HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170925plCC 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: 9/25/2017
Document dates: 9/6/2017 – 9/13/2017
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 | 9/11/2017 3:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Svendsen, Janice
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2017 3:51 PM
To:Council Members; Council Agenda Email; ORG - Clerk's Office; Shikada, Ed; Keene,
James; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle
Cc:Portillo, Rumi; Jimenez, Angelica; Blanch, Sandra; Lee, Frank; Perez, Lalo; Nose, Kiely
Subject:9/11 Council Question Item 5: USI broker service
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 regarding the September 11, 2017 council agenda Item 5: USI broker
service.
Q.1. Why was there a amendment in year two of the contract to add $15,000 annually.
A.1. In a City Council Colleague’s Memo dated June 15, 2012 and approved by the
Council, a series of public sessions by the Council were to be scheduled to discuss
how to ensure that Palo Alto has highly skilled employees with a passion for public
service, balanced by a sustainable model of employee compensation, retirement,
and benefit options.
Included in one of the presentation was information on healthcare and the
Affordable Care Act which had been recently enacted. Human Resources
requested assistance from WFIS to present how this Federal health care reform
would affect the City of Palo Alto. WFIS Senior Compliance attorney, Ms. Lilliana
Salazar presented information on this topic as well as benchmark information that
other California agencies were pursuing to provide flexible health plan
options. (CMR ID#3502‐
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/32956) The contract
amount was increased by $15,000 in case any further study was needed, however,
actual costs in year 2 did not exceed $76,000.
Q.2. If the current contract is meeting current service needs that why should the city
of Palo Alto pay by $75,000 more? Is there not a better place to allocate these funds?
A.2. This is the continuation of an annual service, the $75,000 is for one additional
year of service that maintains the current service needs for 12 additional
months. During this time, a formal solicitation will be completed for these services.
The current contract term date ended on June 30, 2017. HR is seeking approval to
extend the contract by an additional year at $75,000 for period beginning July 1,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 3:51 PM
2
2017 to June 30, 2018. This fee is approximately $15,000 less than the standard
insurance industry commission.
Q.3. How much money has WFIS saved for the city of Palo Alto?
A.3. Below is the savings WFIS has negotiated for the City in the last five years. WFIS
works with 100 municipalities in California and is able to execute group purchases
for benefit plans outlined below:
Q.4. If the money is coming from the FY 2018 General Benefits Fund then how is there
no impact to the General Benefits Fund?
A.4. There will be an expense from the General Benefits Fund, however, there are
sufficient funds appropriated in the fund to absorb this cost in FY 2018 as the annual
budget presumes the use of a consulting contract to complete these services
annually. No additional funding authorization is needed beyond the levels approved
by the City Council as part of the FY 2018 Adopted Budget. Should the planned
solicitation for these services in FY 2018 result in a different annual cost, that will be
factored into the annual budget process.
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 | 9/13/2017 11:25 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stump, Molly
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2017 7:39 PM
To:Amar Johal; Council, City
Subject:RE: Smoking Ordinance (TRP)
Hello Mr. Johal –
You may provide input on all of the new rules at the City Council meeting on September 18th. All of the new rules are
included in one ordinance, which is before the Council for adoption on September 18th. Some of the new rules go into
effect on July 1, 2018, while other rules don’t go into effect until January 1, 2019.
Regards,
Molly Stump
City Attorney
From: Amar Johal [mailto:amarjohal@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 9:34 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Smoking Ordinance (TRP)
Hello,
I received the attached letter (7-Eleven, 401 Waverley St).
I see in the letter there are 2 different ordinances:
1) July 1, 2018 - Ban Tobacco Sales at Pharmacies, and the Tobacco Retail Permit
2) Jan. 1 2019 - Ban Flavored Tobacco at certain establishments.
Then on the bottom there is a date for a hearing, does this hearing include both ordinance's or is it just for the
July 1st ordinance?
Reason I ask is because I went to the http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/smokingordinance website, and it doesn't
mention anything about Flavored Tobacco ban.
Please let me know, as a retailer the 2nd ordinance impacts our business and also creates a blackmarket for these products that I rather not have in our neighborhoods. We already go through a rigorous ID checking process to insure no minors are sold products to, and also subscribe to a mystery shop service to
check our employees on a consistent basis.
-Amar
Scanned by CamScanner
PALO
ALTO
PUBLIC WORKS
2'~01 tml.Hr~:'d •o ·:, '~
Palo Alto, c A Q430 •
650.3, 9 259
September 1, 2017
7-Eleven Store #2366-18584E
401 Waverley St
Palo Alto, CA 94301
I
Re: Proposed Tobacco Retail Permit Ordinance
Dear Store Owner:
l • t,
A Tobacco Retail Permit (TRP-also referred to as a license) Ordinance is being considered by the City of
Palo Alto. It is designed to implement protective tobacco retail practices since the California state tobacco
retail licensing law has been insufficient in reducing illegal tobacco sales to minors. Although retailers pay
an annual fee to the State Board of Equalization (BOE), the funds are used to enforce tobacco tax
regulations. No portion of these funds is used to enforce the law restricting tobacco sales and no state
licensee has ever been penalized by the BOE for selling tobacco to minors. To address this concern,
California cities can adopt additional local TRP ordinance requirements. Currently 133 towns, cities, and
counties within California have adopted local TRP ordinances including Campbell, County of Santa Clara,
Gilroy, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, San Jose, and Saratoga.
Effective July 1, 2018 the proposed ordinance would:
1. Prohibit all pharmacies from selling tobacco products;
2. Require all Palo Alto establishments selling tobacco products to obtain a Tobacco Retail Permit
from the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health. Permit conditions would
require:
a) an annual permit renewal;
b) an annual inspection of the premises for compliance with the City's TRP requirements by
City or County staff;
c) a TRP to be displayed in a publicly visible location at the permitted location.
3. Include fines for permit violations.
4. Allow permit suspensions and revocation for violations.
Effective January 1, 2019 the ordinance would prohibit:
5. Sales of flavored tobacco products (note: an exemption exists in the draft ordinance for retailers
who primarily sell tobacco products, generate more than 60 percent of its gross revenues annual for
tobacco sales, do not sell food or alcohol for onsite consumptions, and comply with the ordinance
age and signage requirements);
6. Self-service displays of tobacco products;
Scanned by CamScanner
7. Any new tobacco retailing within 1,000 feet of a public or private school (k-12) or within 500 feet of
another tobacco retailer (existing Palo Alto retailers other than pharmacies would be exempt from
this requirement until the business transfers ownership). Visit
www.cityofpaloalto.org/smokingordinance to see if your location is within the 500 or 1,000 foot
requirements listed above.
Background
Tobacco use is the number one preventable cause of death and disease in California, killing nearly 40,000
Californians every year. The 2012 Surgeon General's Report found that about 90 percent of all smokers first
tried cigarettes as teens, and that about three of every four teen smokers continue into adulthood. Further,
young adults, ages 18 to 24, have the highest smoking prevalence among any age group according to the
California Department of Public Health.
In 2017, the City of Palo Alto adopted revisions to the City's existing Smoking and Tobacco Regulations
(Ordinance 9.14) to address these health concerns. The ordinance prohibits smoking in designated public
spaces, including outdoor dining areas, entryways, public events, recreation areas, and service areas and
multi-family residential units. During the discussion, the City also recognized studies showing that limiting
where tobacco is sold can curtail youth use, access and exposure to tobacco products. Council therefore
directed staff to develop a Tobacco Retail Permit Ordinance.
The City of Palo Alto is currently scheduled to consider the proposed Tobacco Retail Permit Ordinance on
Monday, September 18 at 6pm, at its City Council Meeting (held in the City Council Chambers at 250
Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto). Council agenda dates and discussion times are subject to change. If you plan
to attend the meeting, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp in advance to ensure
that the meeting date or discussion time has not been revised. You may also submit comments to City
Council by emailing city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
Draft ordinance language and additional information is available at cityofpaloalto.org/smokingordinance.
For additional information, email smokingordinance@cityofpaloalto.org, or call 650.329.2122.
Sincerely,
t/2(7~
Phil Sobel
Public Works Assistant Director
Environmental Services Division
Pr rn : • "1 1 ...., "c,~
-¥1!J.JJ/f~
l\ \~\-
c i tyO f Pa I oAlt o.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Admin <admin@apca.us>
Sent:Saturday, September 09, 2017 12:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Tobacco Retail License Ordinance
Attachments:Palo Alto Sept 2017.docx
Honorable Mayor Greg Scharff
Please find attached a letter from our Chairman Manraj Natt, on behalf of APCA & its 900+ retailer members, expressing
his concerns and recommendations on the upcoming City Council meeting on September 18th about Tobacco Retail
license ordinance.
Please feel free to contact me for any questions
Thanks & with Best Regards
Kewal Krishan
Executive Director
Dir. 408‐385‐2020
Email: admin@apca.us
Web: www.apca.us
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without authorization from the sender. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
September 11, 2107 The Honorable Greg Scharff Mayor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: September 18, 2017 City Council Agenda Item re: Tobacco Retail License Ordinance Dear Mayor Scharff: I write on behalf of the American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association (APCA), a grassroots organization of independent gasoline and convenience store owners located throughout the state of California to express our concerns and recommend amendments to the draft ordinance that would establish a Tobacco Retail License requirement in the City of Palo Alto. Let me begin by stating that APCA does not object to local tobacco licensing ordinances so long as they do not impose unreasonably high license fees and do not contain sales restrictions that create unnecessary regulatory burdens on our members. The ordinance before the City Council includes provisions that will harm the law-abiding retailers in Palo Alto and in some cases, cause great economic harm and even business failure. That is why we respectfully request that the City Council make the following amendments to the ordinance: 1. Delete the flavored tobacco ban (Sec. 4.64.030(h)) 2. Amend Sec. 4.64.030(j) to comply with California state law that exempts active duty military from Age 21; and 3. And add a grandfather provision under Sec. 4.64.030 that will allow existing tobacco retailers within 500 feet of another retailer or 1,000 feet from a school to sell, through an arm’s length transaction, to a new owner. We believe the sales restrictions in the draft ordinance go too far, especially given the state laws enacted last year related to tobacco including raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco products to age 21 and regulating e-cigarettes as tobacco products and existing city regulations governing gas stations.
Your municipal code already prohibits automobile service stations from selling food or grocery items or alcoholic beverages except for prepackaged soft drinks, cigarettes and snack foods either from automatic vending machines or in shelves occupying a floor area not to exceed forty square feet. Banning the sale of all flavored tobacco products would further diminish the already limited number of items that service stations can sell. We have spoken to retailers in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County about the impact the flavor ban has had on their business. These businesses have reported a decline in overall sales as their adult customers, who can no longer purchase the tobacco products they desire, have taken their business to stores outside the County where there are no flavor bans. We also know that the County’s TRL ordinance has depressed the overall value of businesses when owners have sold their businesses to a new owner. Retailers operate on thin profit margins and the loss of important products can mean going out of business. Should Palo Alto adopt the County tobacco retail license ordinance, it will create an uneven playing field for existing businesses in the City as customers can easily go to retailers in neighboring cities to purchase tobacco. It will also give the smoke shops in Palo Alto a competitive advantage over gas stations, corner markets and convenience stores. We find this particularly troublesome given the fact that the California Department of Public Health has noted that smoke shops have the highest rate of sales to minors. Last year, these stores had an illegal sales rate of 31.8%. We urge the Council to amend the TRL ordinance to protect small businesses in Palo Alto. Sincerely,
Manraj Natt Chairman cc: City Council City Attorney
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 3:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2017 3:30 PM
To:Atkinson, Rebecca
Cc:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Architectural Review Board
Subject:A Formal Request for Letters from the Public Regarding Verizon's Proposed Cell Towers
Dear Rebecca,
To follow up on my two informal requests for this information : Please consider this my formal request for access to the
letters you or any other city employees have received from Palo Altans in connection with Verizon’s plan to install cell
towers in residential neighborhoods. In particular, I am referring to the over 700 letters you have received from
residents who are concerned about the towers, letters you have been compiling in preparation for the Architectural
Review Board’s hearings.
As you know, these letters are part of the public record, I am entitled to see them and I am entitled to see them
promptly.
Thank you, as always, for your help.
Sincerely,
Jeanne
Jeanne Fleming
JFleming@Metricus.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 08, 2017 3:48 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:Ban on Idling Cars
Dear City Council and City Manager Keene,
Thank you all for the work you do on behalf of all Palo Alto residents. I write today to respond to the news that Palo Alto will prepare a new ordinance to ban idling cars.
Thank you!!!
I ride my bicycle all over Palo Alto and I hear when cars are idling. Sometimes they are city vehicles. I'll often stop and politely suggest that they turn off their motor so they don't cause undue pollution. Most drivers oblige
and don't seem at all irritated -- they know they shouldn't be running their motors.
Given the extraordinary changes in climate throughout the USA and internationally, no adult who is awake is
unaware that running a car motor causes pollution which in turn contributes to climate change. Will they grumble about being held to account? Of course, but having enforceable regulations will allow our city to force
positive change. Getting a ticket for needless idling will be powerful, just as raising the tax on cigarettes has
reduced smoking.
Thank you once again for your leadership on an important environmental issue.
Sincerely,
Shannon Rose McEntee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:20 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:PNQL-Now <info@pnqlnow.org>
Sent:Wednesday, September 06, 2017 12:48 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory;
Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia;
Planning Commission; French, Amy; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:Castilleja Update - September 2017
SEPTEMBER 2017
Castilleja Continues to Ignore Neighborhood Plea for
No Underground Garage
Instead of working with neighbors on a solution, Castilleja is forging ahead with their flawed
plans for a massive underground garage and a 30% increase in enrollment, knowing that
they are alienating the neighborhood for generations to come.
In May, 47 individual households within a two-block radius of the school signed statements
opposing the garage. Castilleja has not responded. Instead, they have stepped up their PR
efforts, recruiting students from the school to appeal to City Council. And they continue to
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:20 PM
2
promote the falsehood that they have listened to neighbors.
Please continue to write to City Council with your opposition, and attend meetings and
speak out if you can find one Monday evening free.
City Council email:
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
VISIT PNQLNOW.org →
Please make a donation >
News in Review
Yard Signs Are Working. Want One?
The yard signs signs continue to be a very effective tool to communicate the widespread opposition to this
unreasonable expansion. Please send us an email at info@pnqlnow.org to get a sign or to replace a
stolen/vandalized sign.
Letters Published between Castilleja and City Manager/City Attorney
Castilleja shows their true colors by trying to blame the City and residents for delays in their destructive and
divisive project. On May 23, the City Manager told Castilleja they must start reducing enrollment in the 2018-
2019 year. Castilleja's response was that the City was "punishing the girls."
READ LETTER FROM CASTILLEJA →
Palo Alto Weekly Editorial
June 16: "Castilleja's Unwise Stubborness".
READ EDITORIAL →
Castilleja Misleads Planning Commission in Effort to Alter Setbacks
Along Embarcadero Road
Castilleja falsely states that neighbors want the underground garage in a letter sent to the Planning
Commission in support of the multiple variances they seek along Embarcadero Road. Castilleja also plans to
alter the utility easement on Melville Avenue. Reducing the width of the easement threatens any future use for
the neighborhood for sewer improvements, recycled water, and storm drain efficiency.
READ LETTER FROM CASTILLEJA →
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:20 PM
3
Neighbors Make it Clear: No Garage
In May, after a PA Weekly article where Castilleja's PR agency was quoted as saying that neighbors have
"always insisted" on a garage, 47 individual households within a two-block radius of the school signed
statements saying they are opposed to the underground garage. The school did not respond.
Upcoming Events
City Council Meetings Every Monday
The Palo Alto City Council meets every Monday evening, and anyone from the public can speak to
any topic during oral communications. It's clear that Castilleja plans to be at every meeting, and so
will PNQLnow.org.
CALENDARS AND AGENDA →
Stay Up to Date — Bookmark the City's Castilleja Page
You can also subscribe to get email notifications of any developments
CASTILLEJA UPDATES →
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
No date set for this yet, but expected in 2018.
Architectural Review Board
September 7 meeting has been postponed with no date set.
PNQLNOW.org | Email: info@pnqlnow.org
MAKE A DONATION
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:18 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net>
Sent:Thursday, September 07, 2017 3:06 PM
To:Council, City; price@padailypost.com; Geri Mc Gilvray
Cc:A-MIKE BECHLER; mary_etriggs@yahoo.com; Dorian Manke
Subject:Ccss? Re council meeting
I didn't know what ccss was either until James Keene Explained it.
And, Ms. Holman was right about the rail crossing at Churchill.
Today I see that a biker was ticketed downtown on September 3rd.
Cars are pretty LETHAL too.
Please remember the excessively speeding drivers on MIDDLEFIELD and MARION in Midtown, and our other arterials.
We are not protected there at all.
NOT EVER. There are a THOUSAND accidents a year in this small town. Tickets should not exceed a hundred dollars
each, so that people would pay them, BUT, they should be issued.
PLUS, we need safe SEQUENCING from the Oregon turners, so we have a moment to turn LEFT if we can ever get out of
our driveways.
We need our CALMING officers back. BRAVE ones!
The state should be OUT of it with all their expensive paperwork buildup.
Thanks for sitting through those long meetings. It's hard to understand what you're talking about, but, we try.
The busses are all empty. Door service jitneys would work.
Trees are being cut down.
Garbage should not be 50 dollars. PASCO Sam was much better.
For the 11 MILLION dollars allocated to council chamber remodeling last year from our utility bill money (general fund),
etc., we could hire six traffic enforcers for the red light running, and you would still have NINE million plus to fool
around with. I digress!
I will try to have a safety meeting at my house in November again this year.
Geri mcgilvray
EVERYDAY SAFETY AND WALKABILITY, and speed enforcement for all our Palo Alto streets including MIDTOWN
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Thomas <mj_thomas_2000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 07, 2017 4:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon cell towers
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to ask you to direct all city staff to follow the leads of other California cities, such as Palos Verdes, to do
everything you possibly can to keep Verizon out of our Palo Alto residential neighborhoods. I hope the City Council will choose to hold its own public hearing on Verizon's planned installations as there are many residents who oppose the
installations. Perhaps there can be an urgency measure passed to lawfully protect our peace and quiet in our Palo Alto neighborhoods that have above ground utilities. Verizon has targeted these neighborhoods because they have existing
utility poles.
Thank you for your attention to this very important issue.
Mary Thomas 249 Santa Rita Ave.
Palo Alto 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:38 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Nahid Waleh <nwaleh@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 08, 2017 9:15 AM
To:Council, City; jfleming@right-thing.net
Subject:Verizon Cell Towers
Dear Council members:
As a 40-year resident of Old Palo Alto, I would like to urge you to protect our city from Verizon and stop the
company from bringing the unwanted cell towers to our beautiful city. In a group meeting with Mr. Tanaka, I was very discouraged by the passive attitude of Palo Alto city council toward this matter.
I would like to encourage the council members to block the action of Verizon and stand firm not allowing the
installation of the cell towers in Palo Alto.
With regards,
Nahid Waleh
2344 Emerson St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:38 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Monty Frost <montyfrost@covad.net>
Sent:Friday, September 08, 2017 11:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon Antennas
Dear City Council Members,
This is a brief note to support the efforts of Verizon to improve cell coverage in Palo Alto.
I am an AT&T cellular user. Since AT&T put in mini‐cells on telephone poles in our neighborhood, our cell coverage has
definitely improved. This is a good thing! Who wants to live in a neighborhood where cell coverage is poor? Verizon
users should have the same benefits. This addition would slightly increase property values, not decrease them.
Some people object to the proposed Verizon additions, complaining about “radiation”. This is a non‐starter. First, it is
not hard radiation that can break down your DNA, Chernobyl style; it is radio waves similar to wi‐fi in your home. These
emissions have no proven adverse health effects. As you know, the Telecom Act forbids objecting to health concerns as
a reason to deny cell installations. The “radiation” objections are a non‐starter, but do get a rise from certain people.
The cellular transmitters are mostly on or on top of telephone poles and are thus usually hidden or partially hidden in
the tree canopy. The “ugly” argument is pretty weak.
The power supplies sometimes do produce fan noise or hums, which are noticeable when one walks very close to a
telephone pole so equipped. I do wish these noises could be reduced, even if they are within federal guidelines.
The noise is my only slight objection to these transmitters, which otherwise provide a definite benefit to our community.
I hope you don’t have to spend a lot of time listening to people complaining about “radiation”.
With regards,
Monty Frost
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:38 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, September 08, 2017 12:33 PM
To:Shikada, Ed; Tom; Stump, Molly
Cc:Keene, James; Council, City
Subject:Small cell palcement on city ligt fixtures Crown Castle & Mobillite
Tom and Ed: As you may remember on the Aug 14 Council meeting Consent Calendar was a request from Mobilitie (sp?) Corp to place small cell antenna boxes on many locations within the north section of the City. Already put up at two poles near my house were signs indicating antenna boxes to be placed on top of these street light poles. The forthcoming 5G cellular service implementation requires many more "small cell" antennae from all of the Cell carriers to guarantee coverage. I objected to this request because of not only the visual damage effect, but also because a few years back at&t was granted approval to place antenna shells (DAS) on top of many utility poles in the neighborhoods under the condition that they share those spaces with other carriers upon request. In response to my objection I was told that the City was required to share even the city-owned street light fixtures with service providers under an existing law. I have investigated to find this law and it seems to the contrary that the City has the discretion of permitting or not small cells and in fact because that is the case today, there is a pending bill in the State Senate, SB649 to change this. Here is the documentation from the California Legislature page: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649 which clearly describes the status today:
"Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that wireless telecommunications collocation facility, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit, but certain
other wireless telecommunications facilities are subject to city or county discretionary permitting and are required to
comply with specified criteria."
It appears because these small cell antennae do not qualify as a "collocation facility" and that they are presently not covered by the law had been assumed applied to the Crown-Castle and Mobillite requests. I do not want to start yet another battle in our city but would advise you to have these contractors for SPRINT, Verizon et al to go contact att for the placement of their gear before this does erupt into a clamor over all of the additional "radiation
emitting boxes" being installed in front of peoples homes. You won't hear the end of that one for many months. Sincerely, Richard Brand
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:38 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Saeid Salehi-had <saeid.salehihad@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 08, 2017 3:43 PM
To:Council, City; Saeid Salehi-had; Leila Bazargan
Subject:Stop the proposed Verizon tower now.
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
I have been a Palo Alto resident for 23 years. I am writing you to ask you to please bring a halt to the proposed
construction of Verizon Cell phone towers in residential areas. There is a proposed tower right in front of my house across the street on Whitsell Ave. Currently, my wife and I are extremely busy treating my six year old
for Neuroblastoma, a difficult to treat childhood cancer. Still, I am making the time to fight the verizon
towers. As you can imagine, under absolutely no circumstance do I want a verizon cell tower right across my
son's bedroom; in fact, I do not want any cell tower in the residential areas, in particular those areas that are
densely dotted with houses such the one on Whitsell Ave.
I am a senior electrical engineer with over 25 years of experience at companies such as Intel. There is
absolutely no justification for intruding towers at small streets such as Whitsell Ave. were houses are so close to
the tower. Coverage can easily be achieved by placing the towers at alternate sites on major streets where the
width of the street and the zoning setbacks reduce the radiation, noise, and aesthetic impact. You can verify this for yourselves by just viewing tower maps in other cities and areas.
I would like the city council to pass an urgent ordinance to lawfully protect Palo Alto neighborhoods with
above-ground utilities, the ones Verizon has targeted, from cell phone towers. There are many cities that have
proactively prevented such cell phone towers to protect their neighborhoods and preserve their home values. It will be unthinkable that a city like Palo Alto would not do the same.
Best Regards,
Saeid Salehi-Had (650) 906-7998
3810 Whitsell Ave.
Palo Alto, Ca.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:38 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Phil Coulson <philcoulson_3@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, September 08, 2017 4:07 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Kou, Lydia; jfleming@metricus.net
Subject:Verizon cell towers issues...please act!
Dear City Council members,
It’s the look and the intrusiveness of the small cell networks that sparks the controversy.
People are upset about the deployment of thousands of pieces of equipment the size of small appliances being placed
strategically and liberally on publicly owned “vertical infrastructure” (that’s bureaucrat‐speak for municipal utility poles,
street lights and even traffic lights). That means a lot of equipment in full view and in proximity — really close in many
cases — to houses and people.
Local governments must retain some authority to push back on proposed deployments. There is precedent for this kind
of brazen move: The phone and cable TV companies persuaded the Legislature in 2006 to end local control over the
construction of new cable TV systems, arguing that a shift to state licensing would bring much‐needed competition to
pay TV. But that logic doesn’t apply to the mobile phone market, where there is vibrant competition. Local government
officials are crying foul, calling it an audacious power grab and the equivalent of a gift of public funds to billion‐dollar
telecommunications companies that don’t need the help.
The new mobile networks also will involve much more equipment in public view than an upstart cable TV system.
Wireless companies say that the transmitters are typically the size of a pizza box or briefcase, although the bill would
allow equipment up to the size of a small refrigerator.
Ok, I know the city is not looking at aspects of health safety with regard to the deployment of cell towers and associated
support equipment but it is of concern to me nonetheless. In looking over a document that speaks about the equipment
installation and its RF safety I found a name of a Paid expert of on RF Safety: Dr. Jerrold Bushburg...
Bushberg, has worked as a paid consultant to CTIA, and has lobbied for Pacific Telesis Group (and SBC).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49415
Dr.Jerrold Bushberg's long‐standing history of ruling in favor of cell towers at various sites throughout many years does
not bode well for the objections of the cell towers if he is the lone unbiased third party expert!
Just so you know, in conflict with the rated RF power as stated by Bushberg in the above‐mentioned document here are
actual measurements made of recent installations in Palo Alto: http://scientists4wiredtech.com/2017/04/palo‐alto‐4g‐
small‐cells/
I mention this along with echoing Dr. Fleming's (and many other Palo Alto citizens) concerns and suggestions for moving
forward on this matter. She has demonstrated a keen eye and mind along with constructive suggestions on cell tower
'action'. I also wish to applaud Lydia Kou's efforts and communication on this as well.
In summary, look for solutions that move Palo Alto into a good light on this. Ignoring taking action and letting the
telecom companies do as they wish without regard to the homeowners, neighborhood aesthetics, unnecessary
expansion of said equipment, and actual health concerns is a huge disservice to the folks and families that live here.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:38 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 08, 2017 4:21 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Jeanne Fleming
Subject:Fw: City Council must stop Verizon. Open letter to Lydia Kou
To Palo Alto City Council Members:
I completely agree with Jeanne Fleming's letter (below) and sent a letter of my own to the City Council (27
August) objecting to Verizon's proposed cell towers, not only in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood but also in other neighborhoods of Palo Alto as well. I'm especially upset by the City Council not being more vigilant about what the City Management is proposing! As City Council Members, you need to remember the wishes
and wisdom of residents whom you represent. Please do not betray our trust in you. Please know that in any
upcoming election, neither my husband nor I will vote for anyone who supports Verizon's project.
Sincerely,
Barbara Kelly
444 Washington Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 3:01 PM
To: 'Kou, Lydia'
Cc: 'Council, City'; 'Gitelman, Hillary'; 'Architectural Review Board'
Subject: City Council must stop Verizon. Open letter to Lydia Kou
Dear Lydia,
Regarding Verizon’s proposed cell towers: My neighbors and I look forward to hearing your response and the response of your fellow members of City Council to our request that City Council take matters into its own hands--and out of the hands of city administrators—a) by holding your own hearings on
the Verizon towers, b) by directing staff and consultants to use every possible tool to keep Verizon’s
ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting installations out of Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods, and c) if
needed, by passing tough, new ordinances to accomplish that end.
In the meantime, I hope you will consider these facts:
1. Verizon’s bullying lawyers (and, I’m guessing, now Molly Stump) like to argue that it is
impossible to reject Verizon’s applications to install its antennas in our residential neighborhoods because AT&T installed antennas here a few years ago. That is absolutely
false and nothing more than empty saber-rattling. There is not a single instance of a cell
company successfully challenging a local government’s rejection of an application on so-called
“discrimination” grounds. Not one.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:38 PM
9
2. As part of their applications, cell phone companies have a history of submitting drawings and
photosimulations that have been manipulated to make the installations look smaller than they
actually are. Specifically, while the equipment measurements the company submits may be correct, the images they submit—the illustrations we look at to try to understand what they want to install will look like (for example, the illustrations the city has posted on the poles
around town)—these images have been distorted to make the equipment look smaller. I don’t
know yet if Verizon has done this here. My point, though, is this: Cell companies such as
Verizon aren’t above using dirty tricks to manipulate unwary city administrators.
3. The 93 towers Verizon is proposing to install is extremely aggressive, highly unusual and
completely at odds with the requirement that a new tower can only be justified if a “significant gap” in coverage exists. Consider this: Verizon has proposed 12 towers for Old Palo Alto (so far). There are approximately 1,300 homes in Old Palo Alto. That is one tower for every 108
homes! At that rate, our town would soon have approximately 200 Verizon cell towers in its
residential neighborhoods. Add in 200 more towers for AT&T and another 200 for T-Mobile,
and you get a picture of what the cell industry wants our lovely city to look like. Maybe Verizon gets away with these tactics in dusty little Central Valley towns. But this is Palo
Alto. My neighbors and I expect our elected representatives on City Council to take action, and not to
leave the defense of our residential neighborhoods to unelected city administrators who appear to be
intimidated by Verizon and afraid to rock the boat.
As always, thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Jeanne
Jeanne Fleming, PhD 2070 Webster Street
650-325-5151 JFleming@Metricus.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:38 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Alice Holmes <AHolmes@renault-handley.com>
Sent:Friday, September 08, 2017 8:33 PM
To:Jeanne Fleming; Kou, Lydia
Cc:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Architectural Review Board
Subject:RE: City Council must stop Verizon. Open letter to Lydia Kou
All –
I agree with Jeanne and am horrified that the City Council is not addressing the issue of undergrounding utilities in Old
Palo Alto, as was promised many years ago. Please protect our neighborhoods and consider what is best for the
residents. We don’t need cell antennas from all cell phone carriers blanketing our utility poles. If people want better
cell phone coverage in their homes they can find the carrier that has the best coverage in their neighborhood, the City
does not have the responsibility to ensure that residents have cell phone coverage.
Please work on behalf of residents to deny the application for Verizon’s proposed cell towers and propose new
ordinances prohibiting future companies from attempting to install their installations in our neighborhoods.
And when will the utilities in Old Palo be placed underground?
Thank you for all your efforts.
Sincerely,
Alice Holmes
Resident of Palo Alto since 1986
From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:02 PM
To: 'Kou, Lydia'
Cc: 'Council, City'; 'Gitelman, Hillary'; 'Architectural Review Board'
Subject: City Council must stop Verizon. Open letter to Lydia Kou
Dear Lydia,
Regarding Verizon’s proposed cell towers: My neighbors and I look forward to hearing your response
and the response of your fellow members of City Council to our request that City Council take matters
into its own hands--and out of the hands of city administrators—a) by holding your own hearings on the Verizon towers, b) by directing staff and consultants to use every possible tool to keep Verizon’s
ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting installations out of Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods, and c) if
needed, by passing tough, new ordinances to accomplish that end.
In the meantime, I hope you will consider these facts:
1. Verizon’s bullying lawyers (and, I’m guessing, now Molly Stump) like to argue that it is
impossible to reject Verizon’s applications to install its antennas in our residential
neighborhoods because AT&T installed antennas here a few years ago. That is absolutely
false and nothing more than empty saber-rattling. There is not a single instance of a cell company successfully challenging a local government’s rejection of an application on so-called
“discrimination” grounds. Not one.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:38 PM
11
2. As part of their applications, cell phone companies have a history of submitting drawings and
photosimulations that have been manipulated to make the installations look smaller than they
actually are. Specifically, while the equipment measurements the company submits may be correct, the images they submit—the illustrations we look at to try to understand what they want to install will look like (for example, the illustrations the city has posted on the poles
around town)—these images have been distorted to make the equipment look smaller. I don’t
know yet if Verizon has done this here. My point, though, is this: Cell companies such as
Verizon aren’t above using dirty tricks to manipulate unwary city administrators.
3. The 93 towers Verizon is proposing to install is extremely aggressive, highly unusual and
completely at odds with the requirement that a new tower can only be justified if a “significant gap” in coverage exists. Consider this: Verizon has proposed 12 towers for Old Palo Alto (so far). There are approximately 1,300 homes in Old Palo Alto. That is one tower for every 108
homes! At that rate, our town would soon have approximately 200 Verizon cell towers in its
residential neighborhoods. Add in 200 more towers for AT&T and another 200 for T-Mobile,
and you get a picture of what the cell industry wants our lovely city to look like. Maybe Verizon gets away with these tactics in dusty little Central Valley towns. But this is Palo
Alto. My neighbors and I expect our elected representatives on City Council to take action, and not to
leave the defense of our residential neighborhoods to unelected city administrators who appear to be
intimidated by Verizon and afraid to rock the boat.
As always, thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Jeanne
Jeanne Fleming, PhD 2070 Webster Street
650-325-5151 JFleming@Metricus.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:38 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Sherryl Casella <orioness@hotmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 09, 2017 3:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon installation
I usually go along with whatever needs to be done but this is not acceptable. They plan to put a utilitarian
(translate ugly) box, 4 1/2 feet tall and 2 1/2 feet deep across the street from my home on Emerson.
The size is objectionable. It will be right in our faces as we walk the neighborhood.
We live in one of the most affluent, beautiful and livable places in the country. Why can't the box portion of
the installation be placed underground?
I would appreciate a reply from someone.
Sincerely,
Sherryl Casella
P.S. I almost didn't even call in response to the notice as it said it was in Midtown, not Old Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:38 PM
13
Carnahan, David
From:bno21@aol.com
Sent:Saturday, September 09, 2017 6:51 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:jfleming@metricus.net
Subject:Verizon Poles
Dear City Council Members,
I share Jeanne Fleming's concerns about the installation of Verizon poles throughout Old Palo Alto. They will
be be unsightly and their installation will cause more disruption to the neighborhood. We have had to endure
continuing noise and traffic with all the construction that has been going on for years now. One house on Webster Street took three years to complete and another house on Tasso Street was under construction for over four years.
Now, Verizon wants to put in poles throughout the neighborhood! The quality of life has been greatly
diminished over the past few years with the increased traffic, noise, dust, and just plain inconsiderate builders
and their clients. When will it end?
I urge you to stop Verizon.
Sincerely,
Annette Rahn
590 Santa Rita
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:38 PM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara <myjuno91@sonic.net>
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2017 3:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:no cell towers
Dear City Council,
As our elected representatives, please prevent unelected city administrators from allowing Verizon to install radiation‐
emitting cill towers in our neighborhoods. Other cities have accomplished this!
Sincerely, Barbara Lilley
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/13/2017 11:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jyotsna Nimkar <jnimkar@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2017 7:57 PM
To:Atkinson, Rebecca
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Architectural Review Board; Council, City
Subject:Verizon's Proposed Cell Towers
Hi Rebecca,
I wanted to request you to share any communications city has received from Palo Alto residents who are concerned
about Verizon’s plan to install cell towers in residential neighborhoods. As a concerned resident myself I would like
to know how others in similar situation are feeling.
Appreciate your support.
Thank you,
Jyotsna Nimkar
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/13/2017 11:26 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:joel bergquist <jbfa20546@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 2:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon cell phone relays
Joel R. Bergquist
2085 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, California 94301 12 September 2017
To the members of the Palo Alto City Council:
I am writing to express my dismay and alarm about the installation of Verizon cell phone relays on telephone poles
in Palo Alto. There is a notice on a phone pole outside our house that is just 24 feet from two bedrooms in our
house at 2085 Emerson Street. Verizon plans to put one of their relays there. My wife and I have walked down to
the Verizon cell relay next to the Jobs house near the intersection of Waverley and Santa Rita. People had told us
that the VCT’s (Verizon cell towers) were noisy, but we were rudely surprised at the volume of noise emitted. The
sound is like a constant whooshing, and is noticeable from more than 30 feet away. This noise is produced 24/7 —
it is a ceaseless and unremitting nuisance. We often think of electrical installations as emitting a low hum only
audible at a very short distance, measured in inches. But the VCT’s are disturbingly noisy and audible from a
distance of more than 30 feet in all directions.
Our house will be severely impacted, as will numerous others in Palo Alto. The noise will be audible in our
bedrooms, morning, noon, and night! This is a first class disturbance that will deprive our family of the full use of
our house. There will be no escape from the noise. And the presence of the VCT and its projected sound will
adversely affect the value of our home. Other residents will also find the values of their homes diminished.
The City Council of Palo Alto can stop this intrusion into our community. Our city government is established to
protect Palo Alto residents and their property. Palo Alto is not, nor should it be, beholden to multi-national
corporations like Verizon that don’t give a damn about how they affect people. Their only motivation is profit.
And if Verizon gets its way, the people of Palo Alto will be casualties. Palo Alto is an enlightened, progressive
community and we shouldn’t be bending to the will of large corporations.
I have heard that Berkeley, Palos Verdes and other California cities have prohibited installations such as that
planned by Verizon. Palo Alto must do the same. City Council needs to hold hearings, get the community
involved, and do its job of protecting Palo Alto and its people.
We urge every member of the City Council to go to the Jobs relay to hear for yourselves the noise it emits.
Sincerely,
Joel R. Bergquist
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/13/2017 11:27 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:13 AM
To:'board'
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Cubberley Comments
Dear PAUSD BOE Members,
I want to congratulate the city and PAUSD on getting the Cubberley process off to a good
(albeit slow) start with the community partnership approach. As a former member of the
Cubberley Community Advisory Committee (CCAC), I want to encourage you to continue
working in close partnership with community stakeholders as you move forward.
When the CCAC studied issues related to the future of Cubberley, PAUSD had not raised
inclusion of employee housing as an issue that should be considered; therefore, it was never
considered or discussed and it was not included in the recommendations that were made. The
public has never had opportunity to comment on this possibility. Further, this staff report
provides no detail as to what the PAUSD employees’ need for housing is. How many units,
what size/type, etc.? Would the housing be added in addition to the concept that was
recommended or instead of some component of it?
I can’t speak for other neighborhoods, but my neighborhood, Greenmeadow, held a meeting to
consider the CCAC recommendations before their CCAC representative voted on them. A
quorum strongly supported the intensified multi-use concept and recommendations of the
CCAC with the understanding that:
It would preserve existing open space, playing fields, and tennis courts.
It would provide space for a possible future secondary school and elementary school
(Greendell)
It would provide space for needed community services
A community needs survey would be completed.
In short, Greenmeadow supported Cubberley growth for use as a public facility. I cannot speak
to whether or not my neighborhood (which immediately abuts the Cubberley site) will support
housing in addition to or instead of these other uses on a PF site because we—the city, PAUSD,
the CCAC, the public, and our neighborhood never discussed it. Further, I don’t know if they
would support an increase in density beyond the increase that has been discussed and
recommended by the CCAC.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/13/2017 11:27 AM
2
In the interests of continuing engagement of community stakeholder partners, I hope that,
early in the process, as part of Phase One, PAUSD will specify the following important
tasks to address the unvetted addition of a possible housing component to this project (a
significant change):
1). Completion of a Community Needs survey as recommended by the committee (including
specific employee housing --if housing is to be considered-- and community service/school
facility needs)
2). Publicly vet the proposal to use a PF zoned site for housing as early as possible in the
process. We have no idea whether the community supports this use of a PF zoned site (or, if
they do, what kind of housing and how much housing they might support). An unvetted surprise
could derail an important community project later in the process. Let’s avoid that possibility.
3). Please require that abutting neighborhoods are included in the planning process and that the
City School Traffic Safety Committee is included on transportation and parking planning for
any intensified use project that moves forward.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Penny Ellson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/13/2017 11:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:carol.gilbert@comcast.net
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:32 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cubberly Consultant
The former mahyor’s letter to the editor said it all. There is a plan that was developed. It only needs adjustment
according to high school attendance projections. That you would even consider a $400,000 contractor is
appalling. You will make the citizenry furious if you hire this individual. What do you say when you defend our hiring practices and tell us we have to pay high salaries to get the best people? Can’t out best people do some of
the work you are eager to hire from outside? Please do not enter into this contract.
Carol Gilbert
555 Byron St. #209 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-323-2862
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:19 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeffrey S. Glenn <jsglenn@stanford.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, September 06, 2017 9:41 PM
To:Kou, Lydia
Cc:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; jfleming@metricus.net; amirsandra@yahoo.com; Amir
Ben-Efraim; brugler@stanfordalumni.org
Subject:Fwd: Max McGee is not the only problem. An Open Letter to Lydia Kou re Verizon
Dear Lydia Kou, I was forwarded the email below from my neighbor Jeanne, and I could not agree with her more—both in terms
of our support to date for you, and our urging of you to do whatever you can to stop this incompletely thought
out Verizon proposal, which we strongly oppose because of the damage it will do to our neighborhood and
well-being.
Orit and Jeffrey Glenn 2061 Webster Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Jeffrey S. Glenn, M.D., Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Medicine and Microbiology & Immunology
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Director, Center for Hepatitis and Liver Tissue Engineering
Stanford University School of Medicine CCSR Building, Rm. 3115A
269 Campus Drive
Stanford, CA 94305-5171
U.S.A.
email:jeffrey.glenn@stanford.edu tel (office): (650)725-3373
tel (lab): (650)498-7419
fax: (650)723-3032
pager: (650)723-8222; ID# 23080
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:19 PM
2
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> To: 'Kou, Lydia' <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: 'Council, City' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; 'Gitelman, Hillary' <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017, 4:06:56 PM PDT Subject: Max McGee is not the only problem. An Open Letter to Lydia Kou re Verizon
Dear Lydia,
Schools’ Superintendent Max McGee has cost you, me and our fellow Palo Altans six
million dollars. Please do not allow other city administrators to cost us tens of millions of dollars more by allowing Verizon to run down home values by ruining the matchless
character of our neighborhoods with noisy and unsightly cell towers.
The Max McGee fiasco should be a wakeup call to City Council—a wakeup call that the city staff need more oversight than they have been receiving. Please consider my letters to you a heads up that James Keene and Molly Stump are likewise failing to do
their jobs properly. And what’s at stake isn’t just money, it’s the character of our town.
Ask yourself, how could these two professionals not have known—as apparently they did not—that other California cities are successfully saying “no” to the cell industry’s plans to install sites in residential neighborhoods? How, months after Verizon’s
applications were filed, could it be news to them that Berkeley has implemented tough
“prioritization” ordinances, that expert Jonathan Kramer is helping Piedmont navigate
the regulatory waters to keep the cell industry’s ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting installations away from its residents’ homes, and that Palos Verdes has three times now sent the cell industry packing? Ask yourself, more fundamentally, why do Mr. Keene
and Ms. Stump continue to insist on maintaining the demonstrably false position that
municipalities cannot protect their residential neighborhoods from cell industry
antennas?
Palo Alto doesn’t need and can’t afford another Max McGee fiasco. I urge City Council
to take matters into its own hands by doing three things: 1) direct all city staff to do
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:19 PM
3
everything possible to keep Verizon out of Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods,
including retaining Jonathan Kramer to advise them; 2) hold its own public hearings on
Verizon’s planned installations; and 3) if necessary, pass by urgency measure new ordinances to lawfully protect the aesthetics, peace and quiet and home values of Palo Alto’s above-ground-utilities’ neighborhoods.
As you say, Lydia, the clock is ticking. Max McGee allowed one clock to run out. City
Council needs to be proactive or Mr. Keene and Ms. Stump will run out this one.
Thank you for your email, and thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Jeanne
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
2070 Webster Street
650-325-5151
JFleming@Metricus.net
From: Kou, Lydia [mailto:Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 10:32 AM To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Cc: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: City staff is misleading City Council. An Open Letter to Lydia Kou
Dear Ms. Fleming,
I believe I was included in the responses from the City Manager and City Attorney's to
you and, yours in return. Thank you for checking.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:19 PM
4
The Council has been informed by our City Attorney, Ms. Stump that they will be
communicating with everyone who have written pertaining to the installation of these
small cell antennas sometime this week. I am sure Council will be provided with what
was corresponded with all concerned.
Dr. Fleming, our City Manager, Mr. Keene was previously former City Manager for
Berkeley and will be contacting Berkeley for more information. I will follow up with Mr.
Keene.
I will keep in touch and I do realize the time urgency.
Kind regards,
--------
Lydia Kou - Council Member
Contact Info: https://goo.gl/BcgCQS
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 4:43 PM To: Kou, Lydia Cc: Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Gitelman, Hillary Subject: City staff is misleading City Council. An Open Letter to Lydia Kou
Dear Lydia,
Thank you for your prompt action on my request for a meeting with Mr. Keene and Ms.
Stump. I trust you’ve received copies of the emails that followed between Mr. Keene,
Ms. Stump and me. If you haven’t, please let me know and I will forward them to
you. I’d like you to see firsthand the no-can-do—with a touch of not-invented-here—
attitude expressed in their emails.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:19 PM
5
From what they’ve said, I fear these two key city employees have been misleading you
and other members of City Council regarding what Palo Alto can do to protect its residential neighborhoods—protect them from Verizon’s ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting installations. I hope you are as angry about their misrepresentations as my neighbors
and I are.
As you now know, many sophisticated California cities are successfully saying “no” to
Verizon and other cell companies on the basis of the serious negative impact the
antenna sites have on community aesthetics, neighborhood character and adjacent
home values. There is no excuse for Palo Alto not doing the same.
SB 649 would strip municipalities of the rights they now have to prevent multi-billion
dollar, out-of-state companies such as Verizon from littering their residential
neighborhoods with cell towers. But contrary to what city staff have been trying to get
you to believe, the cities of California are not helpless—not yet.
I don’t know why staff are misleading you. Perhaps they are poorly informed (but think
they know it all). Perhaps they are being bullied or otherwise manipulated by
Verizon. Perhaps having made the terrible decision to allow AT&T to install towers in some places, they are trying to cover up their error by pretending nothing can be done. Whatever the problem is, though, it is the responsibility of our elected officials to
use the authority vested in them to stop Verizon.
I voted for you, Lydia, as did many of my neighbors who have been in touch with you about the cell tower installation proposal. In doing so, we expected you and your colleagues on City Council to look after our interests, not to defer to uncaring unelected
administrators—to match your promise of enlightened governance with actual pro-active
governing.
Please don’t allow city staff to continue to try to sell you the fiction that nothing can be
done. I urge City Council to do three things: 1) Direct staff to do everything in their
power to keep Verizon out of Palo Alto’s residential neighborhood, including retaining
Jonathan Kramer to advise them; 2) hold its own public hearings on Verizon’s planned installations; and 3) if necessary, pass by urgency measure new ordinances to lawfully
protect your constituents’ neighborhoods. Jonathan Kramer knows exactly how to do
this, even though city staff wants to believe it can’t be done.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:19 PM
6
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.
Jeanne
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
2070 Webster Street
650-325-5151
JFleming@Metricus.net
From: Kou, Lydia [mailto:Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 2:40 PM To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Cc: Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly
<Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Lydia Kou Hold City Council hearings
Dear Dr. Fleming,
I sent an email this morning to the City Manager, Jim Keene, and City Attorney, Molly Stump, requesting a meeting. I am sure they will be in touch soon.
Kind regards,
--------
Lydia Kou - Council Member
Contact Info: https://goo.gl/BcgCQS
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:19 PM
7
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:58 AM To: Council, City Cc: Architectural Review Board; Gitelman, Hillary; Stump, Molly; Keene, James Subject: An Open Letter to Lydia Kou Hold City Council hearings
Dear Lydia Kou,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate hearing from you.
I would very much like to have a short meeting with you, Mr. Keene and the city attorney to discuss this issue further. I understand that Mr. Keene believes that municipalities
cannot say “no” to a cell company’s intrusion into residential neighborhoods. But there
is ample evidence that they can—specifically, the cities of Berkeley and Palos Verdes
have recently done exactly that, and Piedmont is in the process of doing so. It is my
understanding that Palo Alto, through the vehicle of, for example, ordinances with respect to noise, aesthetics, sight line obstruction and street tree impacts, has the tools
at its disposal to effectively restrict the cell industry’s antennas to commercial areas. My
neighbors and I would like to work with you to accomplish this end.
As you know, the 150 day clock is ticking on this issue. And as you also know, hundreds of Palo Altans have contacted City Council asking you and your colleagues to
take steps to defend the quiet beauty of our residential neighborhoods. If City Council is
unable to stop Verizon, the Palo Alto neighborhoods with above-ground utilities are
going to work very hard to see that the city delivers on its promise to put all of the city’s
neighborhood’s utilities underground, not just the utilities of favored neighborhoods.
Thank you for raising the issue of SB 649. You will be happy to know that many Palo
Altans have already contacted our representatives in the state legislature about this
matter.
Lydia, I am very appreciative of your concern about the cell towers. My neighbors and I
are eager to work with you to ensure that multi-billion dollar companies such as Verizon
don’t steamroller Palo Alto into allowing them to put their noisy, ugly, radiation-emitting
equipment on the utility poles next to our homes.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:19 PM
8
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
2070 Webster Street
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:20 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 06, 2017 12:49 PM
To:French, Amy
Cc:Brad Ehikian (PPM); Jon Goldman; Boyd, Holly; Eggleston, Brad; Architectural Review
Board; Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Stump,
Molly
Subject:Garage D - 375 Hamilton Avenue
Attachments:scanarb.pdf
Hello Amy,
Please see attached letter regarding 375 Hamilton Ave. Thank you.
Elizabeth
Via E-Mail
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Ms. French:
Waverley Post LP
P. 0. Box 204
Palo Alto, CA 94302
September 6, 2017
As followup to our meeting on August 31, 2017, we wish to document the concerns and
potential solutions we discussed with you and Ms. Holly Boyd regarding the new Downtown
Parking Garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue. These fall into two categories: some that relate to the
new garage in relation to its most nearby buildings, and then concerning the new structure itself.
Parking Access for Future Residential Units. Regarding parking access, we are encouraged by
the opportunity for vehicular access to future on-site basement parking in lots 85 and 84 through
tunnels (to be constructed by property owners) from the below-ground level of the garage at 375
Hamilton. You mentioned that this type of underground access has been provided elsewhere in
the City. We request that the structural elements in the new garage be designed and
constructed to accommodate a future two-way tunnel for such purpose.
Ongoing Servicing of Existing Grease Traps and HVAC Units. The restaurant operations at lots
85 and 84 require regular access for servicing, maintaining and replacing their grease traps,
HVAC and other utilities. As well, regular access for trash and recycling removal is required.
These activities take place at the back of the respective buildings. These activities are messy
and uninviting and would not be compatible with the buildout and fine flooring for customer
access at the front of the building. We request that the walkway behind the buildings and
parallel to Waverley Street be constructed in a manner to allow trucks to enter and service the
backs of the buildings in a similar fashion as the access for the Greenwaste trucks to the
dumpsters in the new garage.
Deliveries and Loading Zones. There are no designated loading zones provided to the
businesses on this block of Waverley Street as well as to many businesses on the 300 block of
University such as CVS and the Apple store because the current parking lot where the new
garage is to be built served as their de-facto loading zone. While we appreciate the suggestion
of creating a loading zone in front of the new garage on Waverley Street, this is far from the
receiving end of all of these businesses and we request a design that could accommodate one
or two loading zones closer to the rear of the buildings.
Design of the Parking Garage. The design of the new parking structure itself appear massive in
the context of the low buildings on that block of Waverley Street and the Birge Clark historical
post office across Hamilton. We had proposed earlier a 3-story above ground structure with two
stories of underground parking. This would a much better fit for this location. Also, not having
the additional parking to be provided by the second underground level of parking is a lost
opportunity to the City in terms of foregoing the use of such valuable underground space,
considering that such designs have become standard procedure for commercial downtown
development. Much like in private developments, the City can mitigate the possibility of
encountering underground hazardous materials, if encountered, through applicable insurance
coverage, and mitigate underground water through modern construction techniques and
procedures.
The proposed facades with walls and/or screens and/or vertical fins add to the appearance of
mass and we advocate a simpler, more honest design with open floors above half-walls and/or
elegant rails on each floor. Some screens or trellises can be used selectively at targeted
spaces to provide relief and as backdrops for garden walls or other landscaping.
We appreciate your attention to this matter.
cc: Brad Ehikian
Jon Goldman
Holly Boyd
Brad Eggleston
ARB
City Council
James Keene
Ed Shikada
Hillary Gitelman
Jonathan Lait
Molly Stump
Elizabeth Wong
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:45 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:repjal@att.net
Sent:Sunday, September 10, 2017 11:09 AM
To:Lydia Kou
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Housing in Palo Alto
Has there been any progress on solving the shortage of affordable housing, especially for Palo Alto policemen,
teachers, civil servants and firefighters? I see no progress in consolidating lots along El Camino - by contrast, I
see a lot of activity along the same road in Mountain View, including residential and ground floor retail? I also
think it hypocritical to have a poorly used city golf course and airport when there is this unmet need. Jeff Lipkin
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 10, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Lydia Kou <lydiakou@lydiakou.emailnb.com> wrote:
Jeffrey --
Last night, Mexico experienced an 8.2 magnitude earthquake which was felt more than
500 miles away and by over 90 million people. There are tsunami warnings for the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:45 PM
2
Hawaiian Islands and Guam. Sadly, there are also casualties. http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/08/americas/mexico-earthquake-live-updates/index.html
In the last two weeks, there has been Hurricane Harvey which has devastating results in
Texas and some of the nearby states, now Hurricane Irma which is leaving devastation in
its pathway. Not far behind is Hurricane Jose, almost on the same path of Irma. Now, this
8.2mag earthquake in Mexico.
September is National Preparedness Month and 2017’s overarching theme is “Disasters
Don’t Plan Ahead. You Can.” It is more evident than ever we have to take our well-being
into our own hands. Let’s take this time to be prepared.
We can depend on our first responders to take care of us, but let’s be realistic. Let’s look at Texas, the first responders are overwhelmed and many states and cities have sent mutual aid. But, there will be more need with Irma and Jose. While Palo Alto has a
phenomenal police and fire department, we do have to also rely on ourselves and our
neighbors. To do that we ourselves must be self sufficient and prepared. Here is how
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/services/public_safety/emergency_preparedness/default.asp
Also, sign up for AlertSCC to get alerts from Santa Clara County http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/services/public_safety/emergency_preparedness/alertscc.asp
Please share/forward this to your neighbor, family and friends.
Thank you!
Lydia Kou
http://www.lydiakou.com/
Vote for Lydia Kou · 708 Matadero Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306, United States
This email was sent to repjal@att.net. To stop receiving emails, click here.
You can also keep up with Lydia Kou on Twitter or Facebook.
Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:19 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Glowe <davidandglowe@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 06, 2017 6:29 PM
To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City; City Mgr; French, Amy
Cc:Kathy Layendecker
Subject:I support Castilleja
Dear Mayor Scharff, City Council Members, Mr. Keene, and Ms. French,
The 2017‐18 academic school year has begun for Castilleja. I received a letter, as we do every year, informing the
neighbors that school had begun. If I had not received that letter, I would not have known that full sessions had started!
In general, even though I live directly across from the carved doors entrance to the school, the traffic has never
bothered me nor been an issue. However, I want to applaud the school for its efforts. Even though the traffic has
increased from summer, the flow seems much less and more importantly, there is hardly any noise. I don't know what
they have done, but I cannot tell that school is in full swing.
We need more good schools. Castilleja is a great neighbor and they have shown every effort to mitigate their impact on
the neighborhood. Please support their request for increased enrollment.
Respectfully submitted,
Glowe Chang
1345 Bryant St.
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:18 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 07, 2017 6:52 AM
To:Council, City; Keene, James
Cc:michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com; Watson, Ron;
Perron, Zachary; Bullerjahn, Rich; Philip, Brian; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external)
Subject:On going monitoring by IPA Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Gennaco stated in his police bias report his team of expert attorneys would monitor progress of perceived racial profiling and other biased activities of the Palo Alto police department.
He has done no such thing!!! A complete sanctioned fraud...By James Keene
Palo Alto Free Press
Mark Petersen-Perez
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
8/13/17, 4:40 AM
#RacialProfiling by @PaloAltoPolice 'racial bigotry hatred, they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated' Sessions @PaloAltoCityMgr pic.twitter.com/CNCs2YGBJp
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/13/2017 11:29 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eric Filseth <efilseth@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 3:38 PM
To:Keene, James; 'Penny Ellson'; Council, City; De Geus, Robert
Subject:RE: 2017-18 PAUSD Enrollment Report
Todd tells me K was actually UP slightly this year even though K‐5 was down.
From: Keene, James [mailto:James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 2:50 PM
To: Filseth, Eric (external); 'Penny Ellson'; Council, City; De Geus, Robert
Subject: Re: 2017-18 PAUSD Enrollment Report
Thanks!
James Keene | City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
E: james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org
Sent from my Macbook
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you
From: Eric Filseth <efilseth@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM
To: "pellson@pacbell.net" <pellson@pacbell.net>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, James
Keene <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>, Robert De Geus <Robert.DeGeus@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: RE: 2017‐18 PAUSD Enrollment Report
I hadn’t – thanks. We’re supposed to see it at city‐school mtg next week.
Slight decline in Elementary – is good. Yes an increase in high school, but the Elementary one is most important.
Eric
From: Penny Ellson [mailto:pellson@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:18 AM
To: 'Council, City'; 'Keene, James'; 'De Geus, Robert'
Subject: 2017-18 PAUSD Enrollment Report
PAUSD has released the 2017-18 14th Day Enrollment Report. See Agenda item 5.B. here.
http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/pausd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AQHSHV72A6ED
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/13/2017 11:29 AM
2
Given the discussion of PAUSD enrollment needs last night, I thought you might be interested in this
annual update on enrollment trends.
Best,
Penny
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/13/2017 11:29 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 1:12 PM
To:Atkinson, Rebecca
Cc:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Stump, Molly; Architectural Review Board
Subject:RE: A formal request for information regarding Verizon's applications
Hi Rebecca,
Thank you for explaining more about the shot clock.
Am I correct then that, as of today, September 12:
1. 74 days have ticked off on the Cluster One clock, with either 16 or 76 days remaining on it;
2. 30 days have ticked off on the Cluster Two clock, with 120 days remaining on it; and
3. 30 days have ticked off on the Cluster Three clock, with 120 days remaining on it?
This is what I’ve concluded from the information you’ve provided, but please let me know whether I am correct. And
please also let me know when the Cluster Two and Cluster Three clocks start running again.
I look forward to hearing from the City Attorney’s Office about the 90 day clock Verizon says applies to its Cluster One
application and what they plan to do about it. Obviously, the ARB’s role in the process cannot begin in October (which is
what City Council has indicated) if Cluster One’s clock runs out in September.
Regards to you,
Jeanne
Jeanne Fleming
JFleming@Metricus.net
From: Atkinson, Rebecca [mailto:Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 5:24 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Subject: RE: A formal request for information regarding Verizon's applications
Hello Jeanne Fleming,
Thank you for your email.
Days are basically 24 hour periods and it is calendar day, not business days. The City has 150 days in its wireless code for
Tier 3 WCF permit processing and that is based on the Spectrum Act. There are also tolling agreements that can be
entered into in regard to processing time. Planning is very mindful of the shot clock as just one of the very many items to
keep track of. I will defer to the City Attorney’s Office for any other comments about the shot clock though. I also can’t
speak for Vinculums/Verizon regarding their position on the shot clock, but you are free to inquire with them.
We are anticipating resubmittal of Cluster 1 tomorrow and the resubmittal of Cluster 2 and Cluster 3 a few weeks out
(which will start their shot clocks again; their clocks are stopped right now).
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/13/2017 11:29 AM
2
I hope this answers your questions below.
Regards,
Rebecca
From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 3:19 PM
To: Atkinson, Rebecca
Subject: RE: A formal request for information regarding Verizon's applications
Thank you, Rebecca.
Two questions for you:
1. Would you please explain what constitutes a “day” (e.g., are these business days) and indicate for each
cluster exactly how many days remain on the clock; and
2. Would you please explain why Verizon believes a 90 clock applies to Cluster One and what the city is doing
to ensure that a 150 day clock applies.
With appreciation,
Jeanne
From: Atkinson, Rebecca [mailto:Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 2:08 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Subject: RE: A formal request for information regarding Verizon's applications
Hello Jeanne Fleming.
Good afternoon.
I wanted to get back to you with a formal response regarding your request for information in your email below.
Currently, there are three formal Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility applications on file from Vinculums/Verizon,
although more are anticipated.
Pending formal applications and their shot clock status are summarized below:
1. Cluster 1 – 17PLN‐00169
Initial Submittal May 23, 2017 – Deemed Incomplete June 22, 2017 – Shot Clock Stopped
Resubmittal August 01, 2017 – Deemed Complete August 10, 2017 – Shot Clock Running from
August 01, 2017
The City believes the 150 day shot clock expiration date is November 28, 2017. Verizon has
asserted that a 90 day shot clock applies instead.
2. Cluster 2 – 17PLN‐00170
Initial Submittal May 24, 2017 – Deemed Incomplete June 22, 2017 – Shot Clock Stopped
3. Cluster 3 – 17PLN‐00228
Initial Submittal June 27, 2017 – Deemed Incomplete July 26, 2017 – Shot Clock Stopped
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/13/2017 11:29 AM
3
Regards,
Rebecca
4.
Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org
Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code
Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped
From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 2:52 PM
To: Atkinson, Rebecca
Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City
Subject: A formal request for information regarding Verizon's applications
Hi Rebecca,
To follow up on the message I left for you yesterday, please consider this my formal request that the Planning
Department tell me exactly where the shot clock stands on each cluster of Verizon’s applications to install small cell
sites in Palo Alto.
When I spoke to you and to the folks at Verizon last, Verizon had identified three clusters. If there are more than three
clusters now, I would like the shot clock information on all of them. And if other cell companies have now filed
applications, I would like the same information for those applications.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks very much,
Jeanne
Jeanne Fleming
JFleming@Metricus.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/13/2017 11:30 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:41 PM
To:Poggio, Andy; Weatherford, Jeanny
Cc:Harrington, Bob (external); Donn Lee; Moe, Christine; Kau, Andrew; Smith, Loren;
Tapaskar, Vijay; Hoel, Jeff (external); Matthey, Olivier; Masnavi, Abbas; Fleming, Jim;
Henderson, Todd; Reichental, Jonathan; Wallace, Josh; Yuan, Dave; loren.m.smith2016
@gmail.com; omatthey@sonicwall.com; Council, City
Subject:Re: FTTP / Wireless Citizen Advisory Committee
I agree with Andy's point about the pursuit of Fiber to the Nowhere (FTTN) which we both agree could be a dead end.
If we do not pursue our original CAC objective to find a solution for Palo Alto to be innovative and deploy a FTTP network available to every resident, then why are we spending time on wireless networks?
The CAC has always expressed the position that any type of wireless citywide network is no alternative to FTTH. Richard Brand
FTTP CAC Member from the outset.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Poggio >Sent: Sep 12, 2017 9:15 PM
>To: "Weatherford, Jeanny" >Cc: "Brand, Richard" , Bob & Margie Harrington , Donn Lee , Christine Moe , Andrew Kau , "Smith, Loren" ,
"Tapaskar, Vijay" , Jeff Hoel , "Matthey, Olivier" , "Masnavi, Abbas" , Jim Fleming , "todd.henderson@cityofpaloalto.org" , Jonathan Riechental , "Wallace, Josh" , "Yuan, Dave" ,
"loren.m.smith2016@gmail.com" , "omatthey@sonicwall.com" >Subject: Re: FTTP / Wireless Citizen Advisory Committee
> >It is likely that I won’t be able to attend this meeting. In any case, I’d like to make two points:
> >1. Though the direction from city council is to pursue FTTN, I continue to highly recommend that we issue an
RFP that includes a plan and incremental costing for FTTP in addition to FTTN. >
>2. I am concerned about “What if we built an FTTN and nobody came?” By that, I mean serious ISPs with the intent to turn our FTTN into an FTTP. Can we get some readings from specific ISPs, e.g. Sonic, to determine that
if we do build FTTN, one or more ISPs would extend it to make FTTP? If we are unable to get positive confirmations on such an extension, then we need to rethink only doing FTTN.
> >Sorry I’ll miss this meeting.
> >—andy
> >
> >> On Sep 12, 2017, at 4:15 PM, Weatherford, Jeanny wrote:
>> >>
>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elana Katyal <ekatyal@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, September 08, 2017 3:44 PM
To:Markevitch, Pat; Council, City
Subject:Shuttle from terman to jcc
Dear city council members,
I just heard that the City Council just recently approved a shuttle that would start near the JCC and go all the way to Gunn, they are just
trying to find funding for it.
I have a daughter I have to schlep back and forth from terman to east meadow twoce a day. Luckily I don't have
a full time job. I don't know how two working parents could do it
Biking is too dangerous.
Every other city I have lived in had school buses.
If you are looking for fudnding, How about funding it with the inordinate amounts of money I, and other palonalto residents, pay in property taxes (Not to mention my state income taxes!)
Kids should have safe way home provided by the city. The traffic is terrible. A two mile round trip shouldn't
take 30 minutes. My husband even parks and goes for a run in the morning after dropping her off to avoid the
return trip traffic.
This is a very pressing issue.
Please let me know how we can solve this. I know there are many parents frustrated by the lack of good school
transportation for Palo Alto kids.
Thank you,
Elana Katyal
512-791-3501
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:20 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:jilan yin <jilanyin@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 06, 2017 12:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:stop cell towers in our neighborhood
To whom may concern:
We are Palo Alto residents who are living 450 Loma Verde AVe where
Verizon is planning to install the cell tower.
We are strongly against this plan and beg our city council to take every
step to defend our neighborhood's aesthetics,home values and peace and
quiet,more important our health.
our beddrom is less than 5 meter to the cell tower pole , no one knows the
long term haelth impact of day after day close proximity to towers which
Verizon is proposing,but we all know for sure is that the towers will
increase the radiation level.
Please conside our worry and request, do as much as you can to stop this
plan.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely ,
Chunming Niu & JIlan Yin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, September 09, 2017 12:36 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 08-21-17 Council meeting -- FTTP item
Council members,
Here's a transcript of the FTTP & wireless item from the 08-21-17 Council meeting. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59056
I have added my comments (paragraphs beginning with "###"). (The City will post an official transcript eventually, but I wanted to comment now.)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I'm glad that the motion Council adopted includes "engage an engineering firm to design an expansion option to build a citywide
Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) network." It would have been even better to have required the engineering firm to design a citywide FTTP network (non-optionally) first, and then design a contraction option to identify what subset of the citywide FTTP
infrastructure could be omitted initially and still accomplish FTTN's goals. I see no reason why staff couldn't still take this approach. If we don't, the risk is that we'll spend $15 million on FTTN and then find out that most of it was unnecessary as a step
towards citywide FTTP.
How many nodes will the FTTN design propose? Google Fiber thought that it needed only two nodes to deploy citywide FTTP in Palo Alto. Should fiber-to-two-nodes cost $15 million? Or is staff saying they know more than Google does about how to deploy
citywide FTTP?
The motion that Council adopted includes "engage a management consultant..." Ideally, such a consultant would provide needed experience, expertise, and vision that staff currently lacks. But does staff have what it takes to choose such a consultant wisely, in the
City's best interest?
To me, it makes no sense that the City's FTTP effort should be led by someone who believes "the future is wireless." For example, you wouldn't want the City's EV program to be led by someone who believed "the future is carless." The slogan, "the future is
wireless," has been spouted since before the turn of the century, yet savvy municipalities continue to choose municipal FTTP.
Thanks,
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303 -------------------
PS: I'm sorry I couldn't be present on 08-21-17. I was out of town -- a vacation planned since last year. This item was originally
scheduled for before Council's summer break. I could have attended then.
#########################################################################
Video: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-135/
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:43 PM
2
3:24:35:
Vice Mayor Kniss: So, that takes us to our last item, which is a "Work Plan for Fiber-to-the-Premises and Wireless Network." And
for those of you who will know what I'm talking about, this is about as déjà vu as any item I can ever think of.
3:24:51:
[laughter]
### "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana
3:24:52:
Vice Mayor Kniss: So, this, tonight, is going to talk about the staff, UAC, and Policy & Services recommendation that we pursue a
municipal fiber-to-the-node network for fiber and broadband expansion, and expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities, and discontinue consideration of City-provided Wi-Fi in the commercial areas. So, with that, I see that we have our illustrious group approaching
us. Including Jon Reichental. And I imagine you might kick us off. Am I correct?
3:25:32:
Jonathan Reichental: You are correct. Yes.
3:25:34:
Vice Mayor Kniss: Excellent. Thank you.
3:25:35:
Jonathan Reichental: Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kniss. And Council members. My name is Jonathan Reichental. I am the IT Director. I want to recognize a few folks. We have members of the Citizen Advisory Committee, who help
us work through these complex issues of fiber-to-the-home. We have Christine Moe in the audience. Richard Brand. And Bob Harrington. It's great to have their help, and the rest of the team too. And I want to recognize the core team, who did a lot of the hard
work behind the scenes of the City. That's Todd Henderson, Jim Fleming right here, Dave Yen, and Josh Wallace.
So, I recognize the importance of the decision tonight. And also recognize that, for some of you, this is the first time we're presenting this. Jim and I have had the pleasure of presenting for multiple times over multiple years. But we want to be sure that you get the
thoroughness of this complex topic. There's no important service that I can provide -- no more important service that I can provide than being an advisor to all of you and our City Manager. And so, I take tonight's sort of comments and recommendation very
seriously. It seems like about four years ago that you asked me and the team to start to explore this again. And it seems that after several detours, we may be coming to the end of the journey. And a clear direction is required. We can't continue to exhaust every
angle, when the economics and the environment have fundamentally changed. As time passes, more of the incumbents will offer gigabit Internet, and the City will have extreme difficulty succeeding as a third, fourth, or fifth provider in our community. When we
started this effort, four years ago, there was no AT&T Fiber,
### AT&T invented the brand name "AT&T Fiber" in 2016, and abandoned the brand name "GigaPower." https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/techflash/2016/10/at-t-ousts-gigapower-branding-launches-at-t-fiber.html
The "AT&T Fiber" "umbrella" includes both FTTP and other technologies, which is a nuisance. http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/the-copper-gigaweasel-lurks-under-atts-fiber-umbrella/
PacBell started deploying FTTH in 1993. But when SBC acquired PacBell, that effort was abandoned. http://articles.latimes.com/1996-05-09/business/fi-2303_1_fiber-optic-network
Comcast was not offering a technology called DOCSIS 3.1, which we'll talk about in a moment. There was no Google Fiber,
### Google Fiber deployed its 850-home test network on the Stanford campus in 2011.
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/07/14/google-fiber-tests-ultra-high-speed-network-on-campus/ https://www.cnet.com/news/cyberattacks-artificial-intelligence-ai-hackers-defcon-black-hat/
no Facebook Terragraph, no 5G, no millimeter wave technology,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:43 PM
3
### Some millimeter wave technologies have been around for a long time.
http://ethw.org/Millimeter_Waves
and other innovation. A lot has happened in four years. Now, if you fast forward to August 2017, Comcast is now offering one-gigabit AND two-gigabit service in Palo Alto.
### The product that uses DOCSIS 3.1 technology offers the user "up to" 1 Gbps down but "up to" only 35 Mbps up. The 05-23-17
staff report said Comcast planned a "soft launch" in 2Q17. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57822
It didn't explain what "soft launch" meant.
### The other product, "Gigabit Pro," uses FTTP technology and offers the user "up to" 2 Gbps symmetrical (both down and up). But it's only available in areas that are within 1/3 mile of Comcast's existing fiber network, and maybe not even then And it might cost
$300 per month plus $1,000 up-front. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/comcasts-gigabit-cable-will-be-in-15-cities-by-early-2017/
That was the DOCSIS technology I was referring to earlier.
### The Gigabit Pro product does NOT use DOCSIS technology.
In fact, this cable offering is so compelling that, according to recent reporting, traditional telcos are concerned about playing catchup,
and may lose market share to Comcast.
### Generally, the phone companies have been losing market share to the cable TV companies for years. See Susan Crawford's 2011 book, "Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age."
http://isp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/crawford_proof.pdf
AT&T Fiber is coming in January. We're told.
### Last year, AT&T said they'd deploy to a couple sites by the end of 2016. They lied. Council should insist that staff do more than just parrot whatever AT&T says.
### This AT&T Fiber coverage map doesn't mention Palo Alto, even as an "underway" city.
https://www.att.com/shop/internet/gigapower/coverage-map.html?source=ECtr0000000000GdD&wtExtndSource=fibermap
And it's likely they won't need new boxes, to be installed around the community.
### When AT&T says "around the community," they have never meant "citywide."
### Ironically, the excuse AT&T gave, parroted by staff, for not deploying in 2016 was that the City had insisted that the new cabinets be green, not AT&T's color of choice. Now it turns out that new cabinets aren't needed at all.
But just have to change the tech inside the boxes.
### I think AT&T's existing infrastructure in Palo Alto doesn't have any FTTP. It's either DSL (all-copper) or U-verse (fiber-to-the-
neighborhood and then copper to premises). So, unless AT&T deploys some fiber to premises, the "AT&T Fiber" product AT&T will be offering won't be FTTP.
So, it should happen relatively smoothly. Without having to go through a significant permitting process.
3:28:40:
Now, perhaps this is not without controversy -- I've said it many times to many audiences at the City, and many of the committees --
that the future of Internet connectivity will increasingly be wireless.
### If that's true, why do savvy communities continue to opt for municipal FTTP? On 05-02-17, the Beverly Hills, CA, City Council voted 7-0 to proceed with a $19 million Phase 1 FTTP project.
http://beverlyhills.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=5551 On 08-15-17, the Fort Collins, CO, City Council voted 6-1 to put the question of citywide FTTP to voters this November. (At 3:49:00
on this video.)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:43 PM
4
https://fortcollinstv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=deoSaZoQ6rzE# However, I always caveat that by saying, to have really good wireless, you have to have a ton of fiber. [laughs] They're not one
without the other. You have to have a lot of fiber backhaul. I want to stress that. But the future appears to be wireless. ### Yes, if the incumbents want to deploy world-class wireless, THEY will need a ton of fiber. But I don't see how the City will be able to make the incumbents do what wireless customers want. ### Staff used to say wireless was "complementary" to FTTP. On 02-02-15, Council approved hiring CTC to do a report on a FTTP
master plan and a "complementary" wireless network plan. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49073 But, here, Reichental seems to be singing a different tune. He's saying that wireless can and will compete with wired, even for non-mobile applications. Lots of people disagree with that. For example, Broadband Communities' Masha Zager says, "Recent advances in wireless technologies haven't made FTTH obsolete, and aren't going to." http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/July/BBC_Jul17_EdLetter.pdf
So, let me give you some data around that. So, back in 2013, one in ten American households who access the Internet did it only wirelessly. Fast forward three years, to 2016. Now, one in five Americans -- 20 percent of U.S. households -- only access the Internet wirelessly. With a mobile device. That's doubled in three years. And we would anticipate to see that continuing. ### According to this 03-06-17 article, most of the wireless-only Internet users are low-income households trying to save money --
not exactly the Palo Alto demographic. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/10-of-Broadband-Users-to-Go-Wireless-Only-in-Next-Year-139087
But wireless is actually more expensive per bit than wired, so to save money, you have to limit use. 3:29:41:
As you know, smart phones dominate how people access the Internet. Not laptop computers. Not desktop computers. Smart phones. In homes, Wi-Fi-enabled devices are exploding, from security cameras to Amazon's Alexa. All wireless. Smart homes,
smart cities, wearables, fitness devices, connected cars, the Internet of Things, next-generation healthcare. It's all going to be wireless. And there's a new generation of cellular technology and other wireless called fifth-generation. You all know about 4G, because most of us use 4G in our phones. Well, 5G is coming. It's not ready yet. And the people who are involved in developing it say it won't be
until about 2020 until it goes mainstream.
### It's important not to believe all the hype from 5G developers. In his 08-09-17 blog, "A 5G Timeline," Doug Dawson says that 5G won't even be formally specified until 2020, and won't achieve "critical mass" until 2025. https://potsandpansbyccg.com/tag/5g/
However, that's only about a couple years to go. When we talk about wireless, we're not just talking about smart phones, but we're talking about something called fixed wireless. Accessing the Internet from your home to a wireless device.
It's kind of fun, just this -- on the speed -- real quick. 'Cause I think it gives you some nice background. Most of us use 4G, on our
smart phones and our tablets. And that is approximately 5 to 12 megabits of download. About 2 to 5 megabits of upload. Now, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has specifications for 5G. 20 gigabits for download, and 10 gigabits for uplink.
### This source says that "Downlink user experienced data rate is 100 Mbit/s" and "Uplink user experienced data rate is 50 Mbit/s."
https://www.techdotmatrix.com/2017/03/5g-specifications-20-gbps-download-and-10-gbps-upload-speed/
Now, by the way, that's best-case scenario. It's probably never going to get that fast in terms of 5G. But that's the best-case scenario. So, if we do some quick math, if you round up 4G speed to 10 megabits, 5G will be 2,000 times faster. That's all you need
to remember. [laughs]
### Note: Reichental first acknowledges, more or less, that it's completely illegitimate to compare 4G's everyday average speeds for a single user with 5G's hoped-for peak speeds for an entire cell. But then he goes ahead makes the comparison anyway.
In the average home, the average American gets 50 megabits into their home. Of broadband. 5G is 400 times faster than that. 400
times faster than the average broadband speed in America.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:43 PM
5
### There's no reason to assume that the broadband the average American home gets should be the benchmark for what Palo Alto
homes should be capable of getting. Anyhow, it's illegitimate to compare 5G's hypothetical best-case bandwidth for an entire cell with wired bandwidth to a single premises.
When I was in Dubai last year, at Etisalat, who is the common carrier there, it was experimenting with 5G, and they reached speeds of
36 gigabits.
### 10-20-16: "Etisalat conducts the region's fastest 5G trial reaching 36 Gbps at GITEX 2016" https://www.menaherald.com/en/tech/telecom/etisalat-conducts-region%E2%80%99s-fastest-5g-live-trial-reaching-36-gbps-gitex-
2016
That's just really, really fast. Right? The problem is, to roll out the next generation of cellular is going to require a lot of small cells. A lot of the cellular devices you're familiar with, but -- a lot of density. In fact, that's why state bill 649,
### a.k.a. Senate Bill 649.
which is moving through Sacramento, and, we're told, will likely pass. Although the City is opposed to it, with regard to City control.
### On 06-24-17, Mayor Scharff sent a letter to Senator Hueso opposing SB 649.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58295 But, somehow, Palo Alto's opposition wasn't listed in a 07-12-17 official analysis of SB 649, which included a list of 187 (or so) other
cities and 7 towns that opposed it. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649
As you may know, I asked Council to oppose SB 649 on 02-22-17 and 03-15-17. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56782
### I guess we'll know by 09-15-17 whether SB 649 passed.
http://senate.ca.gov/legdeadlines http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649
One of the main motivating factors for that is to enable 5G. To have a lot of density of cells.
3:32:54:
So, I'll get to the final comments here. Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile are all in U.S. tests. And, as I mentioned in prior meetings,
Google, who left us, may return with a wireless-to-the-home solution.
### I'm not holding my breath, and neither should Council.
Verizon is currently experimenting with 5G fixed wireless in eleven geographies in the U.S., using urban and suburban settings. AT&T has testing in Austin and Indianapolis. And, just to make it international, Turin, Italy, is set to become the first 100
percent 5G community by 2020.
### Given that 5G won't even be formally specified until 2020, this seems like a stretch.
These are exciting times for high-speed Internet. Now, if you choose Option 2 tonight, to explore the business case -- or explore the business cases and design options for fiber-to-the-neighborhood -- and explore only, not build -- but explore -- it's my bet that some
form of last-mile wireless will be features of several of the options. So, what I've shared with you tonight is not at odds with our potential wireless future. I would like you to think and consider this information as you debate the City's long-term Internet
strategy. So, thank you for that.
Now, I'll just go to the summary of what we'll do tonight. As you can see there's a number of options. You're going to be selecting one of the fiber option -- expansion options one through three. And then, after that, we'll discuss two recommendations around
wireless. And I'm going to hand you over to Jim Fleming, who's going to talk us through those. Thank you.
3:34:35:
Jim Fleming: Good evening, Vice Mayor Kniss and Council members. My name is Jim Fleming. I'm a Senior Management Analyst with Utilities. This evening, we'll review recommendations for fiber expansion and City Wi-Fi additions to support high-speed
broadband connectivity in Palo Alto. Here's some background. In April and May, staff presented three fiber expansion options, in
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:43 PM
6
addition to two wireless recommendations to the Utility Advisory Commission and the Council Policy & Services Committee. Both
the UAC and the Policy & Services Committee recommended recommending to the Council pursuit of Option 2, the Fiber-to-the-Node option, in addition to supporting the wireless recommendations to expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities, and to discontinue
consideration of commercial Wi-Fi.
### Just to be clear, both UAC and the Policy & Services Committee made their recommendations directly to Council, not indirectly through staff. Just to be clear, UAC recommended also doing a FTTP pilot.
I'll present a brief summary of each option, to provide some background, and to put these options and recommendations into context.
Option 1 is to explore potential funding models to build a municipally-owned citywide fiber-to-the-premises network, based on an
"open access" network model.
### Later, when Council Member Tanaka made his substitute motion based on (his kind of) "open access," he didn't acknowledge that (a kind of) "open access" was a part of Option 1.
An "open access" network is defined as an arrangement in which a network is owned by the City but would be open to multiple
Internet service providers, to offer gigabit-speed connectivity and broadband-based services dependent on high-speed, high-bandwidth networks.
### Actually, speed shouldn't be built into the DEFINITION of "open access."
### Also, later, Council Member Tanaka proposes a kind of "open access" in which the City wouldn't own all of the network.
The City's 2015 Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan indicated that, assuming the network achieves the 72 percent take rate required to
positively cash flow the enterprise, the City will require an estimated overall capital investment of approximately $78 million, to build and operate a citywide fiber-to-the-premises network. Take rate is defined as the number of homes passed by the network that choose
to connect and pay a subscription fee.
### What does Fleming mean here by "subscription fee"? A monthly fee for service? Or an up-front connect fee? The usual DEFINITION of take rate is the number of premises connected divided by the number of premises passed (and therefore eligible to be
connected).
In terms of potential funding models for fiber-to-the-premises, and for fiber-to-the-network,
### What the heck is "fiber-to-the-network"? Perhaps Fleming meant "fiber-to-the-node."
a key consideration for network implementation is how to fund both capital construction costs and ongoing operational expenses. Acknowledging that capital and operating costs associated with a full-scale citywide build-out will be significant, the City
would have to seek outside funding and/or internal subsidies to support construction and start-up costs.
### I don't think spending money from the Fiber Fund on FTTP should be called a subsidy. I don't think spending money from the electric, gas, and water utilities on FTTP to the extent that FTTP enables these utilities to deploy smart grid should be called a
subsidy. I don't know what other "internal subsidies" Fleming has in mind.
Potential funding models for construction and start-up costs include bond issuances, such as general obligation or revenue bonds, use of the Fiber Optic Fund Reserve, and ongoing internal subsidies.
Option 2 is a municipally-owned fiber-to-the-node network that would bring fiber infrastructure closer to residential neighborhoods
and commercial zones for private last-mile connections, to provision broadband services to home and businesses. Last-mile technology is the final connectivity leg between the telecommunication service provider and the individual customer premise. A
fiber-to-the-node network would enable an incremental approach to citywide fiber-to-the-premises, And the estimated one-time fiber-to-the-node costs are in the range of $12 [million] to $15 million. But at this point, ongoing operations and maintenance costs are
unknown. The recommended action item for Option 2 is to develop a business case for a fiber-to-the-node network, for the purpose of providing a platform for public safety and Utilities wireless communication in the field, supporting smart grid and smart city
applications, and to develop new dark fiber licensing opportunities. Option 2 also includes a recommendation to engage an engineering firm to prepare a preliminary design of a fiber-to-the-node network, with an expansion option to build citywide fiber-to-
the-premises. On a parallel path, staff would reach out to the community to determine interest in fiber-to-the-premises, in addition, to identify potential partners and/or service providers, and last-mile funding models. A fiber-to-the-node network would provide the
City with a phased and economically viable deployment approach to push fiber infrastructure closer to residential neighborhoods and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:43 PM
7
business areas, and to create a potential jumping-off point to bring fiber to the individual premises. In other words, building the last
mile.
3:39:22:
Potential funding models for the last mile include user financing. User financing is an approach that relies on homeowners that pay on a voluntary basis for some or all of the cost to build out the City's existing dark fiber backbone network into residential neighborhoods
and commercial areas. Homeowners and businesses would voluntarily finance system build-out costs by paying a one-time, up-front connection fee that could range from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars.
### I have objected to this characterization before. Is staff saying that a given subscribing premises would have to pay a amount that
might be different from what other subscribing premises have to pay, perhaps based on what it would cost the City? Or is staff saying that all subscribing premises would have to pay the same amount, but staff has essentially no clue what that amount would be?
Another potential funding model is to create assessment districts, which may be used to finance new public improvements or other
additions to the community. Generally speaking, an assessment district is formed with property owner mail ballot proceedings involving each property that will be assessed in the district. Owners vote yes or no, and the votes are weighted by the assessed
amount.
### Why would this be better than, say, revenue bonds? What would the assessed amount depend on?
Another last-mile approach is to explore the potential for a public-private partnership, with the City and a private entity would work together to achieve mutual goals for a fiber-to-the-premises network and complement one another by developing a partnership that
could take advantage of each entity's strengths, which may significantly reduce the cost and financial risk of a citywide build-out in a competitive market.
3:40:46:
Option 3 is to "pause" municipal fiber-to-the-premises work, to -- and increase transparency and predictability for Internet service
providers. This would involve identifying additional resources, to streamline third-party network upgrades where feasible. For example, permitting inspection processes. And also make available useful information about City assets, and facilitate access to City
infrastructure. For example, public rights-of-way, utility poles, utility routes, conduit, and real estate. And also to streamline and publicize local processes.
3:41:30:
There are two staff recommendations for wireless. The first recommendation is to expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities. The
expansion of Wi-Fi technology at unserved City facilities and public areas was evaluated by the Community Services Department. Most City facilities already have Wi-Fi access. The areas of the City where the Community Services Department
recommends Wi-Fi deployment are at common areas and City facilities, such as Cubberley, Lucie Stern, the Golf Course Pro Shop and Café, and Lytton Plaza. A high-level cost estimate for the recommended sites is $165,000 for installation and $6,200 for monthly
recurring charges. Funding for the project is available in the fiscal year 2017-2018 Operating and Capital Budgets, the Fiber Fund.
### It makes no sense to me that the Fiber Fund should be subsidizing this kind of wireless. The fiber utility needs all the money it can get to deploy FTTP.
And the monthly recurring charges will be allocated to the respective departments consistent with the City's existing charge-back
model.
The second wireless recommendation is to discontinue consideration of City Wi-Fi in commercial areas. There is already widespread commercial Wi-Fi coverage in high-traffic commercial areas. And there is a lack of demand for City-branded Wi-Fi services.
### So, regarding Reichental's claim that "the future is wireless," apparently it's not this kind of wireless.
So, to recap the two recommendations in the staff report, staff, the Utility Advisory Committee [sic] and the Council Policy &
Services Committee recommend pursuing Option 2, for fiber-to-the-node, as requesting the Council to direct staff to develop a business case for a municipally-provided fiber-to-the-node network for fiber and broadband expansion. Including engaging an
engineering firm to design a preliminary fiber-to-the-node network, with an expansion option to build a citywide fiber-to-the-premises network,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:43 PM
8
### How is this different from designing a preliminary citywide FTTP network, with a contraction option to build only the portions of
that FTTP network that serve the purposes of staff's FTTN network?
and to work to identify potential partners and/or service providers, including identifying last-mile funding models.
The recommendations for wireless branding are to expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities, and to discontinue consideration of City-provided Wi-Fi in high-traffic commercial areas.
### These recommendations aren't really about "branding," per se. Right?
So, that concludes my remarks.
3:43:51:
Jonathan Reichental: Thank you, Jim. Thank you very much. And before -- if I could, Vice Mayor Kniss -- City Manager Jim Keene
asked me to add a little bit more insight on Option 2, which we're recommending, about cost and timeline. So, of course, cost is something that's unknown at this time. But we can speculate, based on prior work. It probably will be in the $100,000-type range. It
could be a little bit more, with the design elements. But we would know that as we proceed through the process. And timeline has sort of two considerations. We've consulted with Procurement. And if this was an amendment to an existing contract, or a sole
source, we could get to the actual work quicker. If Procurement says, given the nature of the work we have to do, another RFP, it's lengthier. And so, to go through an RFP to select a vendor and then do the work, we would be returning with an actual set of
recommendations and business cases, and the various design elements, likely by next summer. So, it's not a trivial exercise to get there, but that's the realistic timeline. Thank you.
### I am unclear about the motion that Council actually passed. Did it give staff permission to choose CTC as the sole-source
contractor without doing an RFP? I have been very disappointed by CTC's work so far. And did it authorize staff to spend an amount of money "in the $100,000-type range," so that staff doesn't have to come back to Council to get a specific spending authorization?
3:45:09:
Vice Mayor Kniss: Thanks. And I just want to acknowledge Jim Fleming, who is the first person I went to Kansas City with. And I
think it was the 2013 ...
3:45:20:
Jim Fleming: Right.
3:45:20:
Vice Mayor Kniss: ... to study how we could do this, what Google was doing with it, and so forth. And I asked somebody today, whatever happened to the fiberhoods that Google was putting in in Kansas City? Did that ever come to anything? Or not?
3:45:44:
Jim Fleming: Yes. They did build out parts of Kansas City. Although they're a little bit stalled, with their so-called "pause" in the
last year. But they did build out to some extent in Kansas City. And parts of Austin, Texas. And, I believe, a little bit in Atlanta. And in the Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte, North Carolina, area.
### Google is sort of "semi-pausing" even in Kansas City.
03-21-17: "Google Fiber reportedly cancels hundreds of installations in Kansas City" https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/21/15009694/google-fiber-kansas-city-cancellations
08-3017: "Kansas City Was First to Embrace Google Fiber, Now Its Broadband Future is 'TBD'" https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/08/30/1845239/kansas-city-was-first-to-embrace-google-fiber-now-its-broadband-future-is-tbd
I'm not sure why we should care. We should know by now that the private sector acts in the interest of shareholders, not the community.
3:46:01:
Vice Mayor Kniss: Interesting. That's four years ago, now?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:43 PM
9
3:46:05:
Jim Fleming: Right.
3:46:05:
Vice Mayor Kniss: Five years ago? Yeah. Anyhow. So, with that, we have two people from the public. I have Bob Smith and
Richard Brand. And, Bob Harrington, could I encourage you to say a word or two? Would you be willing?
3:46:20:
Bob Harrington: (unamplified) Sure.
3:46:21:
Vice Mayor Kniss: Good. So, Bob's been involved with this for a long time. Also was one of the experiments in -- I think, in the Community Center area. Oh, what is it now? Eight years ago? Ten years ago?
### Palo Alto's FTTH Trial began in 2001 and was terminated (for what I think were bad reasons) in 2005. So it started 16 years ago
and ended 12 years ago.
Yeah. OK, let's start with Bob Smith. Greetings.
3:46:42:
Bob Smith: Greetings. Bob Smith. Greer Road in Palo Alto. I don't share all of the assumptions that have been common here with the City. A couple of -- just to state that -- a couple of assumptions I've been making. One, that the amount of bandwidth a family of
four in Palo Alto presently needs to sort of get the best of the Internet -- to be able to access it and get everything that is reasonable for them to be getting -- is about 150 megabits a second down speed -- download speed.
### Who gets to decide what's "reasonable"? And, by the way, what about upload speed?
Comcast today offers speeds over 200.
### That's an "up to" speed, and when lots of people are trying to use the Internet at the same time, nobody gets Comcast's "up to"
speeds.
Although most people buy lower-priced tiers than that. So, what that really says is, that our current incumbent companies are doing a better job -- if my assumption is plausible -- are doing a better job than we think they are.
### In Longmont, CO, the city offers 1-Gbps symmetrical residential Internet service for $49.95 per month (to "charter members" -
- residences that sign up within 3 months of its availability). https://www.longmontcolorado.gov/departments/departments-e-m/longmont-power-communications/nextlight-broadband/rates-and-
services-gig-promo The build-out is nearly done.
https://www.longmontcolorado.gov/departments/departments-e-m/longmont-power-communications/nextlight-broadband/construction-progress-and-service-availability-copy-3508
Take rate exceeds 50 percent. What's unreasonable about that?
We keep talking about fiber -- has been the constant word. I'm glad we're starting to talk about wireless. But the constant word has been the necessity -- the utter imperative character -- of fiber. And fiber is just another method of transmission -- like coax, like
wireless.
### No. Fiber is a medium (not a method) of transmission -- the only transmission medium capable of 10-Gbps speeds today for residential FTTP (e.g., in Chattanooga and Salisbury) and exponentially-increasing speeds for the foreseeable future.
And I think we've given that too much attention. And we've given -- recently -- these high speeds -- like a gigabit -- too much
attention, when I don't think the Internet really needs it today. It will. But it doesn't today.
The other thing that I find myself in disagreement about is the whole idea of a fiber overbuild with existing incumbents. Which has
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 12:43 PM
10
been the basic thread here for 20 years. We want to build something to compete with the cable company and the phone
company. And the fact is, it may well not be economically possible.
### It's not a "fact" that it won't be possible.
So, bringing to this FTTN -- a new letter on the end of that -- proposal, I don't really see this does much. Because if we build the thing, we will need somebody to come in and to do something for it. And we should have that as the focus. Who's going to want to
come in and make that kind of investment? The easy part is the FTTN, I think. The hard part is all the things that Google had such a hard time doing, in the last several years. And the places where the failures will occur. So, I think you're really headed kind of in the
wrong direction with the FTTN. Which, if you -- Of course, this is just about -- thinking about it, and planning it, and so on. But you're going to be spending the money on this. And then, if a few months or years, we'll be back here talking about building the
thing. And I don't have a lot of faith that it's really going to help us. Thank you.
3:49:44:
Vice Mayor Kniss: Thanks for coming. Richard Brand. And then Bob Harrington.
3:49:49:
Richard Brand: Yeah. Good evening, Council members. How much time to I have? This is a very complex issue. Do I have three minutes?
3:49:56:
Vice Mayor Kniss: You have three minutes, right.
3:49:56:
Richard Brand: OK. I am a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee. I've been a member for three or four years. I think most of
you know my credentials in terms of fiber optics. Eric and I worked on fiber optics 15 years ago, right? We were doing innovative stuff. This is a City of innovation. "FTTN" stands for "fiber to nowhere." And I'll tell you why. I worked as a -- I was a technology
leader for Nortel Networks, after I left National. And went on -- fiber optics was my area. And I went to the ITU-T meetings. I went ti -- 'cause Nortel was doing 4G. In fact, they were a leader in 4G until they went bankrupt. Also, I was doing GPON. And now we
have XGPON. Which is what AT&T is talking about.
### Talk is cheap. AT&T plans to test XGS-PON technology -- and software-defined networks -- but when will it deploy them? 06-29-17: "AT&T plans 10 Gbps fiber field trial"
https://www.rcrwireless.com/20170629/carriers/att-plans-10-gpbs-fiber-field-trial-tag4
I agree with Bob, but I disagree with his comment. The media -- fiber media -- is unlike wireless. You know, wireless is a shared network. It's like a piece of pie. And you cut up the slices. OK, Soupy Sales got the whole pie in his face, right? The neighborhoods
get the pie sliced up into -- multiple issues. So, you say, I got 100 gigabits of bandwidth. Well, you know, that gets sliced up into a thousand slices, and pretty soon, it's limited. Wireless does NOT do this. And I'm talking about either fixed wireless -- still shared --
or cellular. So, 5G, we worked on antennas at Nortel Networks for 5G. The patents were sold off. 5G has its place. But fiber really is the ultimate solution. By God, Liz, you know this. You've heard this so many times from your husband. The fact is that if we're
going to be an innovative, leadership City, we need to push this program. I think staff has given up.
### I think Brand means that he thinks staff has given up on citywide municipal FTTP.
We've had a lot of meetings. I think that you're saying fiber-to-the-node is the easy way out. You know what happened? We'd have fiber-to-the-home here in Palo Alto if SBC, which then became AT&T, went ahead with the projects that they did, along with Verizon
and BellSouth. Verizon did FiOS. It's recognized as the best Internet connection in the U.S.
### Verizon's first FiOS deployments used BPON, which is no longer the best technology. Later deployments used GPON. But so do lots of municipal networks, e.g., Chattanooga, Longmont, Sandy, etc. Some municipal networks, e.g., Chattanooga and Salisbury,
offer 10-Gbps, which is better than FiOS.
AT&T decided -- oh, they were sold by their marketing people -- fiber-to-the-node. And they went XDSL. Well, now we know how AT&T is doing with DSL, because Comcast is outselling them. Fiber-to-the-node is a dead end. And I'm telling you, don't let them
do this. I don't want to work on fiber-to-the-node. If that's the way we go, then I'm out. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:22 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 06, 2017 12:05 PM
Subject:Urgent: Danger of inaccurate vote counting California !
Dear Friends,
We have a problem: a bill is due to be voted on (possibly Thursday) by the California Senate which could
seriously undermine the accuracy of vote counting audit processes. I urge you to take action and alert your
friends, too!
A hand counted audit of 1% of randomly selected precincts is the gold standard for ensuring that all votes are
counted as cast. We need your help to get AB 840 out of the Senate voting lineup, and back into the Elections
Committee so that section 15360 can be removed, because it CHANGES present law and is not a valid 1%
audit. It might make things easier for elections officials, but it is NOT a valid audit of the final vote count.
Please contact the California Elections Committee with this message:
Subject AB 840
Regarding AB 840: Please strike the entirely NEW section 15360 from AB 840, which changes existing
election audit law.
The intent of the EXISTING audit law is to ensure the accuracy of the FINAL vote tally. Presently ALL votes in
the randomly selected precincts must be counted in the mandated audit of 1% randomly selected precincts.
The change made by Section 15360 is not in compliance with the intent of existing law, because it only
audits votes canvassed (counted) on election day, ("ballots canvassed in the semifinal official
canvass") and eliminates auditing the counting processes for valid ballots arriving by mail after election
day.
Thus it DOES NOT evaluate whether vote counting procedures are accurate in the days following the
election, when MILLIONS of ballots are still arriving by mail.
Just as Volkswagen can program their diesel cars to look like they are emission‐free while being tested, so
can election counting systems be so programmed. The section 15360 has no place in our state. As we know,
many efforts to hack US elections systems were made in 2016 and no doubt there will be more, especially
when the door is left open!
If this passes, Californians will not be able to have confidence that the mechanism of democracy is secure.
Please remove section 15360.
Here are the contacts:
Anthony Rendon (Speaker) (916) 319-2063
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/7/2017 3:22 PM
2
Marc Berman (Chair of Elections Committee): (916) 319-2024
Mathew Harper (Vice Chair): (916) 319-2074 Ian C. Calderon: (916) 319-2057
Evan Low: (916) 319-2028
Kevin Mullin: (916) 319-2022
Jim Patterson: (916) 319-2023
Shirley Weber: (916) 319-2079
You should also write to the committee secretary: Lori.Barber@asm.ca.gov The subject line should read: AB
840
thank you in advance for taking this action! Please let me know if you were successful.
Sincerely,
Cheryl
Here is the link to the bill, see section 15360 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB840
Here are recent articles regarding problems in the 2016 election: hacking attempts, and various exploits that
have yet to be investigated but were noticed…
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/russia-election-hacking.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-
share
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article170006067.html
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/13/2017 11:28 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 12:06 PM
To:Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Keene, James; Council, City; Watson, Ron; Perron,
Zachary; Bullerjahn, Rich; Philip, Brian; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com;
stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com; Reifschneider, James; Keith, Claudia;
pressstrong@gmail.com; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Lum, Patty; Jay Boyarsky; Stump,
Molly; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; dangel@dao.sccgov.org
Subject:Your heads are in the sand on
the issue of racial profiling in Palo Alto. In fact, all of you are in denial and bottom line racists.
Sent from my iPhone
STOP TASERS FROM BEING INTRODUCED TO OUR JAILS
Coath!on forJ115tic;,1 and AccOWJ1abmty -SV De-Bug -July 7, 2017
ICOUNblL1 MEETING 9 11 l l 1
[ ] Placed Before Meeting
f..-r'Received at Meeting
The Santa Clara County Sheriff has proposed that Tasers be introduced in our jails. lasers are a deadly weapon and are
almost always used on unarmed people and should be banned.
As the San Jpse Mir&UQ' News editorial gn May 19. 2017 stated, ~The Board of Supervisors should take special note of the
lisk of Taser use on people who are mentally ill, because a stun gun shock that may just temporarily disable a healthy person
may be lethal to someone who is taking medication. A 2015 study found that nearly 50% of the inmates in the County's main
jail and Elwood facility in Milpitas have a mental illness, and an estimated 650 inmates receive some kind of psychotropic
drug on a daily basis.~
Not only are individuals with mental health concerns and prescription drug users more vulnerable to the lethal risk of Tasers,
but also individuals with heart issues and other physical limitations are equally vulnerable. We believe .21st CenWQ' Policing
(a Department of Justice framework on how to improve police and community relations) is moving away from the notion that
more weapons means more safety for officers, prison guards and those incarcerated. 21st Century Policing alternatives
embrace, among other progressive reforms, crisis intervention training, rapport buffding and de-escalation skill building, all of
which run contrary to the use of deadly Tasers.
The costs of Tasers, their initial purchase, replacement and repair, training and litigation expenses can run into the hundreds
of thousands of dollars each year for the County. For the time period 2015-2016, the San Jose Police Department spent
$319,368 for the purchase ofTasers. On July 12, 2013, the City of San Jose lost a lawsuit involving the death of Steve
Salinas, who died as a result of the San Jose Police deploying Tasers. A federal jury returned a verdict of $1,000,000 in
damages to the Salinas Family. We believe that any monies proposed for the purchase of Tasers should instead be spent on
treatment for inmates, and to convert our jails from violent caged facilities to places of compassion and humanity.
According to Irutb not Tasers. an organization that monitors Taser use in North America, more then 1.000 deaths have
resulted from the use of Tasers by law enforcement. Even members of law enforcement have recognized the lethal nature of
Tasers.
Former Newark, California Police Chief Ray Samuels, in making a decision not to purchase Tasers said the following, "What
scared me about the weapon is that you can deploy it absolutely within the manufacturer's recommendation and there is still
the possibility of an unintended reaction. I can't imagine a worse circumstance than to have a death attributed to a Taser in a
situation that didn't justify deadly force. It's not a risk I'm willing to take."
In the past, Jaw enforcement officers (trainees) were encouraged to submit to a Taser blast under very controlled
circumstances, with spotters on a mat, with eye goggles, and limiting the Taser blast to an area on the back below the neck.
The leading law enforcement think tank, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has said, "Agencies shO\lfd be aware
that exposure to ECW (Taser) application during training could result in injury to personnel and is not recommended." Many
law enforcement agencies who formerly allowed their officers to voluntarily be exposed to Taser blasts during training
exercises, have ended such a practice because of serious and career ending injuries to healthy officers, and subsequent
lawsuits filed by these same injured officers.
If Tasers are considered too dangerous to use on healthy officers during very tightly controlled training exercises, then
certainly Tasers are not safe to use on inmates who suffer from a wide variety of mental and physical conditions that make
them particularly vulnerable to injury and death from a Taser blast.
The Sheriffs position that policy can be drafted to ensure that Tasers can be safely used on unarmed inmates, doesn't match
the reality of the unpredictable and lethal nature of Tasers, and the fact that when used on unarmed individuals Tasers are an
inherently dangerous weapon.
In other words, you can't create a safe policy for the use of an inherently unsafe weapon (Tasers) when used on unarmed
individuals, any more then you can create a safe policy for inmates who wish to smoke an inherently dangerous product like
cigarettes.
Given the recent guilty verdicts of three Santa Clara County Correctlonal Officers in the brutal murder of Michael T¥J'ee. and
all of the other problems and controversies surrounding inmate abuse in our County Jails, the last thing we need to do is
introduce Tasers into our jails.
About the Authors:
Richard Konda is the Executive Director of the Asian Law Alliance and the Chairperson of the Coalition for Justice and Accountability.
Aram James is a retired Santa Clara County Deputy Pubfic Defender, a member of the Coalition for Justice and Accountability and a co-
founder of the Albert Cobarrubias justice Proiect.
Illustration by Adrian Avita