### If the point of Exhibit B was to demonstrate that staff had "reached out" to places that are like Palo Alto, I think lots of
the places cited aren't much like Palo Alto.
### I think we should also consider what municipalities are doing in other states. For example, Chattanooga,
TN; Longmont, CO; Sandy, OR; and Ammon, ID.
FIBER-TO-THE-PREMISES AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS INITIATIVES
### In context, I think Council Member DuBois' 05-23-17 motion was to "reach out" to communities to find out what they
were doing about FTTP (not wireless), following the Google Fiber "pause."
### One way to "reach out" is to see what the MuniNetworks website says. From its home page,
https://muninetworks.org/
click on "more tags," and then try to find the community of interest listed there.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 2:27 PM
8
https://muninetworks.org/tagclouds/chunk/2
Articles are listed newest-first.
### Another way to "reach out" is to see who's listed in Broadband Communities Magazine's database of FTTP
networks. (It doesn't list just-dark-fiber networks.)
http://www.bbpmag.com/search.php
To list just the municipal networks, set provider_type = MUNI. (As of today, there are 188.) The California cities it lists for
municipal networks are: Beverly Hills, Ontario, San Bruno, Vallejo, Vernon, Culver City, Loma Linda, Los Angeles,
Burbank, and Santa Monica. (It also lists Emeryville and San Leandro as public-private partnerships. It lists Atherton
Fiber as "other." It lists Union City, but doesn't specify a provider type.)
1 Anaheim ...
### I didn't find any evidence that Anaheim is a municipal provider of dark fiber.
2 Atherton ...
### It's not a municipal network.
3 Berkeley ...
http://www.tellusventure.com/downloads/berkeley/tva_city_of_berkeley_broadband_development_assessment_29may20
15.pdf
### This "Broadband Development Assessment" (BDA) doesn't include a FTTP feasibility analysis, but says FTTP is not
feasible in Berkeley without subsidies. (Because of the consulting Tellus Venture Associates has done for Palo Alto, I'm
not impressed with them.)
Berkeley is Webpass city.
### Is staff trying to say that Webpass is a serious competitive threat in Berkeley? The above BDA doesn't even mention
Webpass.
4 Beverly Hills
### They're targeting citywide access to 1-Gbps Internet service for about $50 per month.
https://muninetworks.org/content/famous-actors-and-fast-access-fttp-coming-beverly-hills
On 05-02-17, Council voted 7-0 to proceed with a $19 million Phase 1 project.
http://beverlyhills.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=5551
05-02-17 staff report:
http://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=5551&meta_id=329104
5 Brentwood
### MuniNetworks coverage is not recent (06-11-15)
https://muninetworks.org/tags/tags/brentwood-ca
Here's a 05-13-14 agreement
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&clip_id=1846&meta_id=151754
Sonic doesn't have to deploy FTTP where Brentwood hasn't deployed conduit.
6 Burbank ...
### Not FTTP.
https://muninetworks.org/tags-380
7 Culver City ...
### Not FTTP.
https://muninetworks.org/tags/tags/culver-city
8 Fresno
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 2:27 PM
9
### MuniNetworks coverage is not recent (10-27-16):
https://muninetworks.org/content/fresno-looking-partners-rfq-responses-due-nov-30th
They seem to be at the "vision" stage.
https://www.fresno.gov/informationservices/gigabit-fresno/
9 Glendale ...
### Not FTTP.
10 Hayward
### Not FTTP. MuniNetworks coverage is not recent (12-01-16)
https://muninetworks.org/content/federal-grant-aids-hayward-ca-infrastructure-project
11 Huntington Beach
### There's no MuniNetworks tag for Huntington Beach. That's not a good sign.
### On 09-19-16, Council had a study session where CTC's Tom Asp presented.
http://huntingtonbeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=10&clip_id=1267
09-19-16 presentation slides:
http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/city_clerk/09-19-2016SC.pdf
CTC was NOT recommending that the city itself do FTTP. Most of the discussion was about whether to spend $5.4
million on dark fiber to business parks.
### On 06-05-17, Council had a study session where Magellan's Jory Wolf presented. (Magellan is consulting on
wireless.)
http://huntingtonbeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=10&clip_id=1339
06-05-17 presentation slides (pages 18-35):
http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/city_clerk/06-05-2017SC.pdf
The presentation includes a demo of a GIS system. Also a "dig-once" discussion. And a SB 649 discussion (Huntington
Beach has officially opposed SB 649.)
12 Loma Linda
### Obviously, Loma Linda's FTTP is underachieving, given that their fastest Internet service is 15 Mbps and costs
$99.95 per month.
http://lomalinda-ca.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7279530&pageId=7920611
13 Lompoc ...
### Not FTTP. They planned to do Wi-Fi first and then FTTP. But Wi-Fi was a lot harder and more expensive than they
thought. So they gave up on FTTP.
... broadband level Internet service ...
### Nonsense. FCC defines "broadband" speed as at least 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up. Lompoc's Wi-Fi is at most 4
Mbps symmetric.
http://www.cityoflompoc.com/lompocnet/
14 Long Beach
### Not FTTP, just dark fiber.
15 Los Angeles
### No residential FTTP yet. The "FAQs" are pretty much aspirational at this point.
http://citylinkla.org/about/index.htm
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 2:27 PM
10
### Los Angeles is the first of six cities listed in Exhibit B as potential "Google Fiber" cities. Can we agree that Google is
never going to bring FTTP to any of these cities? So why is it interesting that they were once potential Google Fiber
cities?
16 Modesto ...
### Inside the last "O" of the "LinkMODESTO" logo is a Wi-Fi symbol.
### Here's a May 2017 "Fiber Network Infrastructure Master Plan" (182 pages)
https://www.modestogov.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2528
It doesn't mention "FTTP" or "premise." It mentions a vision of a citywide fiber optic network. They want to do a
$1,265,000 pilot. I'm unclear about who exactly would be served and how they would be served.
17 Mountain View
### No FTTP and no plans to get it.
18: Oakland
### The cited URL, file:///C./Users/jflemin/Downloads/OAK052667.pdf, doesn't work for me. Is it also available here?
www2.oaklandnet.com/w/OAK052667
It doesn't mention "FTT" or "premise" or "Gbps." The "stakeholders" all seem to be parts of City government.
19 Ontario ...
### I found a "Fiber Optic Master Plan" from 2013.
http://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/ontario_fiber_optic_master_plan_final_09122013_sal.pdf
20 Palo Alto ...
### The cited URL is about dark fiber, not really relevant.
21 Pasadena ...
### No residential FTTP.
http://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/information-technology/fiber-services/
22 Riverside ...
### Not FTTP.
### Riverside apparently aspires to become a giga-city within the next 5 years.
http://nextcenturycities.org/member/riverside-ca/
23 Riverside County ...
###
http://www.rivcoconnect.org/
Here's another Broadband Master Plan (2017?) -- with a Wi-Fi symbol as part of the RIVCOCONNECT logo.
http://www.rivcoconnect.org/Portals/0/RivcoDocs/Broadband%20Master%20Plan%20for%20Riverside%20County.pdf
They want to "bring Gigabit-speed fiber optic service to every home and business across the County" -- but with RFPs
and partners.
24 San Bruno ...
### San Bruno Municipal Cable TV has a HFC network but might also have FTTH in some places. Unbundled 1-Gbps
Internet service is $109.95 per month.
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=28372
On 12-22-15, Council considered a FTTH pilot at Shelter Creek condominiums.
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=25806
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andy Poggio <apoggio@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:12 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Harrington, Bob (external); Marvin Lee; Herb Borock; Gerry Fisher;
Len Weisberg; Peter Allen
Subject:Fiber to the Premises
On 08‐21‐17, Council will consider how to move forward with municipal fiber. I will be out‐of‐state and unable to attend
to present in person.
Palo Alto has a unique opportunity to offer its current and future residents and businesses (especially startups)
extraordinary internet services (with symmetric, gigabit speeds) at reasonable prices. The incumbents (ATT and
Comcast) have let us down for decades; the newcomer (Google) has recently let us down as well. The lesson here is that
we must do it ourselves.
San Francisco is outpacing Palo Alto for new startups. Palo Alto can’t create another North Beach or SOMA, but we can
build FTTP. And the internet is a fundamental utility, much like electricity, used every day by nearly the entire
community. For example, we use the internet much more than our libraries — but the city spends much more on the
libraries.
A large concern is paying for FTTP. Palo Alto is uniquely positioned to cover FTTP costs. We have multiple funding
sources:
1. Fiber utility fund, currently over $20M.
2. Revenue bonds covered by future fiber utility income.
3. Onetime payments by new FTTP subscribers.
4. FTTP monthly subscription fees.
In total, these can cover the costs of FTTP.
I urge the council to have a vision for our city that continues to make Palo Alto extraordinary: build Palo Alto FTTP now.
—andy
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 1:31 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Don Jackson <dcj@clark-communications.com>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 12:49 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Darlene E. Yaplee
Subject:My support for recommendation to "Pursue a Municipal Fiber-to-the-Node Network
(FTTN) for Fiber and Broadband Expansion"
I am writing this email in support of the proposal to:
Pursue a Municipal Fiber-to-the-Node Network (FTTN) for Fiber and Broadband Expansion"
While I would prefer the more comprehensive (Option 1) "Municipally-Owned Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP)",
in the absence of voter, council, and staff support for this option, the proposed FTTN network would be a significant step
forward,
and enable homeowners and neighborhoods to voluntarily self‐fund "last mile" connections.
Unfortunately I will not be able the council meeting tonight given my travel schedule.
Regards,
Don Jackson
845 Waverley Street
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 6:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 5:54 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:August 21, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #11: Fiber-to-the-Premises and Wireless
Network
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 9306
August 21, 2017
AUGUST 21, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #11
FIBER-TO-THE-PREMISES AND WIRELESS NETWORK
Dear City Council:
I don't believe you should install wireless in Lytton Plaza or other
dedicated parkland.
The staff report for this agenda item (ID # 7616) makes clear that there
is already adequate wireless coverage on University Avenue in the downtown
commercial district where Lytton Plaza is located.
The dedicated parkland at Lytton Plaza provides a respite from the
neighboring commercial activity.
That is why Bart Lytton, the founder of Lytton Savings and Loan, created
Lytton Plaza across the street from his Lytton Savings and Loan office to
be a venue for outdoor events such as arts and crafts shows.
The City of Palo Alto acquired Lytton Plaza and then dedicated it as
parkland to preserve its use as a respite from commercial activity.
A survey conducted on behalf of the Department of Community Services at
the end of 2015 found that "Respondents did not think Wi-Fi in the parks
was especially important, with 45% of respondents indicating that it was
not important to making the park more comfortable and convenient". On a
five-point scale where "1" indicated "Not important" and "5" indicted
"Very important", 45% of respondents selected "1" and over 60% of
respondents selected either "1" of "2", while less than 5% selected "5"
and less than 10% selected either "5" or "4".
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 6:23 PM
2
City staff has made clear for at least the past eight years that they
don't believe the City Council should approve a Fiber-to-the-Premises
(FTTP) network.
We don't need to study the issue for another two years and further deplete
the Fiber Fund to get the same advice from staff.
If a majority of the City Council agrees with staff that approving an FTTP
network is not advisable, the only question remaining is whether the
Council is willing to vote to terminate the study of FTTP now or whether
the Council majority believes it is better to do another study and spend
more money so that advocates of FTTP are not offended by a vote to
terminate studying FTTP.
On the other hand, if a majority of the City Council is in favor of FTTP,
the recent email from Andy Poggio reproduced below provides a succinct
summary of why FTTP should be approved and a high level description of how
FTTP can be funded.
The citizens of Palo Alto have the talent needed to design an FTTP
network.
I believe that for both financial and legal reasons (Proposition 218) the
City's Fiber Fund balance and revenue bonds paid for from future Fiber
Fund revenues should pay for an extension of the dark fiber network to
pass every premises, and that a private party should lease the FTTP
network as a customer of the Fiber Fund at a rate determined by the City's
depreciation rate for the fiber.
The private company lessee would be responsible for supplying electronics
to light the network; for connecting customers to the network, including
arranging payments from customers for the last mile connection; and for
receiving payments from customers for the service provided.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
From: Andy Poggio <apoggio@pacbell.net>
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 10:12 AM
Subject: Fiber to the Premises
On 08-21-17, Council will consider how to move forward with municipal fiber. I will be out-of-state and unable to attend to present in person.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 6:23 PM
3
Palo Alto has a unique opportunity to offer its current and future residents and businesses (especially startups) extraordinary internet services (with
symmetric, gigabit speeds) at reasonable prices. The incumbents (ATT and Comcast) have let us down for decades; the newcomer (Google) has
recently let us down as well. The lesson here is that we must do it ourselves.
San Francisco is outpacing Palo Alto for new startups. Palo Alto can’t create another North Beach or SOMA, but we can build FTTP. And the internet
is a fundamental utility, much like electricity, used every day by nearly the entire community. For example, we use the internet much more than our
libraries — but the city spends much more on the libraries.
A large concern is paying for FTTP. Palo Alto is uniquely positioned to cover FTTP costs. We have multiple funding sources:
1. Fiber utility fund, currently over $20M.
2. Revenue bonds covered by future fiber utility income.
3. Onetime payments by new FTTP subscribers.
4. FTTP monthly subscription fees.
In total, these can cover the costs of FTTP.
I urge the council to have a vision for our city that continues to make Palo Alto extraordinary: build Palo Alto FTTP now.
—andy
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 2:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Svendsen, Janice
Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2017 2:27 PM
To:Council Members; Council Agenda Email; ORG - Clerk's Office
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Dailey, Karla; Ward, Marites; Keene, James; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty,
Michelle; Svendsen, Janice
Subject:8/21 Council Meeting Questions: Items 2 & 3
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries
by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the August 21, 2017 council agenda items listed
below:
Item 2: Maybell Electrical Substation Protection
Item 3: Verified Emission Reduction (VER) Legislative Analysis
Item 2: Maybell Electrical Substation Protection
Q.1. Why is the additional services provision amount so high (20%)?
A.1. Although the 20% for additional work is set higher than the typical 10%, staff
determined the dollar amount, at $39,266, is reasonable given the potential
additional work that may be needed. Staff’s experience with operations and
maintenance at Maybell Substation has shown that the wiring and design shown on
the existing original drawings does not always match the installation in the
substation. Although this project involves a major replacement, there may be
significant work required to reconcile drawings to facilitate the integration of the
upgrade properly for construction and CPAU records. Given this is not certain, these
tasks were not included in the base scope of services. The consultant will be
required to submit a written proposal detailing the maximum compensation for any
additional services, and shall not commence with additional services before
advanced written approval.
Q.2. Do these kind of projects commonly call for lots of unforeseen work?
A.2. This scope of wholesale retrofit of a substation is rare (indeed this is the first
experience of such a large scale retrofit for current staff.) This will be used as a
model for future substation retrofits; we may or may not face the same level of
issues with wiring, upkeep and design with the other substations and have not yet
estimated the potential for extra work with them.
Q.3. Will Electrical Consultant Inc. being located in San Diego cause any problem
or waste any time due to transportation?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 2:28 PM
2
A.3. Not anticipated. It is not unusual to have consultants located outside of the Bay
Area and our criteria for evaluating proposals was based on cost, quality, expertise,
experience and references. The consultant’s cost proposal included expenses and
were included in the evaluation. Furthermore, the contract’s scope of services
stipulates the on‐site support and meeting requirements, and staff anticipates being
able to conduct many meetings online.
Item 3: Verified Emission Reduction (VER) Legislative Analysis
Q. 1. What would be the consequence of not approving this resolution?
A.1. Not approving the resolution would prevent staff from implementing the
Carbon Neutral Gas Plan approved by Council. The contracts are necessary for
purchasing the VERs (carbon offsets) contemplated in the program. If the Council
chose not to pursue any offsets, this would be inconsistent with the rate change
approved in conjunction with the City budget and increase the carbon footprint of
Palo Alto’s natural gas utility.
Q.2.If the resolution fails, where could we use the money originally allotted for the
purchase of VER agreements?
A.2. In the long term the VER purchases will be paid for via a volumetric charge to
customers. If the VERs are not purchased, the funds won’t be collected. For the first
few months of this year, prior to implementation of the line item on consumers’
bills for carbon offsets, funds from the sale of cap and trade allowances were to be
use for VER purchases. Those funds (probably around $250,000) could be redirected
to other approved cap and trade allowance revenue expenditures like energy
efficiency.
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 | 8/23/2017 9:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:50 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Aug. 28 Study Session on Affordable Housing Proposal
Attachments:LWVPA LTR CC-WiltonStudyV.1.docx
Dear City Council,
Attached is a letter from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto regarding the Study Session re 3709 El
Camino Real on August 28. Thank you.
Ellen Forbes,
Second Vice President
--
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 209
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 903-0600
August 23, 2017 Greg Scharff, Mayor, and City Council Members 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: August 28, 2017, Study Session re 3709 El Camino/Wilton - Affordable Housing Proposal Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports City efforts to encourage the development of subsidized low to moderate and below market rate housing by private non-profit developers. The League also supports increasing multiple family units with access to public transportation along transportation corridors. For these reasons, we encourage you to provide positive direction to the non-profit Palo Alto Housing (PAH) in support of the development of at least 61 small low-income units on this site. Land appropriate for multi-unit housing is scarce in Palo Alto. This site, although small, is a good one, for it is on a bus transit corridor; it is near many services; and it is not directly adjacent to single-family homes. In your January retreat, you made housing a top Council priority for 2017. This project will be a positive step in implementing this priority. We encourage you to remove all regulatory obstacles to this project and to make any zoning code and Comprehensive Plan changes necessary to optimize the economical development of this project for low-income individuals. This is a special opportunity for the Council to use a PC process for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Please do not impose any requirements on the project that would jeopardize PAH’s ability to obtain financing or which would make the project economically infeasible. In the past, Palo Alto had been a leader in the provision of affordable housing. Now is the time for the Council to put our City back on that track. Thank you.
Ellen Forbes Second Vice President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF PALO ALTO
3921 E. BAYSHORE RD., SUITE 209 • PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 • 650-903-0600 • www.lwvpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2017 9:12 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sachi Hwangbo <sachi_hwangbo@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 8:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Animal Services
Attachments:Palo Alto Animal Services.docx
Dear Mayor, City Council, & City Staff,
I’m a 20+ year Palo Alto resident, for the past 6 years I’ve been an Administrative
Specialist for Palo Alto Animal Services, and for the past 4 years I’ve been
Volunteer Coordinator.
In Feb 2015, when City Staff was developing the RFP for animal shelter
operations, you asked what my hopes were for the future of our animal shelter
and why they’re important.
My answers, then, were:
• No compromising quality of service to the community. That’s our mission: animal control, dog licensing, disease prevention, spaying/neutering, reuniting lost animals, sheltering
animals, adoptions, promoting responsible ownership, disaster preparedness, community outreach & education
• Facilities upgrade: our kennels are practical, but antiquated. Need improvement for staff
& volunteer safety and animal well-being. Must improve visibility from road. Need welcoming signage.
• Outreach to raise awareness and support of shelter (utilizing volunteers, fundraising, social media/news/radio promos). If we increase outreach, it improves attention to the adoptable animals and engages the community in issues related to animal care and control.
• Recognize volunteers for their effort and dedication (public recognition, awards, logo
wear, luncheon/dinner banquet) because they deserve it! Since my hopes were not financially realistic as a city-run shelter, my hopes now are that Pets In Need will make them a reality. I harbor no ill will toward the City
or Pets In Need for taking away my position at the shelter. It has been an honor
and privilege to serve this community and work with the outstanding team at
PAAS. I’m happy that the City will retain our Animal Control Officers and partner with Pets In Need to keep the animal shelter in Palo Alto.
I did attend the August 21, 2017 council meeting and I want to express a
few of my afterthoughts.
When Councilmember Wolbach wisely proposed that the intake of animals be a
non negotiable requirement, Staff essentially answered that it would be difficult
because “it comes down to the quality of the facility and the capacity of the
facility”.
Quality and capacity has never been an issue for PAAS, so it shouldn’t be for
PIN. For at least the 6 years I’ve been employed here, the shelter has never
been at full capacity or needing to euthanize animals for space. If PIN takes in
the animals of our jurisdiction and not from other sources, there will be no need to limit intake. Many of our wayward pets are bailed out by their owners after a
brief stay. The 3 cities of our jurisdiction, Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills,
keeps animal overpopulation down thanks to the efforts of spaying and neutering,
disease control, licensing, and microchipping. If we are suddenly swamped with
So, when they take over, PIN will sometimes have to euthanize for untreatable medical issues or behavior problems that cannot be overcome. It’s more
important to make good decisions for an animal’s well-being or for public safety
than to celebrate live release rates. That’s the nature of our work. Anyone who
works in animal welfare is mindful of the Five Freedoms: “We know that the welfare
of an animal encompasses both physical and mental states, spelled out in these five internationally accepted standards of care.” – ASPCA
• Freedom from Hunger and Thirst By ready access to fresh water and diet to maintain
health and vigor.
• Freedom from Discomfort By providing an appropriate environment including shelter
and a comfortable resting area.
• Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease By prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
• Freedom to Express Normal Behavior By providing sufficient space, proper facilities
and company of the animal’s own kind.
• Freedom from Fear and Distress By ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid
mental suffering.
PIN might be worried about public perception if their live release rates go down. Rightly so, if they are pushing a capital campaign to raise funds. The majority of the general public think that live release rate is important - so important, it is the
reason they want to support “no-kill” shelters, endorse, and fund them. Every
time I’m asked, “Are you a no kill shelter?” I try to make it a teaching moment and
explain the term. I wish the language “No Kill” & “High Kill” would just go away because it hurts municipal animal shelters, where animal intake is not a choice and public support and funding is most needed.
My final afterthought from the council meeting follows something Councilmember
Holman said, “The time has come to adopt a new model for the shelter.” I take great pride in the legacy of Palo Alto Animal Services. The history of Palo Alto’s animal shelter is not well known to most folks.
• The invention of the rabies vaccine was in 1885 and the work of animal control began in 1894 due to Palo Alto's growing population of feral animals, mainly stray dogs.
• The Mayor appointed the police chief as "Poundmaster" to take control of
the situation.
• Since then, “the Pound” has always been a division of the Palo Alto Police
Department.
• Our current facility was built in 1973 to provide shelter for the stray and abandoned animals of Palo Alto.
• On April of 2014, Former Mayor Nancy Shepherd proclaimed Animal
Services Founders Day.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/40087
Please continue this legacy and allow Pets In Need to work closely with our
Animal Control Officers to keep providing quality service to our community as
they take it to the next reinvention.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 12:33 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2017 11:31 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Avenidas and La Comida
As a long time Palo Alton I am writing on behalf of saving La Comida at Avenidas. It doesn't even make sense
that we are allowing them to expand and giving money towards their expansion when they can't even provide
a basic necessity to many seniors and not to mention companionship. I once thought Avenidas to be a great
non‐ profit but I am having 2nd thoughts. No way should the city give money and provide cheap rent when
they can't work along the other non profit.
amy
Amy Keohane
650‐346‐5306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 8:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Coale <david@evcl.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 16, 2017 3:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Budget and parking garages
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I viewed with interest the video on the June 27th Council meeting where you are discussing the budget. In
particular I saw the staff presentation and the budget overview by Council Member Filseth – great overview.
I have a suggestion for how to balance the budget for this year and for possible relieve in later years. One way
to do this is to delay the building of the parking garages for downtown and Cal Ave. The prudent approach
would be to see how the new parking fees and the funding for the Traffic Management Association (TMA)
works to reduce the need for parking before spending millions on parking garages that may not in fact be
needed.
The parking fees and TMA programs could be successful enough such that people choose other ways to get
downtown and more parking is not needed. This is in fact the goal of the two programs, to reduce SOV trips
and the parking and congestion that are caused by this.
With the various ride services on the rise, self-driving cars on the horizon, Caltrain electrification (more people
using the train with more frequent services) and bike share programs happening soon, the parking garages could
be obsolete in only a few short years.
I think it would be much more fiscally responsible to wait on the garages and use those funds to pay down some
of the unfunded obligations that Council Member Filseth spoke of. If Palo Alto does not get a handle on these
unfunded obligations very soon, we will be in a lot of trouble. If this happens, what will we have to show for
it? Out of date unused parking garages that can’t be used for anything else. If anything, Palo Alto should be
building low-income housing in these areas.
I also viewed the part of the meeting where Council Member Holman suggested eliminating Gil’s funding for
his part-time staff. This conversation seems to suggest that some are not happy with the SCAP and the SIP. I
agree that he should have done better with these efforts. That said, why don’t you call him to task to help the
Council with major spending items, like the garages. Gil said the city votes on sustainability everyday with the
decisions on how to spend money. Did he give input on the budget? Did Council ask him to comment on the
budget? On the garages?
It does not take a Palo Alto study to see that the parking garages are not sustainable, go against almost
everything the SIP mentions about reducing GHGs from transportation and will only encourage more people to
drive downtown. I know the city did study the garage issue, but since you hired a parking consultant, you got a
parking solution. From the 50,000-foot level, the parking garages make no sense. I expect council to take a
wider view of these major expenses.
I hope you can see that there are synergistic solutions here for several problems. I ask that you at least delay the
garages for a year while you get some input from Gil on what the city really needs for sustainable
transportation, parking and congestion solutions. Building more parking garages will not likely be part of the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 8:36 AM
2
solution. Also, paying down the unfunded obligations will go a long way to a more sustainable, fiscally
responsible city.
Thanks for your time,
Sincerely,
David Coale
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/18/2017 4:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:gerald_millin@ekit.com
Sent:Friday, August 18, 2017 3:38 PM
To:Council, City
Esteemed City Council Members,
I'm writing to urge you to stop Verizon from installing cell antennas in some Old Palo Alto neighborhoods. It troubles me
to see any more noise and additional radiation added to any residential neighborhoods. Also I feel they are
unnecessary. I have never heard anyone complain about poor cell phone reception in Palo Alto. Thank you for
considering this issue.
Gerald Millin
1944 Emerson Street
____________________________________________________________________
eKit ‐ the global phonecard with more!
Spend less on overseas calls, receive messages worldwide.
Visit http://www.ekit.com/ for details.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Thomas <mj_thomas_2000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 20, 2017 3:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon Antennas in Palo Alto
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing regarding the proposed installation of antennas in Palo Alto by Verizon. I urge you, as our council member
representatives, to not allow this to happen. Please do whatever is possible to defend the quality of life we have left in our
beautiful city. The addition of ugly, loud antennas in our neighborhoods, plus the radiation that would be emitted by each
tower, is just not acceptable. We can follow Berkeley and other California communities that have passed tough
ordinances to protect their neighborhoods from the cell companies.
Thank you.
Mary Thomas
249 Santa Rita Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:44 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Andrew Gibson <andrewmgibson650@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 20, 2017 2:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Stop Verizon Cell Towers
Dear Council of our quiet and beautiful town,
Please do not let Verizon Mobile, a cell phone company who few Palo Alto residents even possess, to pollute
our eyes and ears with 93 hideous and buzzing cell towers in our Old Palo Alto neighborhoods. Not only would
this destroy the great property value of Old Palo Alto homes, but it unfairly targets our neighborhood instead of
Crescent Park and North Palo Alto who have moved this ugly cell equipment underground. This ought be
enough to reject this devastating corporate proposal alone, yet I have not even begun to discuss the terrible side
effects of 93 radiation emitting towers on our quiet little town and it's population. Furthermore, all of these
towers are in very close proximity to us. As residents of a high-tech and progressive city we ought understand
the dangers of this electric mistake.
Thank you for your consideration,
Andrew Gibson
Resident, Seale Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:44 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, August 19, 2017 7:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please, NO Cell Phone towers in Old Palo Alto
Please do not allow Verizon, or anyone else, to install cell phone towers in Old Palo Alto.
We live on North California Ave, a couple of blocks in from Alma. Already we have increased traffic and
parking problems (there are now cars parked in front of our house every day). Please allow us to keep a
resemblance of our Old Old Palo Alto.
Let us keep our streets to be as quiet as possible (my son and I are both extremely noise sensitive, I don't want
to hear a constant cell hone tower buzz), and as pretty as they are now, with trees, not cell phone towers.
Thank you,
Ann Protter
185 N California Ave
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:44 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Kathy Nordman <k_nordman30@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, August 19, 2017 8:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:new Verizon cell towers, "Sounds Of Silence"
Please do everything possible to preventing further loss of peace and quiet, general well being of people, wildlife,
planet. Less cell towers, less radiation, less noise. Thanks! Kathy Nordman
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:44 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Claudia <claudiaegriffin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 7:51 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon Cell Towers in Old Palo Alto
Hi,
I am writing to express my objection to the plan to install antennas in Old Palo Alto. I think that while cell coverage will
improve, we do not have a problem with coverage and more importantly, the noise will decrease our enjoyment of this
peaceful neighborhood. The increase of radiation is also concerning as a health issue.
Please do not let the Verison cell towers be installed in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood!
Best regards,
Claudia
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:44 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Bill Neidig <neidig@riverii.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 20, 2017 8:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Verizon Cell Phone Antennas
To The Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal for the City to lease space to Verizon on existing
electric, telephone, and cable utility poles located throughout the area known as Old Palo Alto where we
live. When we moved into our home in 1976 the Utility and Public Works Departments assured us that
the City would soon put utility lines underground and remove the utility poles. In the time we have lived
in our home the City has put electric utilities underground in portions of Crescent Park and North Palo
Alto but clearly not in our neighborhood. We see this as a violation of a commitment made to us. The
proposal to place a private corporation’s antennas on top of poles that should have been removed long
ago is a further indication of the City’s refusal to meet the commitment to remove the poles.
Bill Neidig
William Neidig
Webster Street
Palo Alto, California 94301
neidig@riverii.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:44 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Judy <judyfoley@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 20, 2017 8:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon cell towers
As a long time resident of Palo Alto, I am opposed to the placement of cell towers in our neighborhood. On my walks
thru the neighborhood I see the posting about every 4 blocks. If they are approved would not AT&T want to do the
same? Please don't let this happen.
Judy Foley
1927 Emerson St.
Palo Alto, Ca. 94301
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 5:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ligia Harrington <harrington.ligia@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 5:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon antenas in Old Palo Alto
Hello,
I am writing to protest the plan of installing Verizon cell phone towers in Old Palo Alto.
I recently purchased a very expensive house in Old Palo Alto and in our home search we specifically sought out
neighborhoods without cell towers / antennas. We are extremely concerned about the radiation effects of the
cell towers for our family. In addition, Old Palo Alto will cease to be the pretty area that it currently is and the
addition of the towers might impact desirability with future home buyers. Please do not allow the installation of
these towers.
Thanks in advance,
Ligia Harrington
151 Seale Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 5:07 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Lisa Jones <lijo61@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 4:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Verizon Cell Towers
Hello City Council members,
I generally trust the City of Palo Alto to make good decisions. I believe that many of the attributes that have made Palo Alto a
desirable place to live are the result of wise decision-making in the past. However, I decided to understand the cell phone tower issue
better after hearing neighbors comment about noise and unsightliness of cell phone towers going up in our beautiful city. I would like
to voice my concern and opposition to the proposed Verizon cell towers. The tower which is proposed in the 600 block of Lowell Ave
is located where anyone entering my front door will walk by. Before deciding to comment on this issue, I went to take a look at other
towers and they truly are ugly and detract from otherwise beautiful surroundings - I had seen them previously and wondered what they
were. I hear from other neighbors that there is also a humming noise to be concerned about. In addition, I am very concerned about
what additional cell phone towers mean for undergrounding of utilities. It's rather unsettling that a project would be proposed to
benefit one cell phone provider that will create more work to be undone in order to make progress on putting our utilities underground
- getting rid of the utility poles these antennas use. Underground utilities make sense from both a safety and aesthetic standpoint and
the plan to take the entire city underground was consistent with the type of foresight that I associate with Palo Alto. I don't understand
how a city which values investing in and preserving the beauty of street trees would then turn around and mar that street beauty with
ugly cell phone antennas. Please make wise decisions that continue to enhance the beauty and livability of Palo Alto. I do not see how
that includes these Verizon cell phone antennas.
Best,
Lisa Jones
651 Lowell Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 5:07 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:John Hurst <john.hurst77@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 4:31 PM
To:King, Haleigh; Council, City
Subject:Neighborhood opposition to the 3743 Redwood Circle tear down project.
August 21, 2017
Ms. Mei, and City Council Members,
I am providing input and comments on the proposed Eichler demolition and a new house at 3743 Redwood
Circle in Palo Alto. I would like to express my opposition to this project.
My family and I have lived in the Fairmeadow Neighborhood for 23+ years. We were attracted to the
Neighborhood by the minimalist architecture of this Eichler neighborhood. We also loved the Circles and how
the layout is unique to any neighborhood in all of the United States, if not the world. With inspiration from
Frank Lloyd Wright, the Circles have shown the world how mid-century modernism is a living, breathing
concept. The entrance to Carlson Circle is the apex to the entire 244 home Neighborhood.
The open floor plan, floor to ceiling windows, atrium, and beam construction are all unique concepts
of Eichler and core elements to mid-century modernism.
We find the proposal for 3743 Redwood Circle to be out of scale and scope with our neighborhood as it fails on
multiple levels to meet the Palo Alto Design Guidelines dated August 2013. These guidelines clearly state that
new projects should fit with the neighborhood style and work to fit into the harmonious nature of both our
Circle and Redwood Circle.
The specific examples of why the 3743 Redwood Circle project does not respect these guidelines are:
Style of proposal vs character of existing Eichler neighborhood homes. Example: The proposed design
has five columns where there are no other homes with a single column on all of Carlson Circle.
Size, scale, and mass of proposed home relative to the neighborhood. Typical homes on the Circles are 1333
sq. ft. to 2150 sq. feet. The average is approx. 1850 sq. ft. The proposed size of 3743 Redwood Circle is over
2550 sq. ft. The 2nd story alone is almost as large as the 1240 sq. ft. house across the street.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 5:07 PM
4
Resolution of Architectural Form, Massing and Roof Lines. On page 10 of your Guidelines it states: “The
architectural form and massing shall be carefully crafted reduce visual mass”. The location of 3743 Redwood
Circle. The mass of this proposed structure is the exact opposite of being carefully crafted to reduce visual
mass. No attempt seems to have been made to keep the mid-century modern appeal the Fairmeadow
neighborhood in tact.
Based on the issues cited above, I recommend that the City reject the plans for 3743 Redwood Circle. If
implemented, this design would profoundly change the character of our neighborhood.
We have personally remodeled our home to bring it back as much as possible to its Eichler roots. We wanted to
blend into the overall design ethos of the elegant Eichlers that line every lot on Carlson Circle.
Please keep me informed on any activity, decisions or actions concerning 3743 Redwood Circle. Thank you for
consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
John Hurst
3722 Carlson Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94306
John.hust77@gmail.com
650-380-6889
--
John Hurst
john.hurst77@gmail.com | 650.380.6889
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 5:07 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:avy nielsen <avynielsen@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 3:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon cell towers
I urge you to take every step possible to defend our neighborhoods aesthetics, home values and peace and quiet.
Berkeley, Palos Verdes and other California communities have passed tough, new ordinances to protect
neighborhoods from the cell companies' ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting antennas, Palo Alto should do the same.
Thank you for keeping our city & neighborhoods beautiful and Verizon cell tower free!!!
Mrs. R. W. Nielsen
534 Santa Rita Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 5:07 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Phil Coulson <philcoulson_3@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 3:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In response to Palo Alto and increasing it cell tower coverage
Dear City Council members:
I am writing to urge you to stop Verizon from installing noisy, ugly, radiation‐emitting cellular towers in the heart of Palo
Alto’s beautiful residential neighborhoods.
Specifically, I ask you to:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1. Direct City staff to take every step possible to aggressively defend the aesthetics, home values and,
peaceful quietude in our neighborhoods as they deal with Verizon.
2. Direct City staff to reject any plan that would single out some neighborhoods for these installations
while exempting others. I say this because Verizon has proposed to put towers only in neighborhoods
whose utilities the City has not moved underground. Hence they have applied to install towers in, for example,
Old Palo Alto and South Palo Alto, but not Crescent Park. Just because it is convenient for Verizon to install
its equipment on existing utility poles, does that mean the City should allow some neighborhoods to be
burdened with these noisy, unsightly, home‐value‐lowering towers while others are not? Of course not. That’s
unfair.
3. Direct City staff to seek guidance from other California cities that have successfully prevented cell phone
companies from installing their antennas in residential neighborhoods. Berkeley and Palos Verdes are
two such cities. Both used the vehicle of “prioritization” to keep the cell industry’s installations away from
people’s homes.
4. Hold public hearings on the cell tower issue.
5. If needed, pass new ordinances by urgency measure—tougher ordinances that go into effect immediately
and apply to any cell industry application not yet approved.
6. Deny permits for all specific installations of cell and associated back‐haul equipment regardless of any
existing or new ‘master licensing agreements’.
I understand the City cannot successfully fight these installations on health and safety grounds. But it can fight back—
and win—on the grounds of neighborhood aesthetics, home values and noise.
Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate it if you would let me know your views on this issue.
Regards,
‐Phil Coulson
P.S.
Happier for my life lived here in Palo Alto*
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 5:07 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:James VanHorne <james_vanhorne@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 2:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon Cell Tower extensions
Dear Council Men/Women:
We live at 2000 Webster Street in Palo Alto and have for many years. I have a Verizon smart phone, and I am
able to get good reception anywhere I have been in Palo Alto. I am concerned with the large expansion to our
telephone/electrical poles of cell equipment and extensions. They are unsightly and will create a hum, often
times near a bedroom window. I am also concerned with the potential health hazard, though I understand
Federal regulations of many years ago seemingly take this off the the table for cities. However, this may not be
the case forever.
If this is approved, it will only be the first step toward further and more objectionable cell towers being erected
in the future by Verizon, AT&T and others. For these reasons, I urge you to vote against the proposed cell
tower expansion.
Yours Sincerely,
James C. Van Horne
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/22/2017 4:33 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marwa El-Berry <marwa_e@post.com>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 6:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon Cell Towers
Dear Sir/Madam
We live on Loma Verde Ave and are very concerned about Verizon blanketing our neighborhood with cell tours . We live on 737-12 Loma Verde Ave and they are planning to install a tower right on our front lawn . We are very concerned and we're hoping we can have a say on what goes on our front lawn which will very likely lower our home value . Thank you for your kind attention .
Sincerely
Ahmad Abdulkader
Marwa Elberry
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/22/2017 4:33 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@right-thing.net>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 8:51 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Architectural Review Board; Stump, Molly; City Attorney; Keene,
James
Subject:Keep Verizon out of residential neighborhoods (resending 8/14/17 letter)
Dear City Council:
I am writing to urge you to stop Verizon from installing noisy, ugly, radiation-emitting cellular towers in
the heart of Palo Alto’s beautiful residential neighborhoods.
Specifically, I ask you to:
1. Direct City staff to take every step possible to aggressively defend the aesthetics, home values
and peace and quiet in our lovely neighborhoods as they deal with Verizon.
2. Direct City staff to reject any plan that would single out some neighborhoods for these
installations while exempting others. I say this because Verizon has proposed to put towers
only in neighborhoods whose utilities the City has not moved underground. Hence they have
applied to install towers in, for example, Old Palo Alto and South Palo Alto, but not Crescent
Park. Just because it is convenient for Verizon to install its equipment on existing utility poles,
does that mean the City should allow some neighborhoods to be burdened with these noisy,
unsightly, home-value-lowering towers while others are not? Of course not. That’s unfair.
3. Direct City staff to seek guidance from other California cities that have successfully prevented
cell phone companies from installing their antennas in residential neighborhoods. Berkeley
and Palos Verdes are two such cities. Both used the vehicle of “prioritization” to keep the cell
industry’s installations away from people’s homes.
4. Hold public hearings on the cell tower issue.
5. If needed, pass new ordinances by urgency measure—tougher ordinances that go into effect
immediately and apply to any cell industry application not yet approved.
I understand the City cannot successfully fight these installations on health and safety grounds. But it
can fight back—and win—on the grounds of neighborhood aesthetics, home values and noise.
Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate it if you would let me know your views on this
issue. I know there are many Palo Altans as concerned as I am.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/22/2017 4:33 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 8:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon cell towers in our neighborhood
The city has posted signs in our neighborhood (Old Palo Alto) saying that Verizon will be putting up towers. It looks like
these towers will be installed about every two or three blocks. We already have AT&T installations which are unsightly
and annoying because they emit an unpleasant 24/7 hum. The hum can be heard at least 2 houses away from each
tower. We are Verizon customers and our cell reception here is just fine. Why do we need more towers? Considering
that the city already has AT&T installations, we are concerned about the extra radiation that the Verizon towers will
emit. We are already exposed to more radiation today than we were 20 years ago.
We oppose the installation of more cell towers based on the following factors:
‐ additional exposure to radiation that is emitted, especially exposure for children
‐ noise pollution generated by the towers
‐ an unsightly addition to our neighborhood
‐ use of public space by a private company
‐ additional infrastructure to above ground utilities
Please consider our concerns. It is surprising to us that the city would even entertain installing these towers.
Sincerely,
Richard and Carol Heermance
208 N California Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/22/2017 4:33 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Wenlin Chen <wenlinch@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:58 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon Cell Towers in Palo Alto
Dear Council,
I heard that Verizon plans to build some cell towers in Palo Alto area. I wonder if we residents have the access to the information such as the potential health threat and where and how many spots planned for these cell
towers. Please advise.
Thank you.
Wenlin Chen
2284 Bryant Street.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/22/2017 4:33 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Judy Decker <judith.decker@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 10:00 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Pro Verizon Cell Towers
Hi -
I just wanted to drop a quick note to say I am IN FAVOR of Verizon adding cell towers to Old Palo Alto. I live
at 1851 Bryant, and for the past year or so have been almost completely unable to have an audible call from my home. I really don't want to switch to AT&T and would love to have more coverage in my home.
I'm a real estate agent and don't for a minute think that decent reception would diminish property values.
Thanks so much,
Judy Decker
-- Judy Decker Alain Pinel Realtors
578 University Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650.799.4294 (m) DRE #01199563
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/22/2017 4:33 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Judy Chen <shunchenchen@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 11:21 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Against addition of Verizon cell towers
Dear City Council
We are residents of 310 Seale ave. Our house is situated at the corner of Seale Ave and Bryant street. We
have been very happy living the this lovely tree‐lined, quiet neighborhood since we moved in 9 years ago.
But today, we are writing to express our strong concern and opposition to the proposed construction of
radiation emitting cell towers by Verizon, based upon the following reasons:
Our internet reception has been quite good and stable to meet our daily demand, there is no need to spend
the extra amount of money to upgrade it, and unfortunately at the same time ,create more noise and
radiation, thus posing significant health issues and thread to us and our neighborhood. Because of the above
adverse effects, our property value will also drop significantly.
Instead, we like to see them use the money on other areas like better customer service, community support,
research and development ......etc for the better welfare of people.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to express our concern.
Best regards,
Judy and Sian Chen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/22/2017 4:33 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Mari Varma <marivarma@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:STOP Verizon from Blanketing Our Neighborhood
Dear City Council member,
I am writing to urge you to stop Verizon from installing noisy, ugly, radiation-emitting cellular towers in
the heart of Palo Alto’s beautiful residential neighborhoods.
Specifically, I ask you to:
1. Direct City staff to take every step possible to aggressively defend the aesthetics, home values
and peace and quiet in our lovely neighborhoods as they deal with Verizon.
2. Direct City staff to reject any plan that would single out some neighborhoods for these
installations while exempting others. I say this because Verizon has proposed to put towers
only in neighborhoods whose utilities the City has not moved underground. Hence they have
applied to install towers in, for example, Old Palo Alto and South Palo Alto, but not Crescent
Park. Just because it is convenient for Verizon to install its equipment on existing utility poles,
does that mean the City should allow some neighborhoods to be burdened with these noisy,
unsightly, home-value-lowering towers while others are not? Of course not. That’s unfair.
3. Direct City staff to seek guidance from other California cities that have successfully prevented
cell phone companies from installing their antennas in residential neighborhoods. Berkeley
and Palos Verdes are two such cities. Both used the vehicle of “prioritization” to keep the cell
industry’s installations away from people’s homes.
4. Hold public hearings on the cell tower issue.
5. If needed, pass new ordinances by urgency measure—tougher ordinances that go into effect
immediately and apply to any cell industry application not yet approved.
I understand the City cannot successfully fight these installations on health and safety grounds. But it
can fight back—and win—on the grounds of neighborhood aesthetics, home values and noise.
Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate it if you would let me know your views on this
issue. I know there are many Palo Altans as concerned as I am.
Sincerely,
Maricela Varma
2299 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA
650.327.6096
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2017 9:10 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:37 AM
To:Daisy.Gonzales@asm.ca.gov
Cc:Audrey Gold; Leah Russin; Jenny Zhang; Keller, Arthur; Jeff Greenfield; Marilyn Keller;
jimpf@sbcglobal.net; Max Mcgee; board@pausd.org; Council, City
Subject:Oppose SB328 in its current form
Dear Assembly Appropriations Committee Chair Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher,
I am a 14‐year PTA member and PTA organizer for Safe Routes to School in Palo Alto. I am writing as an individual
because we only just learned about SB328 a few weeks ago and District PTAs do not meet during summer, so they
cannot vote to take positions on issues like this that come up over the summer.
I am opposed to SB328 in its current form, though I strongly support its aim‐‐to encourage better teen sleep, health,
attendance. The current language forcing a rigid 8:30 or later start time for middle schools and high schools will cause
unintended school commute safety and congestion impacts on students that may be impossible (or very expensive) to
mitigate. These impacts have not been studied.
The majority of Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) students chose alternative school commutes, primarily walking
and bicycling. Encouraging active school commutes is one of many ways our community promotes student health,
mental health, and well‐being.
Our middle school and high school bell times range from 8:10am to 8:25 am. In locations where there is more than one
secondary school, we carefully stagger bell times in order to separate bell time traffic surges (which are large because
secondary schools have the highest enrollment). In addition, we schedule bell times to separate student commuters
from rush hour traffic that starts at 8:30am and increases steadily for over an hour. Then it gradually tapers off.
Adolescent sleep needs are, of course, an important consideration. All of this careful scheduling of bell times is done to
separate students from increased potential for conflicts with tens of thousands of cars driven by people coming into
town for local jobs. It is a delicate balance that the proposed bell time requirements of SB328 will disrupt.
SB328 would push students into the thick of morning peak hour traffic, increasing risk of conflict with autos and
exposure to auto emissions. This is neither healthy nor safe for students, and it will discourage students from choosing
active commutes.
Further, SB328 will converge school commute motor vehicle traffic with rush hour, exacerbating already severe
congestion on arterial and collector streets that serve schools. This will increase delay, forcing students to rise earlier to
sit in traffic‐‐defeating the purpose of getting more sleep.
Neither CAPTA nor other proponents of the bill ever studied these potential transportation impacts of the bill. In their
well‐meaning effort to address sleep‐related health and safety issues, they did not understand that this kind of change
could negatively affect student health and safety‐‐and sleep‐‐by impacting school commutes in communities like ours.
I am sure Palo Alto will not be the only community affected by these unintended consequences. Please either delay the
bill or, at minimum, insert an amendment to require middle schools to start no earlier than 8:10 and high schools no
earlier than 8:30. This change would probably help our community avert impacts where multiple school sites share
severely congested school routes. However, I would prefer time to study the best options before the bill is passed and to
understand what the cost of safety and congestion mitigations may be.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2017 9:10 AM
2
I imagine this will affect other cities with severely congested high volume school routes. I have reached out to one or
two other cities with Safe Routes to School programs and they were unaware of SB328.
Please proceed carefully. First, do no harm.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Penny Ellson
Palo Alto,CA
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2017 9:10 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Maureen Tri <maisietri@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 5:28 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:criticone@metricus.net; ddbb1513@yahoo.com
Subject:Verion Cell Towers in our Neighborhoods
Dear Council Member:
I’ve recently been made aware of Verizon’s plan to install radiation-emitting antennas in our neighborhoods. I
am very much opposed to this. The health risks are too great to gamble on our future. Yes, the new antennas will meet federal guidelines, however those guidelines haven’t been updated in over 20 years. Much has changed and more information is available about the harm these antennas can cause. For more information, I
have included an excerpt (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/20/radiation-from-cell-
phones-and-wifi-are-making-people-sick--are-you-at-risk.aspx). I am happy to provide more information if
needed. Please put our health above Verizon profits. Thank you,
Maureen Tri
535 N California Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, of Columbia University and one of the most experienced researchers of the cellular and
molecular effects of electromagnetic fields in the U.S., gave an informative speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org.
Dr. Blank spoke with deep experience and commanding authority on the impact of electromagnetic fields on
cells and DNA, and explained why your DNA, with its 'coil of coils' structure, is especially vulnerable to
electromagnetic fields of all kinds. As described in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, April 2011, DNA possesses the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas, electronic conduction and self-symmetry.
These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA to electromagnetic fields than other tissues, making the
long-term consequences of repeated microwave exposures to our genetic material of great concern.
Dr. Blank is adamant when he says that there IS evidence of harm, and that the harm can be significant. He also
points out that the science showing harmful effects has been peer-reviewed, published, and that the results have been replicated, evaluated and "judged by scientists capable of judging it."
Even barring all the scientific evidence, it simply makes sense that cell phones and wireless technology can
impact the human body once you understand that your body is bioelectric. Your body contains electrons which
keep an electrical current flowing, and inside every cell are mitochondria, the 'power plants' of the cell that
respond to the body's natural electromagnetic fields.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2017 9:10 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Gina Craig <gcraigx@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 7:45 PM
To:Council, City
Please please do NOT allow Verizon ( or any other) cell towers in our neighborhood!!! We value our quiet,
tree- lined streets. These towers are noisy and ugly. Please do NOT allow it! Thank you! Gina Craig, Old Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2017 9:10 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Alice Holmes <AHolmes@renault-handley.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 23, 2017 8:32 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon
Dear City Council Members: I am writing in opposition to the City leasing space to Verizon cell towers on existing electric, telephone, and cable
utility poles located throughout Old Palo Alto where I live.
For many years the Utility and Public Works Departments has assured residents that the City would soon put utility
lines underground and remove the utility poles. In other areas of Palo Alto, the City has put electric utilities
underground but has not done so in Old Palo Alto. Why?
And now, this proposal to place a private corporation’s antennas on top of unsightly poles that should have been removed long ago is a further indication of the City’s refusal to meet their commitment to remove the poles. The City is free to reject the plan on the basis of noise (and no one denies these installations are noisy) and appearance (and no one imagines that cell towers would be an aesthetic upgrade for Old Palo Alto or any other neighborhood). As an Old Palo Alto resident of over 30 years, I don’t want any more of this equipment in my neighborhood and urge you to reject this proposal and also to review the undergrounding of utilities in our neighborhood.
Thank you,
Alice Holmes.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2017 11:41 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lp <lping656@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 23, 2017 11:27 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon cell Towers
Hi,
I am a resident of Palo Alto for the past 45 years. I would to ask for help to stop the Verizon from setting up cell towers
in our neighborhood. It will not only affect our health, our home value, our peace and quiet environment.
Thank you !
Lai and Charles Tin
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/18/2017 4:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Linda Clarke <lspclarke@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, August 18, 2017 10:50 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cell towers in Palo Alto
Dear City Council,
I was alarmed to learn about plans to put numerous cell phone towers in Old Palo Alto, where I’ve lived for the past 30+
years. While I value good cell phone service, I’m very concerned about the noise and aesthetics that may decrease home
values.
I am counting on you, our elected officials, to protect our neighborhood from becoming a cell phone tower jungle.
Thank you,
Linda Clarke
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/18/2017 4:45 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:gerald_millin@ekit.com
Sent:Friday, August 18, 2017 3:38 PM
To:Council, City
Esteemed City Council Members,
I'm writing to urge you to stop Verizon from installing cell antennas in some Old Palo Alto neighborhoods. It troubles me
to see any more noise and additional radiation added to any residential neighborhoods. Also I feel they are
unnecessary. I have never heard anyone complain about poor cell phone reception in Palo Alto. Thank you for
considering this issue.
Gerald Millin
1944 Emerson Street
____________________________________________________________________
eKit ‐ the global phonecard with more!
Spend less on overseas calls, receive messages worldwide.
Visit http://www.ekit.com/ for details.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 1:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Linda DeMeo <lldemeo@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2017 12:53 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Ed DeMeo
Subject:Community use of First Baptist Church
Attachments:iSing.pdf
2791 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
August 16, 2017
City Council of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Members of Palo Alto’s City Council,
Thank you all for your attention Monday evening to what appears to be outdated zoning
requirements for community organizations’ use of churches in Palo Alto.
Our family moved to the Bay Area 41 years ago from the East coast. We chose Palo Alto because
of its reputation for excellent education, as well as a forward thinking city administration. Our
two children went through the school system during the late 70’s through early 90’s and we
believe they received an excellent education. In those years it was clear to us that emphasis was
on children’s well-rounded development, as evidenced by the diversity of programs offered, both
in city facilities and in churches.
However, over the last 10 to 15 years, we have become concerned that the city is veering off this
path. The latest example is the apparent prioritization of neighbors’ concerns about parking and
activities at the First Baptist Church without recognition of the value to the community of the
programs the church hosts – along with the lack of communication from city staff to the church’s
leadership that might have allowed neighbors’ concerns to be resolved.
We attended your Council meeting Monday evening because of our involvement with iSing
Silicon Valley through our granddaughter. We were extremely heartened and grateful that the
programs offered in the First Baptist Church will be allowed to continue as you explore ways to
avoid eviction of programs such as iSing by working with the neighbors, church administration
and City officials. Thank you.
As you heard and saw Monday evening, the quality of iSing’s program has truly impacted all of its
girls from Kindergarten through12th grade as they make their way through their formative years.
The gifted and motivated music professionals who run the program impart musical skills, music
appreciation, poise and confidence – enhancing the quality of life for these young people and for
our entire community. Programs like iSing contribute to the intellectual, social, personal and
spiritual development of our children. We are truly grateful that the First Baptist Church is able
to provide a venue for iSing, thereby linking iSing’s goals and the Church’s mission.
We entered the Council chambers feeling disheartened, disillusioned, discouraged and a little
angry at this City’s lack of forward thinking, communication, compassion and common sense. We
now see a light at the end of the tunnel!
Yours truly,
Linda and Ed DeMeo
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 2:37 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 2:32 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Architectural Review Board; Stump, Molly; City Attorney; Keene,
James
Subject:Council Members: Please say where you stand on this issue
STOP VERIZON FROM BLANKETING OLD PALO ALTO WITH CELL TOWERS.
Berkeley has kept cell phone towers out of its residential neighborhoods. So
should Palo Alto.
Dear Neighbor:
Verizon is planning to install 93 ugly, loud, radiation-emitting antennas in a few Palo Alto
neighborhoods, including ours.
The cellular installations will be an unsightly addition to our tree-lined streets; they will produce an
unpleasant 24/7 hum; and they are sure to lower our home values. Plus, if Verizon is allowed to go
forward, more cell antennas are certain to follow. Indeed, AT&T has already told the City they plan to
install more cellular equipment here as well.
Verizon’s cell towers will extend up from existing utility poles, which is why the company has targeted
Old Palo Alto and South Palo Alto, among other neighborhoods. But Crescent Park and North Palo
Alto, where the City has moved utilities underground, are not being targeted for the towers. Does this
seem right to you?
Also, there are health issues. While, in principal, the radiation emitted from each installation will meet
Federal guidelines, those guidelines are over twenty years old, predating the entry of more and more
radiation-emitting equipment into our lives (e.g., routers, smart phones). No one knows the long-term
health impact of day-after-day, close proximity to towers such as those Verizon is proposing. All we
know for sure is that the towers will increase the radiation level.
Moreover, under Verizon’s plan, the radiation being emitted by each tower will be measured exactly
once—a year after each antenna is installed. This is just plain irresponsible.
We care about good cell service as much as anyone. But that can be accomplished without lowering
Old Palo Alto’s home values, disturbing our peace and quiet and unnecessarily exposing us to
additional radiation.
Please contact City Council (email City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.org, or write City Council, 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, 94301) and urge them to take every step possible to defend our
neighborhood’s aesthetics, home values and peace and quiet. (The 1996 Telecom Act prohibits the
city from fighting back on health grounds.) Berkeley, Palos Verdes and other California communities
have passed tough, new ordinances to protect their neighborhoods from the cell companies’ ugly,
noisy, radiation-emitting antennas. Palo Alto should do the same.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 2:37 PM
2
Thank you for your attention. Questions? Please contact your Webster Street neighbors Jeanne (at
CriticOne@Metricus.net) or Celia at (ddbb1513@yahoo.com).
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2017 9:11 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Save Palo Alto's Groundwater <PAgroundwater@luxsci.net>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:38 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Bobel, Phil; pagroundwater@luxsci.net
Subject:Dewatering - documented property damage
Attachments:Door_3.JPG
To honorable members of the Palo Alto City Council
Please see the attached photo of the door between my kitchen and dining room.
This door swung freely as of about 2 weeks ago. It does not swing freely now.
Also notice the crack in the stucco near the door.
Both are caused by dewatering, and specifically the dewatering at 2189 Webster. I have accurate measurements of the
level of the groundwater on my property which shows the groundwater level has dropped 30" since dewatering started at
2189 Webster. The Geotech report obtained by the subcontractors is materially inaccurate. The prediction of the drop in
water level at a distance of 150 feet from the site (the approximate distance of my measurement of the ground water level)
predicted a drop of 4 - 6".
I clearly advised the applicant of this risk of damage to my property from dewatering over 1 year ago, yet he and his
contractor decided not to take any preventative actions - not even optimize the broad area dewatering method, but instead
use the most conventional method of "over dewatering" with excessively deep dewatering wells and by pumping for nearly
2 weeks prior to starting excavation. Frankly, they did not think at all.
This evidence should dispell any lingering doubts that dewatering, as currently practiced in Palo Alto has the potential for
damage to other's properties due to ground settling.
Who will pay for the neccessary repairs to my home?
Best regards,
Keith Bennett
Save Palo Alto's Groundwater
PAgroundwater@luxsci.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 20, 2017 5:28 AM
To:barabara.teixeira@cityofpaloalto.org; Radu, Catrinel; Council, City; Scharff, Greg; Kniss,
Liz (external); jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Philip, Brian; Bullerjahn, Rich; Reifschneider, James;
Lum, Patty; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com; Perron,
Zachary; Wagner, April; Ryan, Dan; Bonilla, Robert
Cc:Watson, Ron
Subject:Fwd: Another milestone on PAPD elder abuse by Patty Lum
Ron;
I'll driving back to Palo Alto to picket around city hall and down University Ave... until I receive a certificate of
innocence and check for 5k... Your department stole my personal property and ruined my credit report for years
by installing your rape-hot-line... Your phone bill sir, which....I refused to pay...
Mark
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Date: August 20, 2017 at 6:08:13 AM CST
To: Patty Lum <patty.lum@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: "city.council@cityofpaloalto.org" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Greg Scharff
<gregscharff@aol.com>, Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net>, ron watson
<ron.watson@cityofpaloalto.org>, claudia.keith@cityofpaloalto.org,
brian.philip@cityofpaloalto.org, rich.bullerjahn@cityofpaloalto.org,
james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org, swebby@da.sccgov.org, jrosen@da.sccgov.org, Jay
Boyarsky <jboyarsky@da.sccgov.org>, csumida@da.sccgov.org
Subject: Another milestone on PAPD elder abuse by Patty Lum
You treated my entire family as rapist... And the mother of a rapist. You do not deserve to be a
police officer and should be decertified. Turn in your badge and weapon
Mark
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:57 AM
2
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 8:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stew Plock <stewplock@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 16, 2017 2:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Input on Transportation and Parking Garages
Mayor Scharff and Council Members,
I'm on the board of 350 Silicon Valley and have also worked with others to create an alliance of local climate
and environmental justice organizations. I'm writing in support of fellow resident David Coale's recent letter to
the council regarding parking garages.
We admire the leadership of the CPA in creating the city's forward thinking SCAP. A major part of that plan
deals with transportation. We in the environmental and climate community support municipal actions that will
move us away from gasoline-powered cars for most of our inter-city traffic within the next decade..
Building 2 new garages is not one of those actions. Just as in road widening, if more public capacity for
parking cars is made available, more cars will come, adding to our already congested city roads.
I would look forward to working with the city to develop an alternative transportation plan that meets the needs
of citizens and merchants and, unlike the current plans, also leads us faster to Mobility as a Service, a
significant reduction in the number of cars on the roads. If we all switch to electric cars and we build the extra
garages as planned, we still will not improve our "traffic and congestion " quality of life.
In the meantime, I support, as David Coale has suggested, that we take a year to really evaluate the alternatives
and start putting actions in place to meet our city's needs and avoids building those garages.
For the climate,
Stew Plock 350 Silicon Valley Board of Directors www.350siliconvalley.org SVClimate...the Silicon Valley Climate Action Alliance www.svclimate.org (C)650-815-1372 (H)650-856-0625 stewplock@gmail.com
917 El Cajon Way, Palo Alto, Ca 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 20, 2017 4:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Attachments:Emerson_Channing_corner_8_20_17.jpg
Hello,
I have lived in Palo Alto for more 45 years and up to a few months ago I have never observed someone driving or
attempting to drive the wrong way on our one‐way streets. Four months ago I was behind a car going South on Emerson
and approaching Channing. The car had their right‐turn signal on and I beeped my horn several times to alert the driver
that he or she was going against the traffic. The car completed the turn, but immediately realized the error and made a
U‐turn. The same thing happened 2 weeks later. I reported the issue on Palo Alto 311. My suggested solution was to
install a black and red sign with the right‐turn arrow crossed out on the stop sign post. The response from the city was
that there was an arrow sign on the far corner and it was sufficient. See PLN5854 on the Palo Alto 311 web page. I
contend that the arrow is not sufficient as it seems these drivers do not see that one‐way arrow. I think the problem is
that Palo Alto has many new visitors and they are not familiar with our one‐way streets. I contacted Philip Kamhi to see
if he could make things happen, his answer was, " I can't do anything, I'm only an administrator." Attached is a picture
of the intersection as seen by a driver. Depending on the viewpoint of the driver, the black and white one‐way arrow
may be not seen.
This is a safety issue and we should do everything possible to prevent accidents. Please help to fix this issue. If it's a man‐
power issue I will volunteer to install the signs.
Thank you,
Gary Lindgren
Gary Lindgren
585 Lincoln Ave
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-326-0655
Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading
@garyelindgren
Be Like Costco... do something in a different way
Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything
Listen to Radio Stations Around the World
A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but
think what no one else has ever said.
The difference between being very smart and very foolish is
often very small.
So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when
they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:53 AM
2
they are supposed to be creative.
The secret to doing good research is always to be a little
underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste
hours.
It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to
prove you have made the world a better place.
Amos Tversky
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/18/2017 4:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keith McCabe <keith_mccabe@mac.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2017 6:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Please continue music in the square it is a fun way for workers like me to spend our evenings (and our dollars) in Palo
Alto.
I have seen 3 weeks of bands now and it is great fun.
Please continue funding it.
Regards,
Keith at American Express
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 4:02 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Cimilluca <mary.cimilluca@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2017 3:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:No more Verizon Cell Phone Antennas Installed in Old Palo Alto
Dear Palo Alto City Council
I am writing to request that no more Verizon cell phone towers are installed in Old Palo Alto.
The last batch of cell phone towers installed are very loud, ugly, and possibly radiation-emitting.
The antenna's fans are constantly whirling and making noise.
Therefore, please consider the concerns of this community and do not install anymore
Verizon cell phone towers in Old Palo Alto.
Thank you very much.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 4:02 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:scott saslow <scottsaslow@me.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2017 3:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:No new cell towers
I am writing to request that the city council hear my voice as resident of Old Palo Alto with 2 homes that we do
not want any new cell towers in stalled. No new towers from Verizon, from ATT, or from any provider.
The proposed towers are a health concern, are ugly, and noisy and will affect home values.
Many thanks
scott
Scott Saslow
200 block of Coleridge Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/18/2017 4:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Press strong <pressstrong@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2017 5:28 PM
To:Council, City; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Keene, James;
michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com
Cc:LaDoris Cordell
Subject:PAPD persecuting citizens who expose their hate
Greg Scharff
Palo Alto Mayor
Mayor Scharff, glad to see you denouncing hate groups and their perspectives.
http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/hategroup html
Let me ask you Mayor Scharff and while I am at it, Vice Mayor Liz Kniss.
As you have been informed two of your police officers falsely arrested me on August 1, 2017 and they did so
knowing exactly that they were maliciously targeting me to cause me harm and that their excuse to arrest me
was a premeditated lie.
http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly com/false-arrest.html
Would you call that hate Mayor Scharff? If it is hate shouldn't be denounced just as you have denounced other
hate? If it is not hate than what it is it Mr. Scharff, for it certainly was not a mistake. It is malicious acts like
that that can easily and unexpectedly result in a death Mr. Scharff. Like Eric
Garner: https://www.nytimes com/2016/10/25/nyregion/justice-dept-replaces-investigators-on-eric-garner-case.html?mcubz=0
And then there is Kenneth Chamberlain who was killed by the police because the police were solely there to
check on his physical wellbeing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86SRX1N6suM
Because of the hatred of officers Mullarkey and Burgio and those officers who conspired with them to target me
they unnecessarily, unethically and unlawfully placed my life in jeopardy.
Are you going to denounce these officers Mayor Scharff?
The false arrest is just the latest of long list of persecutory acts committed by members of your Palo Alto Police
Department like directing ex-cons and street thugs to target me; spreading false rumors and slander; Ofc.
Parham attempting to plant drugs in the midst of his ongoing stalking of me.
Are these hateful acts Mayor Scharff? Shouldn't they be denounced the same way you are denouncing the other
hate groups? If not why not?
What about several of your officers destroying evidence and using falsified evidence in order to conceal their
unlawful arrest and beating of a citizen while falsely incriminating the citizen of a crime with that same falsified
evidence, would that be hateful act Mr. Scharff? If it is a hateful act shouldn't it be denounced?
If it is not a hateful act, then what is it Mayor Scharff?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/18/2017 4:47 PM
2
I noticed in the paper today that another Gunn High School student killed himself. I wonder if he killed himself
because he was bullied.
Mother of Bullied Girl Who Died by Suicide: Mallory 'Had a Target on Her Back'
The family of a 12-year-old New Jersey girl who took her own life in June is planning to sue the school district
she attended, saying she was relentlessly bullied for months before a "preventable tragedy."
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-Jersey-Family-12-Year-Old-Mallory-Grossman-Bullying-Suicide-Sues-School-437718233.html
No doubt you denounce the bullying by the hate filled students who drove a fellow student to kill herself so why
do you not denounce the police officers in your department who also bully fellow citizens; for doing the same
thing as those who bullied that girl to death? Not only do your officers do the same thing, your officers do
much worse for they have been entrusted with great power and authority to protect citizens from bullies, and yet
they themselves abuse that very power to bully the weak, the poor and the powerless; to retaliate against those
who expose their hatred of the Constitution and the Constitutional rights of others.
If you do not stand up and denounce the hate filled cabal of bullies in your police department who are
unethically and illegally persecuting others and put a stop to their actions than you prove that you condone
hatred and bullying so long as it benefits your personal bias and prejudice revealing that you are no different
than those white supremacist groups whom you have just denounced.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/18/2017 4:47 PM
8
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2014cv03415/279439/59
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/02/17/palo-alto-settles-suit-after-allegations-of-excessive-force
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/18/2017 4:47 PM
9
http://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/missing-videos.html
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Erick Soto <ericksoto380@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, August 19, 2017 2:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposal to Outlaw Selling Animal Fur
Good Evening Palo Alto City Council,
I'm Erick Soto, student and intern near the area. It has come to my attention that the City of Palo Alto still
allows businesses to legally sell animal fur. The process behind getting these fur goods includes violence
towards animals, which is not necessary.
Animals are exploited for their fur. They are tortured and beaten, sometimes to their death, for their fur. The fur
industry continues to abuse these innocent animals and by legally allowing for businesses to sell these products,
we are contributing to this violence as bystanders.
Palo Alto is much better than this. Palo Alto is known as a progressive city and wouldn't allow this animal
abuse. Two other progressive cities in California, Berkeley and West Hollywood, have recognized this issue and
already outlawed selling animal fur.
Allowing stores to sell these fur products help promote for this violent industry to continue, which Palo Alto
shouldn't be a part of. Thus I propose that the city outlaws selling animal fur, and be on the right side of history
in contribution towards the fight for animal rights.
Best,
Erick Soto
PS: Link with more info on fur outlaws below
https://furfreeberkeley.com/
http://www.weho.org/city-hall/city-departments/public-works/code-compliance/fur-ban
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 8:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Justine Burt <justine@appraccel.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 20, 2017 6:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Quick presentation during Oral Communications
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I would like 3 minutes to present during Oral Communications either tomorrow or next week.
I'd like to show a Power Point with 11 pictures of protected bike lanes from my trip to Europe this summer. My
hope is to inspire the City to do more to build protected bike lanes to encourage people to get out of their cars
and onto bicycles for errands and commuting.
The Power Point is a 37MB file which I can share from Dropbox with whomever works to load up slides ahead
of the meeting.
Thank you!
Justine Burt
--
Justine Burt
Founder and CEO, Appraccel
justine@appraccel.com
www.appraccel.com
510.709.6266
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2017 9:12 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Laura Seitel <lseitel@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: First Baptist Church at 305 North California Avenue
Members of the City Council, My husband and I have lived next to the First Baptist Church on North California Avenue for thirty-four years, separated only by a 30-foot-wide driveway from the hall in which the church hosts numerous events. During the last decade there has been a pronounced escalation of activity and noise at the church that has had a profoundly negative impact on the tranquility of our residential neighborhood. We were immensely relieved when James Stephens, enforcing City code, took action to relieve the neighborhood of the noise and congestion created by the church. More recently, we have gathered from
newspaper articles and rumors that the church is working with the City to obtain special use permits to restart the activities that
have distressed us and our neighbors for so long and/or to change its status to that of a community center with ramifications that
none of us understands. We are concerned that our grievances will be unrepresented in this process.
Description of the Problem Daytime events at the church can be very noisy. For instance, the ISing program, as it is currently conducted, is the equivalent of a summer camp. We assume that this group has an excellent aim, but it is run with a seeming lack of awareness of
its impact on neighbors, waking us up in the morning with the playing of loud instruments and stomping and shouting in the hall
next door (all doors and windows open) and arranging recreation times on the lawn in front of the church with dozens of girls
allowed to run and shout on the lawn and sidewalks just a few feet from our property. We believe that running and shouting
and shrieking with delight are normal behaviors for children who have been indoors for long periods of time. But we maintain
that a quiet and dense residential neighborhood is an inappropriate venue for the regular conduct of these activities.
As damaging as these daytime events are to our and our neighbors’ tranquility, the problems that concern us most arise
from the use of the church facilities at night when we are trying to relax in our home. Most evenings the church hall is rented to
tango, ballroom-dancing, folk-dancing and other groups that play loud music until 11 P.M. and after. Sometimes it is used for
lectures or political events that involve the use of amplified sound. Most recently the hall has been rented for parties celebrating anniversaries or baby showers and the like with loud bands and dancing. The doors and windows of the hall are routinely left wide open during all of these activities.
These uses of the church property assure that our streets will be lined with parked cars, day and night, often for several blocks. More importantly, there is loud, inescapable noise almost every night which has made our back yard and deck unusable and penetrates inside our home despite our closing all of our doors and windows. There is no supervision of these activities by the church as they are occurring and thus neighbors have no way to address disturbances other than to call the police.
In sum
Our problems arise primarily from the secular and commercial use of the church’s property, not the activities of the church congregation itself. We feel that the church, having burdened so many of its neighbors for so long, should not be given special privileges in official or unofficial discussions with the City as it rethinks its mission in our community. We, as neighbors of the church, would like to be included in these discussions so that the City can more accurately understand our grievances and more justly address them.
Respectfully,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/18/2017 4:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:ron ito <wsrfr418@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:really bad intersection
Medical Foundation Drive and El Camino.
El Camino is pretty wide to begin with .
Can barely seen pedestrians on the west side of El Camino waiting to cross over to the east side of El Camino.
The city should put put in flashing lights on the crosswalk to indicate someone is waiting to cross the street.
I don't know how many times I have barely seen them. A couple of times I had to jam on my brakes at the last second.
Maybe other drivers don't have that problem but I sure as hell do!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 8:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net
Sent:Wednesday, August 16, 2017 3:59 PM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City; Mello, Joshuah
Cc:Mullen, Jarrett
Subject:The newly engineered pedestrian/bicycle crossings at Middlefield and Embarcadero
Attachments:IMG_0772.jpg; IMG_0776.jpg; IMG_0779.jpg; IMG_0778.jpg; IMG_0800.jpg
Hello Mr. Mayor Greg Scharff, Palo Alto City Council, and Mr. Joshua Mello (Chief of Transportation division),
While the city’s good effort to become more bicycle‐friendly is applauded, and we ourselves are city bicyclists, my
husband and I are deeply concerned about the clutter and visual ugliness being introduced at the intersection of
Middlefield and Embarcadero roads by a new bike path engineering scheme there. To clarify: we are particularly
concerned with the esthetics of the residential corners, but are not quite as concerned about the Walter Hays corner
which is an entry to campus.
We are additionally concerned that this new path scheme may not make children much safer at the corners, and might
actually encourage unsafe speedy bicycling through the intersection.
A new paving is being put into place at this intersection, to mark bike pathways, that involves using common black‐
tar asphalt up on the sidewalk level, where once we had elegant and simple gray concrete sidewalks and perfectly
usable gray ramps angling down to street level.
This new black asphalt racetrack‐configuration is, in our opinion, unusually unsightly. It downgrades the immediate
neighborhood, and devalues our properties.
Black tar asphalt belongs down on the street level, where the cars are, for both esthetic reasons but also for reasons
of visual signaling and safety
(asphalt roads are for cars, grey concrete paving is for pedestrians, at a higher level than street level = visual
clarity to passing motorists)
It is unclear that any real gain will be achieved by placing tar‐black asphalt up on the sidewalk area at this
intersection.
1. After school at Walter Hays, there is a mass exodus of young children, their parents, sibling strollers, and
bicycles at this intersection.
These people (and we were among them for 8 years, so know this scene intimately, and we still live close by)
will congregate in social groups at the corner
to wait for the street lights to change so they can cross. They are unlikely to divide themselves by black‐
asphalt bike riders vs grey‐concrete sidewalk walkers and march across
the street in separate lines.
2. Once they have crossed the street, bicyclists will either proceed on down the gray concrete sidewalk they have
crossed to, or they will turn, push the button, and wait to cross in another direction.
In neither scenario should bicycles go through this crowded intersection quickly, during the after‐school
exodus. The bikes will be walked, or possibly ridden across the street, and then the riders will go on their way
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 8:36 AM
2
home up normal gray concrete sidewalks on the nearby streets. There is no special bike path they will connect
to—they will ride up regular residential streets and sidewalks to go home, as they always have done.
3. At all other hours of the day and on weekends, when there is not a mass exodus of students leaving Walter Hays
around 3pm, the intersection at Middlefield and Embarcadero
is usually pretty quiet in terms of pedestrians and bikers, and often has no one, or at most a very few people
waiting to cross the street (on bikes or on foot) at any given time.
Thus, we seem to be structuring visual chaos at the intersection in an attempt to regulate an after school exodus
that takes place maybe only 2% of the time in any given week. As far as we can see, the new crossing design
serves no other purpose but to try to segregate groups of exiting after‐school children by pedestrians vs
bicyclists. Is this necessary ? And will it even work ?
The visual clutter of this engineered scheme will be highly visible at Middlefield and Embarcadero, which until
now has been an attractive tree‐lined and pleasant intersection to cross through by foot, by bike or by car. We
have never had a problem crossing here as pedestrians or bicyclists, even during the after school crush. We do
not understand the need for all this engineering of the corners.
Additionally, a hazard might result from this new design due to the visual confusion of placing asphalt at the
upper sidewalk level. Asphalt ramps will now also go up to sidewalk level. This could possibly endanger children
at the corner, if there is confusion by motorized scooters or other vehicles about entering the upper sidewalk
level from the street level.
And at no time should bicyclists be flying at high speed through these corners or this intersection. The new
asphalt ramps and corner pathways may encourage fast bicycling through an intersection that should be treated
cautiously, for the sake of the bicyclist (against oncoming car danger) and for the sake of pedestrians (against
the bicyclist). The racetrack configuration of this new asphalt bike path , which essentially loops continuously
through all 4 corners of this intersection, may encourage speedy bicycle riding. Fast bicycling is not safe and
should not be encouraged at this very busy intersection.
In sum, the intersection seems to us to be over‐engineered by well‐meaning persons, who have perhaps not
considered all the visual ramifications of their intense design at this intersection, nor the encouragement of
speed where it should be discouraged. This new design will deeply impact the attractiveness of the
intersection, which is a gateway to many neighborhoods, park, and community center nearby. It remains to be
seen if this design will actually enhance the safety of our children, but there is no question that it will clutter and
impact the natural tree‐lined esthetics of the neighborhood.
The elegant concrete sidewalks and ramps that have existed at this intersection have worked perfectly well for
the past 24 years that we have lived here—based on our own experience living, walking, biking and driving near
this
intersection and raising our children who attended the public schools right here on Middlefield.
(Note that we agree with the planned addition of small barrier walls on the outer corners at Middlefield and
Embarcadero. Those might help protect children from oncoming cars on Embarcadero.)
In sum: ‐‐ We suggest that the city consider eliminating the plan to pave black tar asphalt up on our sidewalk
levels.
We suggest keeping gray concrete at the sidewalk level, and black tar asphalt at the street level ‐
‐
‐‐‐ for the sake of esthetics, but also for visual clarity and safety.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 8:36 AM
3
‐‐ We suggest that you do retain the design elements of well‐marked street crossings (painted) and the
small corner barriers to protect children from oncoming cars.
‐‐ We suggest a little less paving engineering and a little more visual simplicity and elegance at our
highly‐used intersection. The classic gray concrete ramps on other city corners look great to us.
Thank you for your time to read this opinion from long‐term residents in the affected neighborhood,
Kim Atkinson and David Fudenberg
1753 Middlefield Road
Ps: our thanks to Mr. Jarrett Mullen of the transportation division, who
sent us a copy of the intersection plan, and who graciously gave of his time and patience on the phone.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 10:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sea <paloaltolife@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 10:33 AM
Subject:Tweet by Sea-Seelam Reddy on Twitter
Sea-Seelam Reddy (@SealamReddy)
8/21/17, 10:31
Thank you city of Palo Alto for arranging this event of life time. Thanks for interest in science.
pic.twitter.com/FGPNOLVGeE
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/21/2017 10:21 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sea <paloaltolife@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, August 21, 2017 10:10 AM
Subject:Tweet by Sea-Seelam Reddy on Twitter
Sea-Seelam Reddy (@SealamReddy)
8/21/17, 10:03
Solar eclipse in Palo Alto as of 10:02am pic.twitter.com/BjXZj3tcP5
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2017 9:11 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Beth Fairman <mbfairman@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 4:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:2 Hour Parking on Sheridan Avenue
Hello,
I just wanted to say how much I appreciate having the 2 Hour parking limit on Sheridan Avenue. Our neighborhood has
been so much quieter and less congested since the parking restriction went into effect last May. Thanks for making it
happen.
Beth Fairman
410 Sheridan Ave, #102
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/23/2017 9:10 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:karen young <kyoung8228@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:26 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:kyoung8228@yahoo.com
Subject:Underground project
This is old Palo Alto neighborhood, I urge the city make the long overdue underground of utilities a top priority.
In the meantime, hold off on approving Verizon's cell towers plan.
Thank for the attention
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 1:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nahid Waleh <nwaleh@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2017 12:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon Cell Towers
Dear City Council:
I am a resident of Old Palo Alto and has lived here with my family for the past 40 years. I would like to urge
the City Council to block the action of Verizon from installing cell antennas in our neighborhood. The Verizon
action should be blocked since apart from potential health hazards, it is against peace and quiet of the
neighborhood. Please let me know if I can be of any help in this matter.
With regards
Nahid S. Waleh
Address: 2344 Emerson St, Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/18/2017 4:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Debby Roth <debdebn@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon Cell Towers
I live on Webster Street between Seale and Santa Rita where an ugly cell tower is planning to be installed along with 92
others in Palo Alto neighborhoods. First of all our utilities were promised to be moved underground but have never been
moved underground and it's very unsightly!! Why is Old Palo Alto chosen a place to install these ugly towers? The
cellular installations will be an unsightlly addition to our tree lined streets and will produce an unpleasant 24/7 hum and
will effect the value of our homes. . How about the radiation level? Palos Verdes, Berkeley and other communities have
passed tough new ordinances to protect their neighborhoods from the cell companies. Let's get with it Palo Alto!!!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/18/2017 4:46 PM
2
Thanks, Debby Niethammer Roth
I
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 8/17/2017 8:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 16, 2017 6:27 PM
To:Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Brian Welch; Philip,
Brian; Council, City; Reifschneider, James; Bullerjahn, Rich
Subject:You cant understand bigotry until you've experienced first hand like I have Tweet by
Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
8/16/17, 7:17 PM
@cityofpaloalto hypocrites examine and clean-up your #RacialProfiling issues in #PaloAlto by the
@PaloAltoPolice Documented case after case pic.twitter.com/zHAA3ueVfb
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
P&S Committee
8/22/2017
[x] Placed Before Meeting
POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE -TENTATIVE FUTURE ITEMS
[u~OAY, Sep~~m~~r 20,pr ¥.-~, 40(7 focia AND·SERVIC!ES COMM. MEEtlNij
1. Discussion of Ordinance Re-aligning Terms on the Architectural Review Board, the
Historic Resources Board, the Parks & Recreation Commission, and the Planning &
Transportation Commission and Other Related Municipal Code Changes (CLK)
2. Continuous Monitoring: Overtime Audit (AUD)
3. Audit Status Report: Palo Alto Animal Services (CMO/AUD)
4. Fiscal Year 2018 Audit Plan
lfuESDAV1 Octob~r XX, 2017 PQIJ(Zy ANP sERVIC~~ ~QM~.: M~ETINq
1. Taxicab Licensing & Ordinance (PD)
2. Audit Status Report: Parking Funds (PCE/ASD/AUD)
3. Audit Status Report: Utility Meter·s: Procurement, Inventory, and Retirement (UTL/AUD)
4. Audit Status Report: Inventory Management (ASD/AUD)
5. Palo Alto and Stanford University Air Quality Project ·Array of Things (IT)
6. Update on ThinkFund Programming (formerly Bryant Street Garage Fund) (CSD)
l!UESDAY, Noveml;er 14, 201? 1>,0LICV AND·$ERVl€ES1COIViM. MEETIN~
1. Audit Status Report: Disability Rates and Workers' Compensation
2. Audit Status Report: Community Services Department Fee Schedule Audit
3. Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2017 (AUD)
4. Community Health Needs Assessment (FIRE)
[UESDA]': Qecember: 12, 2017 POLICY AND'SERVICE~ <!OMM. M~EtlNGI
• No items scheduled
To city council Palo Alto,
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
g/z.1 /U}J7
As a resident in old Palo Alto I am wJi~rtf.lG ~ v~lPt~~der the negative effects of cell phone towers in our
neighborhood, noise, ugly antennas and exposure to additional radiation. These can damage the value of our
homes and neighborhoods. I urge you to defend all our residential neighborhoods from these ugly, noisy
installations .. don't let Verizon or AT&T damage our wonderful neighborhoods just to make money.
Annbowe~~~
Waverley street.