HomeMy Public PortalAbout20171113plCC701-32
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: 11/13/2017
Document dates: 10/25/2017 – 11/01/2017
Set 1/2
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 | 10/25/2017 12:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:William Ross <wross@lawross.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 5:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Action Item No. 6 Comprehensive Plan EIR Certification and Plan Adoption; October 23,
2017 Special City Council Meeting
Attachments:Scharff (Agenda Item No. 6) 10-23-17.pdf
Please see the attached communication.
William D. Ross, Esq.
Law Offices of William D. Ross
A Professional Corporation
400 Lambert Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94306
Tel: (650) 843-8080; Fax: (650) 843-8093
E-Mail: wross@lawross.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED
RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR
COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE
ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU
William D. Ross Karin A. Briggs David Schwarz Kypros G. Hostetter Of Counsel
Law Offices of
William D. Ross 400 Lambert Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone: (650) 843-8080
Facsimile: (650) 843-8093
Los Angeles Office: P.O. Box 25532 Los Angeles, CA 90025
File No: 1/10
October 23, 2017
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Action Item No. 6 Comprehensive Plan EIR Certification and Plan Adoption;
October 23, 2017 Special City Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the City Council,
I. INTRODUCTION
It is respectfully suggested that the standard for determining the baseline under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub Resource Code section 21000 et seq.,
“CEQA”) for review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan (“Comp Plan”) revision is in
error and that the Comp Plan presentation has not been found to be internally consistent or
integrated as required by General Plan law.
II. ANALYSIS
A. The “Baseline” For Examining The Comprehensive Plan’s Impact On The
Physical Environment Is Not CEQA Guideline Section 15125(a)
FEIR page 5.3 states that CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) governs the
environmental setting of the EIR and the determination of a baseline against which the
implementation of the Comp Plan would have on the physical environment as being the
time of the notice of release of the EIR’s preparation, the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”),
or May 30, 2014.
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
October 23, 2017
Page 2
A different environmental baseline is appropriate if it is known to the lead agency
that certain surrounding environmental conditions will either improve or degrade by the
time the project is implemented.
The FEIR p. 5-4 references proposed changes to the Stanford General Use Permit
(“GUP”) and other significant housing projects in the region as large projects since the
NOP was issued that are not evaluated.
With the issuance of the DEIR on the Stanford GUP it is now clear that the
environmental conditions surrounding that project alone for proposed academic growth and
density, the adequacy of fire services, and impact on traffic suggest that a current CEQA
baseline is more appropriate to evaluate the Comp Plan.
The same is true with respect to the at-grade crossing issue – now a primary concern
related to existing traffic congestion which was not a part of the environmental settings in
May 2014.
The City’s consideration of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance earlier
this year is also the type of action that could either improve or degrade the physical
environment since May 2014.
This is not a technical or insignificant issue. The levels of intensity of growth in
academic areas by Stanford University, an entity that is referred to throughout the Comp
Plan with respect to City Goals and Policies, should serve as the basis for accurate impact
assessment under CEQA that uses current baselines, not those of three and one-half years
ago.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) directs that the lead agency “normally” use the measure of physical conditions “at the time Notice of Preparation is published” to evaluate
settings. However, courts differ noting that the “date for establishing baseline cannot not
be a rigid one.” Environmental conditions may vary from year to year and some cases it
is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time periods. Save Our Peninsula
Committee v. Monterey County Bd. Of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 99, 125.
More to the point, to the extent the departure from the norm of an existing conditions
baseline (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)) promotes public participation and more
informed decisionmaking by providing a more accurate picture of a proposed project’s
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
October 23, 2017
Page 3
likely impacts, the CEQA Act permits the departure. Neighbors for Smart Rail v.
Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 439, 452. Rationale for
a current baseline was advanced by the City Council in its workshop review of the Stanford
GUP on October 16, 2017.
The Stanford GUP’s impact on housing demand, traffic and fire services were
commented on by the Mayor, the Vice Mayor and Councilmembers. See Council Video beginning at 1:08 through 1:28. Several Councilmembers referenced traffic, housing and
open space impacts, some referencing the need to solve them regionally. The Vice Mayor
referenced uncontrolled growth within the area. A critical issue raised by the Mayor was
with respect to fire services.
If you keep the FEIR NOP date of May 2014, these issues will not be evaluated.
A. There Is No Internal Consistency Analysis Of The Draft Comprehensive Plan,
Nor Is It “Integrated” As Required By Government Code Section 65300.5
It is well-established that a general plan must be integrated and internally consistent
both among the mandatory elements and within each element: Government Code Section
65300.5;1 See, Concerned Citizen of Calaveras County v. The Board of Supervisors, (1985)
166 Cal. App. 3d 90, 97-98.
The rule applies to optional elements and mandatory elements and if there is an
internal inconsistency then the general plan is legally inadequate and the required finding
for legally inadequate. This section of the Land-use law has been held to specifically to
apply to charter cities such as the City of Palo Alto: See, Garat v. City of Riverside, (1991) 2 Cal. App. 4th 259, 286. The issue was raised before the CAC on several occasions including at the
September 2015 CAC meeting. At that time, and subsequently, the City Planning Director
indicated that internal consistency “would be dealt with later.” It was also raised on several
occasions before the Planning and Transportation Commission without response by Staff.
There is an inconsistency in the information presented in the Comp Plan Safety
1 Section 65300.5 provides: In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statements of policies
for the adopting agency. [Emphasis added.]
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
October 23, 2017
Page 4
Element with respect to high fire risk area in that your Council adopted a different
designation at your October 16, 2017 meeting with respect a Local Hazard Mitigation
Adaptation Plan. At that meeting, under Consent Item No. 6, you adopted a Local Hazard
Mitigation Adaptation Plan. It contained both a fire severity hazard map which listed very
high fire hazard areas within the City limits as well as a composite fire risk/hazard
assessment dated 5/18/16 which showed extreme areas of wildland risk assessment within
the City limits. However, in the proposed Safety Element Map 5-8 under wildfire hazard zones, the entire area south of Highway 280 is reflected on the Element Map as “non-very
high fire hazard severity zone.” Which is it? Staff needs to clarify which is actually the
case. Personal observation would suggest that the high fire zone designation is more than
appropriate given the intensity of both forested lands to the east and west of Page Mill
Road as it proceeds to the south to its intersection with Skyline Blvd.
This is also critical with respect to how the lack of fire service to Stanford University
is portrayed as there is Plan policy S2.14-1 that provides:
Evaluate measures for optimal service delivery to improve
efficiency, development of automatic or mutual aid agreements
with other jurisdictions, including Stanford, to improve
efficiencies. (Emphasis added.)
How can that determination be evaluated under a CEQA baseline of
May 24, 2014?
This insufficiency and the inconsistency within the City’s Comp Plan documents as
well as the lack of any plan associated with the much more intense development contained in the Stanford GUP is another pragmatic and practical reason why the baseline for environmental analysis should be a current date and that your consideration of the Comp Plan be deferred until you can establish internal consistency and integration as required by
Government Code section 65300.5.
III. CONCLUSION
Council should continue the proposed certification of the Comp Plan FEIR until its
impact on the physical environment can be evaluated with a current baseline to ensure
evaluation of housing, transportation and fire safety on a regional basis.
The Honorable Greg Scharff, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
October 23, 2017
Page 5
Council should also continue this matter until the internal consistency of the Comp
Plan Elements can be demonstrated and integrated with the yet to be reviewed
Implementation Element.
Very truly yours,
William D. Ross
WDR:bk
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 4:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Your letter
Dear City Council Members.
Unfortunately I cannot attend the meeting tonite, and want to add my voice to those Palo
Altans who are fed up with the way the Council is taking the city into the
future. Many letters about this have been sent as emails to neighborhood groups as well as to
you. There is an extensive ground swell of frustration and disgust with the way the planning for
the next 20‐30 years will affect our city. And very importantly how this is being presented and
voted upon.
You were all elected to the Council ‐ some of you were on “slates” ‐ that bent in certain
directions ‐ however when you were sworn into the council you agreed to govern “according
to” what is best for the city and to LISTEN to those that elected you. Many of you have not
even bothered to hide the backroom deals and pre‐ordained decisions when you sit on
the dais as a formality. It shows. To read in the local newspaper that almost all the rules by
which growth will happen were thrown open to the wind ‐ without community input is not
what you were elected to do.
Palo Alto will change and get even more congested than it is today. There is an expectation
that elected officials, whose main responsibility is to be responsible to us (Palo Alto
residents) will really listen. There was great upset over how you passed the ADU ruling. Many
in the audience asked for additional discussion of the issue and the Council insisted on an
immediate vote. Is this another moment of predetermined decisions? I hope you rethink your
responsibility to the community. There are many smarter people than I am with facts and
figures that present ideas in creating a plan prior to voting ‐‐‐‐‐‐that puts growth into well
planned development and sensible programs that doesn’t throw out the “baby with the bath
water”.
Thank you
Lenore Cymes
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
2
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and contains information that may be privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and notify
us immediately.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Patricia Jones <pkjones1000@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 4:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
I am very concerned about the direction that your proposed Comp Plan would take us. The draft plan does not
deal with growth. Rather, it moves us toward becoming a business-oriented center instead of maintaining the
balance of residents and workers needed for a vibrant community.
"The draft Plan would add up to three million square feet of non-residential space over the next 15 years. This translates
into an average of twice the annual growth rate experienced during the past 27 years in Palo Alto. Last year, the City’s
Annual Citizen Survey showed that more than two-thirds of our residents consistently express high levels of concern
about congestion, traffic and parking. Tell the City Council to cut back the excessive non-residential growth in the
Plan.”
I agree with all the arguments below and ask that you factor my concerns, which are highlighted in red, into a
revised Comp Plan.
• COMMERCIAL GROWTH. “The draft Plan would add up to three million square feet of non-
residential space over the next 15 years. This translates into an average of twice the annual growth rate experienced
during the past 27 years in Palo Alto. Last year, the City’s Annual Citizen Survey showed that more than two-thirds
of our residents consistently express high levels of concern about congestion, traffic and parking.”
Please cut back the excessive non-residential growth in the Plan.
• TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS. “Transportation mitigations in the Plan have all been under active
discussion since the late 1980s with very limited success. Traffic mitigations work only if there are clear definitions,
objective monitoring and strict enforcement.”
Please put statements in the Plan that deal effectively with current traffic
congestion before we have more growth. This is REALLY important!
• BUSINESS FUNDING. “Residents should not be subsidizing businesses. Transportation mitigation is
impossible without commitments of funding from the business community.”
Please require businesses to make long-term commitments of mitigation
funding equivalent to the 50-year commitment from the Stanford Medical Center.
• PAYING FOR HOUSING. “The City has a clear obligation to subsidize Below-Market-Rate
housing. But the majority of current subsidies come from new housing, not on the much more rapidly growing job
centers.”
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
4
The very high ratio of jobs to employed residents means that the Plan
should require businesses to increase their share of funding.
Thank you very much.
Patricia Jones
1407 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Proctor <pennyproctor@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 4:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Dewatering damage to neighbors
Dear Members of the City Council,
I was concerned to read of the change in the FEIR so that avoidance of "dewatering impacts on adjacent properties and
public resources" has been eliminated. Many neighbors of dewatering projects have had expensive damage as a result.
Public infrastructure such as water mains and sewer lines can be damaged too.
Penny Proctor
Greer Road
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Larry Jones <john.x.wyclif@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 4:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
I am very concerned about the direction that your proposed Comp Plan would take us. The draft plan does not
deal with growth. Rather, it moves us toward becoming a business-oriented center instead of maintaining the
balance of residents and workers needed for a vibrant community.
"The draft Plan would add up to three million square feet of non-residential space over the next 15 years. This translates
into an average of twice the annual growth rate experienced during the past 27 years in Palo Alto. Last year, the City’s
Annual Citizen Survey showed that more than two-thirds of our residents consistently express high levels of concern
about congestion, traffic and parking. Tell the City Council to cut back the excessive non-residential growth in the
Plan.”
I agree with all the arguments below and ask that you factor my concerns, which are highlighted in red, into a
revised Comp Plan.
• COMMERCIAL GROWTH. “The draft Plan would add up to three million square feet of non-
residential space over the next 15 years. This translates into an average of twice the annual growth rate experienced
during the past 27 years in Palo Alto. Last year, the City’s Annual Citizen Survey showed that more than two-thirds
of our residents consistently express high levels of concern about congestion, traffic and parking.”
Please cut back the excessive non-residential growth in the Plan.
• TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS. “Transportation mitigations in the Plan have all been under active
discussion since the late 1980s with very limited success. Traffic mitigations work only if there are clear definitions,
objective monitoring and strict enforcement.”
Please put statements in the Plan that deal effectively with current traffic
congestion before we have more growth. This is REALLY important!
• BUSINESS FUNDING. “Residents should not be subsidizing businesses. Transportation mitigation is
impossible without commitments of funding from the business community.”
Please require businesses to make long-term commitments of mitigation
funding equivalent to the 50-year commitment from the Stanford Medical Center.
• PAYING FOR HOUSING. “The City has a clear obligation to subsidize Below-Market-Rate
housing. But the majority of current subsidies come from new housing, not on the much more rapidly growing job
centers.”
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
7
The very high ratio of jobs to employed residents means that the Plan
should require businesses to increase their share of funding.
Thank you very much.
Larry Jones
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 5:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan - You must do better
City Council Members:
RE: Comp Plan – Transportation element
Below are the percent of excellent/good ratings for transportation topics in 2016 Annual Survey and historical
data from 2006. Three (3) scores are in the top ten (10) of lower (worse) ratings.
2006 2016 CHANGE
1. Ease of travel by public transportation 60% 28% -32% #1 in top 10 drop
2. Traffic flow on major streets 39% 30% - 9% #10 in top10 drop
3. Ease of public parking N/A 33% N/A
4. Ease of travel by car 60% 44% -16% #5 in top 10 drop
5. Ease of travel by bicycle 78% 74% - 4%
6. Ease of walking 87% 80% - 7%
If you missed our “Carmageddon” event on Dec 1,
2016 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/12/16/gridlock-frustrates-local-drivers-and-residents, then
this dramatic decline in resident ratings should tell you that action is needed to address one of our biggest
challenges - traffic congestion. However, what I see from Council and in the Comp Plan is a series of unrealistic
forecasts for accelerated growth that miraculously show no negative impact on traffic congestion.
A wishful thinking, pie-in-the-sky approach will not relieve the almost constant traffic congestion on our streets
today. The traffic on my street doubled from 2013 to 2016 (source: City data). City officials appear (at best)
unaware and (at worst) uninterested in this traffic growth.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
9
My neighbors and I plan our vehicle travel around the worst traffic times but the worst traffic times are rapidly
becoming any time.
Perhaps the recently released Stanford EIR will be a wake-up call. What it tells me is that we simply do not
have tools that can deliver traffic mitigation on a scale that is needed.
Pie-in-the-sky proposals deliver no relief to the people living in Palo Alto today.
They do nothing to relieve the worsening traffic congestion
They will not stop the trend of turning our residential neighborhoods into commercial parking lots
They fail to prevent families from being priced out of their rentals.
The only proven approach you have before you is to dramatically limit growth and continue to investigate
solutions that attempt to address the current problems.
If you fail to act now to limit growth this council will be remembered for supporting a further dramatic decline
in our quality of life.
Sincerely,
John Guislin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Proctor <pennyproctor@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 5:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Overcrowding
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am concerned about the proposals for so much more office space, and not requiring projects to provide parking.
Our quality of life is going down with the economic boom, tremendous development, traffic, and parking problems.
Please don't let that happen!
Penny Proctor
Greer Road
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 9:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
Dear Councilmembers,
Twice before, once in the early 1970's and once in the early 1990's I've written your predecessors to opine that
comprehensive plans then being formulated were virtual guarantees that existing residents of Palo Alto were
going to be adversely affected by allowed growth. Today, nearly half a century later the accuracy of those
predictions has been confirmed by the annual National Citizen Surveys on which you rely.
Like your predecessors you plan to grow our way out of difficulty, chasing a bloated and still inflating—with
your blessing—non-residential sector with more housing destined to fall far short of what is needed for balance.
Having met each of you and acknowledging that you are by many measures intelligent people, I find difficult to
understand your impending decision that the solution to what we've created by excessive non-residential
building here is yet more non-residential building.
As I did twice before, roughly forty and twenty years ago, I predict today that if you indeed pursue this course,
life quality for Palo Alto residents will continue to decline. Given your commitment to continuing commercial
growth, the only question is how much you'll allow and how much decline will accompany it.
Thank you for considering these views.
Respectfully,
David Schrom
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com on behalf of Wolfgang Dueregger
<wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 9:27 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (external); Lydia Kou
Subject:New comprehensive plan
Dear City Council,
regarding the new comprehensive plan I want to point out that parking, traffic, affordable housing and enforcement
policies need to be priorities.
Recently our town was on an office-development spree which was beneficial to a few developers and now we the
residents have to live with the consequences which are multiple in nature.
Bumper to bumper traffic along El Camino, Alma, Oregon and San Antonio. Page Mill is a disaster. And do not
believe any of these grand ideas like adding a 3rd lane to Page Mill between Foothill and 280 would solve any
problem. At best it would move the problem further east towards El Camino. el Camino and page mill intersection is
rated as one of the worst intersections in the county already.
how does the comp plan address these problems?
We had over the years more and more commercial and non-resident parking flooding all of our neighborhoods.
some neighborhoods succeeded in a permit parking program. other neighborhoods are still struggling. Many new
developments get waivers so that the developers can build projects without providing the required parking spaces.
Despite the city's acknowledgement that this is a problem and its promise to reign in on granting developers all
these parking exemptions, there is no progress to report on this front.
how does the comp plan address these problems?
Currently everybody has gotten onto the bandwagon of "we need housing"; really? after the city approved all these
commercial projects in and close to residential neighborhoods across town, now we are waking up and become
aware there is a housing shortage? and the only solution is to plaster entire blocks with high density apartments like
the new projects along the southern part of El Camino (south of Arastradero) and along San Antonio? It is very sad
and frustrating to see how misguided planning over many years starts to destroy the green character and
the livelihood of Palo Alto.
how does the comp plan address these problems?
have you ever thought about why Palo Alto cannot move any new office development east of 101 (like Menlo Park
and Mountain View have been doing for many years) and at the same time (by moving companies over to the east
side of 101) freeing up existing real estate that can be used for housing.
in addition, we can bore a tunnel underneath our city (Tesla claims they know how to do this and they have their HQ
in Palo Alto on Dear Creek Road), free up the land on top which would provide ample space for needed housing -
and tons of recurrent property tax and other tax income for the city.
is the city council ready to solve a problem that is solvable but without destroying the nature of Palo Alto?
The city has enacted many laws (traffic, parking, leave blower, building code, etc.); how much of that is
actually really enforced? is the city up to this task? we live an a residential neighborhood with a permit parking
program. it happens frequently that non-resident cars are parked during the day for many hours and they don't
get ticketed. Gas leave blowers are active, dead oak trees are lingering around because they are protected even
when they are completely dead.
ow does the comp plan address these problems?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
13
thank you
Wolfgang Dueregger
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
14
Carnahan, David
From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 9:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:I urge you to adopt the Comprehensive Plan, certify the EIR, and prioritize a multi-
pronged approach to increasing housing in Palo Alto
Mayor Scharff, Vice-Mayor Kniss, and Council Members,
The Comp Plan process has taken quite a long time - nearly a decade - but tonight you can finally act to bring a better future to our
community.
I urge you to adopt the Comprehensive Plan, to certify the EIR, and to prioritize a multi-pronged approach to increasing housing in
Palo Alto. This will help very diverse groups within our community. It will also be an important step towards fulfilling the City's
goals in the Climate Action Plan.
Once the Comp Plan has been adopted, I urge you to take further action as soon as possible to adopt further policies that will
implement the important goals of expanding housing and promoting sustainable transportation.
In promoting sustainable transportation, I sincerely hope that Palo Alto will soon build bike lanes that are at least as safe and cyclist-
friendly as those in New York.
But the most important thing you can do tonight is to act decisively and to adopt the Comprehensive Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
John Kelley
(Mobile. Brief. Please excuse.)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
15
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
16
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Parag Patel <mr.parag@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 24, 2017 8:22 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan - MORATORIUM on new development until parking issues
addressed
Dear City Council:
We are writing to express our deep concern about the 3M square feet of office development built into the 15 year plan.
Residents of Palo Alto are struggling with the increased congestion and traffic all over the city. Quality of life in town has
been negatively impacted by all the commercial and Stanford development approved in recent years.
We believe strongly that there should be NO new business development until traffic and parking for EXISTING
development is addressed such that there are NO backups during commute hours and NO overflow parking on
neighborhood streets. The traffic is truly unbearable already and we dread the thought of 10,000 more cars plowing
through our neighborhood each morning and evening for the new employees you are hoping to attract to downtown.
New businesses downtown will likely attract workers from all over the Bay Area, not just people who will live and work
in Palo Alto. And Caltrain is NOT a reliable method for most workers (people who need time flexibility rather than 9-5,
people with kids who need to stop at multiple points each way etc etc). And it is not a good system for Palo Alto residents
even for airport trips, trips to SF etc. Please focus on connecting transit better into major transportation hubs and to parts
farther north into SanFrancisco to East Bay via Fremont before you add development - without added infrastructure
FIRST, we will have a traffic disaster here.
We hope you will prioritize Quality of Life of existing residents over other constituencies, and will take our concerns into
account. We will finance & organize efforts by City Council Members who push wanton development over the
needs/requests of existing Palo Alto residents.
Parag Patel
3243 Waverley Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
18
Carnahan, David
From:Holly Rubinstein <hmrubinstein@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
Dear Council Members:
My husband and I have lived in Palo Alto since 1983 and we did not receive a survey. We now offer the
following comments about the Plan and the quality of life in Palo Alto. It doesn't seem as though there is a
vision of where and how we want to live. We have traveled extensively and there are so many places that
offer more to the residents. Locally streets and sidewalks are ripped up and repaved over and over again
without the installation of underground utilities and without solving the problem of trees that were planted by
the City years ago but that are too big for the site and cause repeated damage. The City spends large sums of
money maintaining these problem trees instead of choosing a better variety and replanting. We offered
several times over the years to pay to have the Southern Magnolias that are in the parking strip in front of our
house removed and replaced. The City refused our offers. We have had repeated problems with the sidewalk
and the sewer system.
Traffic and Parking:
1. The City should improve traffic flow and public transportation prior to increasing housing (including
Stanford University plans).
2. For example, at the corner of Churchill and El Camino there should be a dedicated bike lane for turning
as well as a dedicated right turn lane for vehicles.
3. Much of the funds spent on bike improvements have really not helped the flow of bike traffic and have
impeded the flow of vehicles (for the record we drive our two cars less than 5000 miles per year and
walk or bike whenever possible). Now traffic at the intersection of Middlefield and Embarcadero is
often backed up to our street (Tennyson) at peak times because if a driver wants to turn on Tennyson
and the traffic makes it impossible, vehicles back up behind as the new "bubbles" in the street make it
impossible for cars to go around the turning vehicle.
4. There should be a ban on biking on Embarcadero and Alma and large fines imposed for who violate the
rule. It is simply too unsafe. On more than one occasion we have encountered a bicyclist using the road
going East on Embarcadero in front of Paly as the road mergers to one lane. Why is there not a sign
that bicyclists must use the existing off road path for pedestrians and bicyclist?
5. The facts of the round‐a‐bout at the corner of Cowper and Cooleridge should be reviewed and not
repeated. This was a very wasteful use of City funds.
Utilities:
At one point there was a plan to have all utilities underground. Our street has been repeatedly dug up and
resurfaced over the years, including one time for a new house next to ours for the installation of underground
utilities. Had the City given us the option, we would have paid to have our utility line put into the ground at
that time. We were never notified of the impending construction. Probably some of our neighbors would have
also agreed to the improvement.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
19
Trees: The urban forest attracted us to Palo Alto but it has become a nightmare of mangled and butchered
trees that were planted 40‐50 years ago with no thought for how big they might become and how much their
roots could damage sewer lines, sidewalks and other structures. A simple walk around Palo Alto during the
winter when the leaves are gone shows how badly the City has managed this issue. A sound urban forest
program should allow for the removal and replacement of problem trees. We endorse the concept of a "street
tree" but it needs to be one that fits the space.
Also regarding the issue of pumping groundwater to allow for basements needs to be addressed promptly.
Obviously this has an economic impact on homeowners who have not yet drained their property. Speaking
from personal experience, our neighbors have lost 3 large oak trees since building their large home and its
large basement 10+ years ago. While they followed all of the then‐existing rules, how could the City allow
large work trucks and crews to run over the roots for several years? And with the size of the house and
basement, how could the trees obtain the necessary water to carry them through the summer?
Additionally the City allowed a passive drainage system for their gutters and in times of heavy rains, where did
the water go? To our small basement that was just 25' from their downspouts. I even went to the City
Planning office and pulled their building plans. Somehow the City approved drainage down their driveway to
the back yard following a zig zag pattern. We all know that water finds the closest low point. If houses are built
to setback lines with full basements, where is the rain water to go?
Schools:
New residents require new services. How will the City provide transportation, utilities, fire protection,
emergency services, clean streets? Some things must be done before other items. Once housing is built, like
the Alma apartments so close to Alma, where will the City/County put the needed transportation line? How
will PAUSD deal with the increasing enrollment when it is already at near maximum capacity? How will the
two groups work together to solve the problems?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
20
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Mollineaux <bufordsharkley@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 24, 2017 8:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Written submission for Comp Plan public comment (2017-10-23)
It has been suggested to me, owing to a lot of words to say in two minutes, that I submit my statement from last
night in writing (easier to read). See below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last week, during that long Rent Control discussion, there was quite a bit of talk about economics, which I
think is a very good thing, as it's a great foundation to really ground our propositions.
Councilmember DuBois at one point made a reference that "many have been forced out from Palo Alto due to
Adam Smith's invisible hand." Personally, I have to disagree―I don't think we can blame the abstract concept
of the market; we have to blame decisions made by *people*. We have to look at the exclusionary zoning
policies of Palo Alto, and thereby the residents of Palo Alto, as responsible for forcing people out.
To comment on Rent Control: in a vacuum, it *is* counterproductive. That is, it literally works to impede the
production of housing units. But let's be clear: with our zoning system, productive limitations are not the
problem here. We could produce all the housing we need if we wanted to. The issue is something far more
subtle than this Econ 101 concepts: land values, which are an instance of "Positional Goods."
Positional Goods are a concept introduced by the economist Fred Hirsch in 1976, with his publication of "Social
Limits to Growth." To quote a relevant passage from this work:
> Everyone has a choice of living in the city as it is or in the suburb as it is, but not between living in the city
and suburb as they *will be* when the consequences of such choices have been worked through.... In practice,
however, destructive effects within the suburb itself can be checked in a variety of ways, notably through
planning and zoning restrictions, both on outward expansion and on development within them. To the extent
that such restrictions preserve the quality of suburban living by limiting the number of newcomers, existing
suburban locations will then reap capitalization gains; and excess demand will be contained by price.
(Restrictions on new developments depress the price of any individual property or unit of land, but convey
favorable external effects can be presumed to be positive as long as they have support of the locality as a
whole.) This is the auction process of matching positional goods to increasing demand that was discussed
previously in the context of limited availability of scenic property.
>
> As growth in material productivity adds to effective demand for living in environments that are socially or
physically scarce, the excess pressures of demand on these facilities lead either to a deterioration in their
quality, or to protection through exclusion, including exclusion by price. ... The second course―protection
through exclusion―involves a hidden redistribution of economic welfare in favor of those established in the
areas at the expense of those attempting to move in (including existing residents seeking more house room).
People living in the protected areas gain and people excluded from them lose. These transfers will often be
regressive, accruing to the rich at the expense of the poor. Explicit measures of redistribution in the reverse
direction would be needed to counter this latter influence.
>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:09 PM
21
> The uneven incidence of implicit benefits from zoning or planning controls on different individuals and
groups, related in part to their past income, has become an important and largely hidden element in economic
inequality in modern societies.
The "explicit measures of redistribution" are not seen in Palo Alto, due to the protections of Prop 13. Prop 13 is
rent control for landowners, and is counterproductive for the very same reasons.
Now, I would only hope that Palo Alto residents who benefit from Prop 13, before supporting exclusionary
measures, would bear the weight on their conscience of the real suffering of the landless and housing insecure. I
hope they will bear the weight on their conscience of the destruction of the environment that they have created
through long commutes. They are certain to get the zoning plan that they want, at any rate.
In the meantime, I invite more discussion about economics, as well as discussion of morality and fairness. I see
real hope by opening up dialogues on these topics, in that it gives us the language to discover what common
ground we can find, and not simply stump for the outcomes that are in our personal best interest.
Thank you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/25/2017 12:10 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Clerk, City
Sent:Tuesday, October 24, 2017 11:36 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Statement Re: Draft Comprehensive Plan Review
Attachments:Council Statement 10-23-2017.docx
Thanks,
B‐
Beth D. Minor | City Clerk | City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue| Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650‐ 329‐2379 E: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org
City Clerks Rock and Rule
From: Michael Hodos [mailto:mehodos@mac.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:26 AM
To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Statement Re: Draft Comprehensive Plan Review
Hi Beth!
For the record, please see the attached file that reflects the comments I would have made last night to the City
Council but for the fact that I was unable to stay after 10 PM when the Council finally got around to addressing Comprehensive Plan issues.
It would be greatly appreciated if you would add the statement to the minutes of the meeting.
Thanks!
Michael Hodos
Michael
mehodos@mac.com
Statement to the City Council by Michael Hodos
Regarding Draft Comprehensive Plan Review
23-OCT-2017
Mr. Mayor and Council Members:
“It [Comp Plan] encourages commercial enterprise, but not
at the expense of the City’s residential neighborhoods.”
It is that statement in the current Comprehensive Plan that
over time has inspired and emboldened large numbers of
residents with the courage and confidence needed to protect
and improve their residential neighborhoods.
We have done this by getting involved in city governance . . .
serving on committees, commissions, stakeholder groups and
the like, not to mention coming to City Council meetings to be
hear and be heard.
Why would you discourage such citizen participation by
allowing this one important statement to be stricken from the
new Comprehensive Plan?
Thank You
Michael Hodos
944 Bryant Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:10 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James
Subject:fiscal implications of the Comp Plan alternatives
Below are some facts from the fiscal impact report conducted as part of the EIR contract and data from
the county assessor's office. My take on these facts is that the "slow commercial growth and focus primarily or exclusively on BMR housing" is bad policy for the city's fiscal sustainability though I do favor aggressive efforts to expand BMR housing.
There is also data, which I will expand later with data from the city's taxable sales reports, that shows
that retail will suffer under this agenda, which is opposed to the broadly held goal of the city.
Here is what I found looking at those reports.
A fiscal impact study was conducted on Comp Plan alternatives that include a range of growth both higher
and lower than the council’s preferred growth scenario.
The principal conclusions quoting directly from the study presented to council are:
The net revenue generated for the General Fund under the Comprehensive Plan Update
scenarios result from robust revenue generating potential and modest cost implications
attributable to growth. On the revenue side, property tax-related City income is anticipated to be
strong, given the high value of real estate in Palo Alto. In addition, this analysis projects significant sales
tax revenue will be generated by new residents and workers. On the cost side, the City is well positioned
to expand to meet marginal increases in demand for City services without dramatic increases in operational cost.
Though the Comprehensive Plan Update scenarios are likely to generate net revenue for the
General Fund, it is notable that even the most aggressive growth forecast will have a relatively
modest net effect on the General Fund.
Other findings from the study include:
--Most sales tax revenues come from visitors and businesses, not residents. In 2015 the study reports 48% of sales tax revenue came from visitor spending, 41% from local employees and business spending and 11% from local households.
--Most hotel revenues (transient occupancy taxes) come from businesses (44%) visitors to Stanford and
other reasons (48%) and 9% from household visitors.
--Over 2/3 of utility users’ revenues come from non-residential customers.
Although it was not covered in the fiscal study, it is true that the recent growth in infrastructure funding
has come from the increase in the transient occupancy tax paid mainly by businesses and visitors.
At the council meeting last Monday, some members of the audience voiced support for limiting commercial employment growth and focusing new housing primarily on housing for low income residents—those
eligible for below market rate (BMR) housing.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:42 AM
2
I support more BMR housing and would be willing to support a local bond measure for more funding. And I
hope those in support will rally for the Palo Alto Housing project now before council and without adding
restrictions that boost costs, lose tax exempt funding and basically kill the project.
But the fiscal impacts for the city (and school district) of limiting commercial growth and focusing primarily on BMR housing will reverse the findings of the fiscal impact study and create additional fiscal stress on the city at the same time we are trying to fund services for residents and deal with rising retirement benefits.
We see above how businesses and their visitors and employees contribute to hotel and sales tax
revenue. What moves the needle on property taxes? I share two data points from the Santa Clara County
Assessor Report for fiscal 2016-17. Both refer to county wide data.
--only 9% of the increase in property tax revenue came from the 2% inflation increase each existing property owner (like me) pays. 20% came from new construction, 7% from business personal property and the largest share by far from change of ownership (49%). Technical adjustments accounted for the
rest of the increase
--only 5% of county assessed valuation comes from the generation (1979-88) when Nancy and I bought
our first house. 80% of residential valuation and 78% of non-residential valuation comes from
construction and transfers in the last 20 years.
So here are my suggestions for the Comp Plan.
Understand the results of the fiscal impact study
Build as much BMR housing as we can find funds, sites and projects that pencil out. But also build
market rate housing. The council has heard many reasons to support policies for housing that meet
or exceed the Comp Plan targets. Here are two not often mentioned. One, market rate housing is
needed to make the Comp Plan fiscally secure and as a bonus provide customers for retail and two,
if we build housing that older residents can move into if they wish and remain in their community, it opens up housing for new families AND creates tax revenue through the property transfer tax and higher new valuation
Continue with well-planned commercial development within the guidelines of the Comp Plan. The
fiscal study confirms common sense that commercial development is a major contributor to service
and infrastructure funding
The school district has property taxes as their primary revenue source. The data show that new development and high valued development is a primary contributor to school revenue growth through property taxes and impact fees. My 2% additional property tax contribution each year does not come close to covering normal cost increases.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:42 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Irv <irvb@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, October 27, 2017 8:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Comprehensive Plan
Dear Council Members:
I can't attend your re-hearing of the Comprehensive Plan issue but urge you to consider the following two articles (and especially the "Imbalance" link) while deliberating the future of our
city. Our job imbalance is far and away the highest in the region and as a result, there will always
be an unlimited demand for more housing and office space here. The result is that new
construction will, at best, have an insignificant effect on that demand or on housing costs.
Palo Alto is becoming virtually gridlocked, with more car, pedestrian and bike accidents,
with more noise and air pollution, etc. We're at a tipping point - please don't push us over
the cliff and make our city irreversibly unlivable with excessive office space and
unwarranted zoning changes.
I'm not an economist but "supply side" should apply here - unless we limit the number of
jobs we'll have an ever-increasing need to meet demand. The current Comprehensive
Plan is a wonderfully crafted document which carefully balances the concerns of both
businesses and residents. If your responsibility in public office is to serve the best
interests of Palo Alto, I urge you to reaffirm it.
Respectfully,
Irv Brenner
250 Byron Street
PA 94301
<Housing Prices and Buildout>
<Palo Alto Jobs Imbalance is Highest>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:42 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Sherry Listgarten <sherry@listgarten.com>
Sent:Friday, October 27, 2017 12:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Feedback on comp plan
Dear City Council,
Thank you for your work on this, and for extending the comment period. With so many eyes on this work, you have a great opportunity to bring the City together. Please embrace it.
Four brief comments:
1. Less R&D development. We already have far too much (3:1 imbalance), and it is already causing problems (esp congestion) that we don't know how to solve. Why not zero?
2. Housing for public service and school workers. Tech companies can move their jobs when things get too
crowded or too expensive here. But these city jobs cannot move, and their function is essential to the success of
our city. Please prioritize housing for these workers.
3. Services for families. Families will move here when we add more housing. Preschool and childcare are
particularly unaffordable and scarce today, per the 2016 survey, and will get worse. This is a big issue for
everyone, but women especially. Please do not add housing without knowing how we will address this.
Capacity for other family services is important as well: public schools, parks/recreation, etc.
4. Discourage large companies. We cannot be everything to everyone. I would like City policies that
discourage large companies from making their homes in Palo Alto, to make more room for startups and retail
and family services. This will help to maintain our culture, and foster our connections with Stanford and with
families. San Jose has much better infrastructure and space for larger companies.
Thank you,
-- Sherry Listgarten, 4075 Scripps Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:42 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:lchiapella@juno.com
Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 12:08 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:comp plan update
Dear City Council:
It is difficult to understand the proposed comp plan update without considering Stanford's GUP.
These are two different plans that drastically impact Palo Alto.
Who is coordinating these plans?
How are the combined impacts being addressed?
Who pays for the parking problems, traffic congestion, and housing shortage?
Sincerely,
Lynn Chiapella
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sandra Slater <sandra@sandraslater.com>
Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 10:02 AM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Filseth, Eric (Internal); Scharff, Gregory
(internal); greg tanaka; Wolbach, Cory; Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia
Cc:Keene, James; De Geus, Robert; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Comp Plan Petition Update
Attachments:PAF petition to Council- Comp Plan.pdf
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
We are writing again today to reiterate our support for the Comprehensive Plan draft as presented to
you, with our comments on specific areas of focus. We are looking forward to its speedy adoption
and to see your attention move towards implementation.
When we wrote to you last week, there were 184 of our fellow citizens who signed our petition
supporting this point of view. As of today, I'm pleased to let you know that this number has
increased to 261 (with new people signing every day). A vast majority are Palo Alto residents, from
both north and south Palo Alto; both renters and homeowners, young and old. Some are extremely
wealthy, and some are worried about their ability to remain in Palo Alto. These are your
constituents.
This has been a long process. Please accept the core of the plan (the housing targets, non-
residential limits and support for the TMA/paid parking), make your refinements, and move towards
implementation.
Attached, please find our petition and signatures.
Thank you for your time and deliberations,
Sandra Slater
President
Palo Alto Forward
" "' #
% # !"" " ' #)""( 0!$! ' "")"' " "
# " "" " !$
"+ %! '$'
" %,!# "!#!! +
# ' #" "" !$
! % $ % " ""
' !" "(& #! !# ' "'#
# 0! "" " "! " !! '% # "!.
!/
"# *
% " & #! '" # &!" ! "!
%") "'! #$ " & "!# ' #!
" % " !+"! " "" "" '
! "! !$ #! ! " % " " #!
$ % # "' !!# '+
!# "" " ! " "
,, % " % )
$) " ! ""' # "! " +
" " % #! %##!" ! &!" " " !)
""! ' ! $!!" ! $!)! )" !"
#" ' % " !+
" " #!0 #! " '
! !" # " # +" #"# ( !- #
!"$! # " !" " !,,""% # " " # !)
% ""' #% "("!+!# "#", #
$ !" # #! ) " !"" % " !" #
#! ! "! !!)& # % " "
#! $!" ! !" " &!" " "" ! #!
")#!"#!$" "" ) " +
' # #! "% "! + "0!""
"! %
$" " #! !" $!# ' "'+
')
"
. "
" % " "" "# ! /
Elaine Haight Kathy Johnson Vija Lusebrink Trina Lovercheck
Peter Maresca Marlayna Tuiasosopo Matthew Lewis Miriam Rotman
Linnea Wickstrom Carol Lamont Evan Goldin Debbie Mytels
Jared Helton Victoria Thorp Chris Colohan Megan Fogarty
Kyle Borland Gregory Stevens Mary Jo Levy Valerie Stinger
May Gaspay Kirtika Ruchandani Linda Henigin Dorsey Bass
Paul Heft Marianne Mueller Alma Phillips Katherine Bass
Gloria Cahuich
González Fred Kohler Chris Logan Joyce Tavrow
Mallary Alcheck Elizabeth Lambird Mary Beth Train Mike Greenfield
David Hirsch Lee Sendelbeck Nancy Smith Robert Millavec
Sue Gilbert Gail Price Ruth Consul Ellen Springer
Chao Lam Edward Hillard Aaref Hilaly Jean Dawes
Kathy Durham Kimberly Toth Emil Popov Catherine Crystal Foster
Dexter Dawes Neil Shea Petya Georgieva Laurie Spaeth
Theresa Chen Steve Pierce Drew Maran Marlene Prendergast
Bryan Silverthorn Jan Rubens Tahira Piracha Karen Douglas
Randy Mont-Reynaud Daryl Waggott Katharine Miller Loretta Castellano
Julia Weber Karen Kailnsky David Kleiman Lisa Peschcke-Koedt
Stephanie Martinson Joe Rolfe O'Malley Stoumen Diane Morin
Leah Friedman Diane Rolfe Jon Stoumen Don Barr
Margaret Rosenbloom Mila Zelkha William Macrae Jennifer Gonsalves
Nicole Lederer Aisha Piracha-Zakariya Patrick Pichette Mary Cudahy
Tory Bers Bonnie Packer Jan Skotheim Harvey Schloss
Ellen Smith Monica Stone Jeremy Hoffman Mike Buchanan
Vandana Arora
(Varanasi) Liza Hausman Markus Fromherz Aleksandar Totic
Lynnie Melena Steve Dr. Kadivar Carol Danaher Raul Rojas
Ellen Forbes Judy Adams Naphtali Knox Urs Hoelzle
Paula Collins Patricia Saffir Ozzie Fallick Josh Lehrer
Lisa Ratner Bob Wenzlau Julan Chu Jafi Lipson
Tony Carrasco Randy Popp Amy Sung Charles Salmon
Ellen Uhrbrock S Kleiman Nick Selby John Kelley
Maximilian Kapczynski Kyla Farrell Christy Dennison Lucinda Lenicheck
Sigrid Pinsky Gabriel Manjarrez Diane Bailey Elaine Uang
MarkAlain Dery Karen Schlesser Gina Dalma Mehdi Alhassani
Drew Dennison Carol Lippert Jeralyn Moran Charles Escobar
Mary McDougall Ros Broughton Llaquelin Diaz Quinsia Ma
Kanna Baba Nerissa Broughton Rubi Esquivel James Brandenburg
Karolina Werner Peter Allen Kathryn Johnstin Jarryd Domingo
Alisa Ambrosio Marc Miller Sherry Heller Loan Doan
Peter Sullivan Vimal Goel Rujuta Shah Chioma Ureh
Alex Antebi Paul Han Leena Sansguiri Colleen Willson
Manon Janssen David Fung Ryan Morris Rob Wilkins
Ian Mallace Christina Hood Jeanette Brosnan Georgina Mascarenhas
Henry Yu Titi Liu Vika Masalosalo Danny Ross
Al Yuen Tina Mondragon karin meyer Lauren Bigelow
Melinda Wedemeyer Sarah Bell Anton Monk Lisa Forssell
Amy Wu Serena Chung Clayton Nall Candice Gonzalez
Jane Tseng Angela Evans Hilary Glann Stefan Heck
Catharine Garber Iqbal Serang Jennifer Wong Lisa Bao
Lee Hoh Marylyn Genovese Jessica De Wit Sally Wood
George Herman Vangie Granadosin Ericka Villalobos Joy Sleizer
Patrick Ye Mike McNerney William Durham
Lisa Van Dusen Menka Sethi David Chan
Mary Jane Marcus Dawn Billman Yevgeniya Uyvova
Timothy Bauman Justine Burt Jack Goode
Susan Owicki Jeffrey Salzman Mary Minno
Anita Lusebrink Heidi Emberling Susie Hwang
Bret Andersen Jason Titus Jennifer DiBrienza
Nancy Shepherd A.C. Johnston Stephanie Seale
David Moran Grace Hinton Grant Dasher
Jillian McNerney Jessica Clark David Coale
Nick Martinelli Mark Schmitz Elizabeth Lasky
Diane Meier McHale Newport-Berra Amie Ashton
Sarah Flamm Mary Gallagher Greg Bell
Fred Glick Christine Boehm Lee Merkle-Raymond
William Riggs Jane Huang Steven Atneosen
Katia Kamangar Alexander Tsyplikhin Jared Bernstein
Sebastian Niestrath Jeanette Mihov Sheila Melvin
Stephen Levy
Sandra Slater
Annette Isaacson
Eric Rosenblum
"$
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 10:47 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James
Subject:Comp Plan EIR
The principal task of the EIR is to assess the impacts of growth alternatives identified by the council. The
staff and consultants have completed this task professionally and the EIR deserves approval.
The analytical part of the EIR focuses on different growth scenarios but not, by design, on quantitative assessment of changes in the behavior of existing residents, businesses and employees. So an EIR done 30 or 20 years ago would have identified additional students, and impacts on air, water and traffic. But all
measures except traffic have gotten better, not worse, as a result of changed behavior of residents,
businesses and employees.
The authors of the EIR recognized that the leverage to move the needle rests with the 95% of jobs and
people that will be here under any of the scenarios and did two things to focus our attention on this 95%. First there are the visual aids on pages 2-9,10 and 11 that show the weight of the 95% versus the small range of variation in the scenarios.
In fact the range for the lowest and preferred job range is 2,010 out of an expected 110,000 or so jobs in
2030.
Second, the EIR focuses on the many Comp Plan policies that apply broadly and have the power to move
the needle in a positive direction.
My perspective is that despite the acrimony that sometimes comes into this chamber or the online blogs, that this council and the prior council kept their eye on the ball and focused on the 95%.
You adopted two recommendations of the infrastructure commission--one, to increase funding for road
repair (we now have the best road conditions index around) and tw0-got the voters to approve a hotel tax
increase that is now helping us move forward on a public safety building, fire station improvements, new
parking garages and spending on bike and park improvements.
Finally, I want to comment on the 85% approval rating our city gets from residents as a place to live. I cannot think of any body that gets near an 85% approval rating--not the President, economy, Supreme Court, direction of the country, our governor.
So for me it is time to approve the EIR, move forward on the Comp Plan that I and other CAC members,
staff and you have been working on to get a good plan so that we can get to the policy implementation
stage asap.
Stephen Levy
365 Forest Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:06 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 11:09 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James
Subject:Revised Comp Plan EIR letter, left out major council achievements,
Replaces the letter I sent earlier today
The principal task of the EIR is to assess the impacts of growth alternatives identified by the council. The
staff and consultants have completed this task professionally and the EIR deserves approval.
The analytical part of the EIR focuses on different growth scenarios but not, by design, on quantitative
assessment of changes in the behavior of existing residents, businesses and employees. So an EIR done
30 or 20 years ago would have identified additional students, and impacts on air, water and traffic. But all measures except traffic have gotten better, not worse, as a result of changed behavior of residents, businesses and employees.
The authors of the EIR recognized that the leverage to move the needle rests with the 95% of jobs and
people that will be here under any of the scenarios and did two things to focus our attention on this 95%.
First there are the visual aids on pages 2-9,10 and 11 that show the weight of the 95% versus the small
range of variation in the scenarios.
In fact the range for the lowest and preferred job range is 2,010 out of an expected 110,000 or so jobs in 2030.
Second, the EIR focuses on the many Comp Plan policies that apply broadly and have the power to move
the needle in a positive direction.
My perspective is that despite the acrimony that sometimes comes into this chamber or the online blogs,
that this council and the prior council kept their eye on the ball and focused on the 95%.
You adopted two recommendations of the infrastructure commission--one, to increase funding for road repair (we now have the best road conditions index around) and two-got the voters to approve a hotel tax increase that is now helping us move forward on a public safety building, fire station improvements, new parking garages and spending on bike and park improvements.
Then you adopted a Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, adopted and expanded Residential Permit
Parking programs, funded the Transportation Management Association and have begun to approve
housing projects.
Finally, I want to comment on the 85% approval rating our city gets from residents as a place to live. I cannot think of any body that gets near an 85% approval rating--not the President, economy, Supreme Court, direction of the country, our governor.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:06 PM
3
So for me it is time to approve the EIR, move forward on the Comp Plan that I and other CAC members,
staff and you have been working on to get a good plan so that we can get to the policy implementation
stage asap.
Stephen Levy
365 Forest Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 4:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 3:44 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:City Council Meeting, 10/30/2017, Thank You to Palo Alto Representatives for
Participation in and Attendance during the Forum on Regional Planning, 10/29/2017
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and Council Members Dubois, Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kou, Tanaka, and Wolbach:
I attended Better Cupertino’s Forum on Regional Planning yesterday afternoon and would like to thank Council
Member and forum panelist Tom DuBois for sharing his ideas for responsible regional planning. Thank you to
Palo Alto Council Members Eric Filseth, Karen Holman, and Lydia Kou and Planning and Transportation Commissioner Doria Summa for attending the forum.
Palo Alto and nearby communities also enjoyed strong resident engagement at the Forum on Regional Planning.
Thank you to members from Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning and Real Community Coalition of East Palo Alto
and East Menlo Park for their support and attendance at yesterday’s event.
The forum included a panel discussion followed by a direct question and answer session that brought attendees
to the microphone to ask their own questions in their entirety without editing by anyone.
Here is one comment and question that drew applause yesterday afternoon as it addresses unsustainable office development, an issue essential for Palo Alto and Cupertino and every community in between:
“”…I am a concerned Cupertino resident and I want to address the elephant in the room, which everyone has
been skirting around which is office. We have a housing crisis. We have a transportation crisis. We have an air pollution crisis, and we are a semi-arid area—that whatever technology you talk about—if right now we are being told to watch how we flush, we are going to have a water shortage crisis, as well. Yet, how is it that on a
regional planning level it is at all (but impossible) to address the issue of over office development (when) that is
the root problem of (all of) our crises?”
Please keep the community member’s comment and question in mind as you consider tonight whether Palo Alto will take the necessary steps to reduce the burden on housing, infrastructure, water sourcing, and air quality by
limiting office development in our shared region.
Thank you, Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
Grassroots Groups with Supporters Who Attended Better Cupertino’s Forum on Regional Planning on 10/29/2017 + Silicon Valley Transit Users, svtransitusers.org
+ Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning (also a sponsor as of 10/29), sensiblezoning.org
+ Real Community Coalition of East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park (no Web site that I could find)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 4:29 PM
2
+ Save My Sunny Sky of Sunnyvale and Cupertino, savemysunnysky.org
+ Save Marinwood-Lucas Valley, savemarinwood.org
+ Citizen Marin, a coalition of 11 neighborhood groups, citizenmarin.org + United Communities 4 Sensible Development (omitted by accident from the original list), UC4SD.com
+ Housing Choices, housingchoices.org
+ Better Cupertino, bettercupertino.org
Elected Officials or Their Representatives Who Participate in or Attended Better Cupertino’s Forum on Regional Planning on 10/29/2017
Panelists and Moderator
Assembly Member Kansen Chu, District 25
Chappie Jones, San Jose City Council Member, District 1 Richard Bernhardt, CEO of Bernhardt Communications and Strategies Co, also a former Planning
Commissioner and Chamber of Commerce President for Sunnyvale
Tom DuBois, Palo Alto City Council Member
Yang Shao, Fremont Unified School Board, City of Fremont (Moderator)
Elected Officials and Representatives of Elected Officials in Attendance Eric Filseth, Palo Alto City Council
Karen Holman, Palo Alto City Council
Lydia Kou, Palo Alto City Council
Steven Scharf, Cupertino City Council Michael Goldman, Sunnyvale City Council
Larry Klein, Sunnyvale City Council
Teresa O’Neill, Santa Clara City Council
Mary-Lynne Bernard, Saratoga City Council
Tom Pyke, representative of Ro Khanna, Congressional District CA-17 Yvonne Chao, representative of Jim Beall, Senate District 15
Patrick Ahrens, representative of Evan Low, Assembly District 18
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 4:29 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 3:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Questions to Think About When Evaluating the Proposed Comp Plan
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members -
In today's editorial in the PA Daily Post, Editor Mike Price presents some basic questions that any
incumbent seeking reelection should ask themselves. This advice also applies to the process of studying, modifying, and voting on Palo Alto's proposed Comprehensive Plan. As you consider the proposed Comp Plan, please ask yourselves these questions about it:
1. Will it improve the lives of PA's residents?
2. Will it reduce traffic on PA's streets?
3. How will it affect the number of workers commuting in and out of Palo Alto every day?
4. Will it make it easier for PA's residents to find a parking place in town? 5. Will it improve our schools or add to their overcrowding? 6. Will it make it safer for school children walking or biking to school?
7. Will it help or hurt small businesses and neighborhood-serving retail?
8. Will it drive out affordable businesses in favor of expensive upscale ones?
9. Will it require future tax increases to maintain current levels of service?
10. How will it affect the affordability of housing in Palo Alto, especially for middle-income and service workers? 11. Will the primary beneficiaries of this Comp Plan be PA's residents, or land developers and the real estate industry?
12. In 15 years, how will this Comp Plan affect Palo Alto's quality of life score on the Annual Citizens'
Survey?
These are complex issues, best solved by a dedicated City Council and Staff. We residents are counting
on you to "have our backs". Thank You,
Ben Lerner
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:29 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Dave Price; Jocelyn Dong
Subject:Stewardship and Rooftops: October 30 City Council Agenda
Noise is certainly an issue. The staff report addresses negative neighborhood noise spillover. One
potential problem can be addressed by Council upfront. Thank you.
Please consider two unaddressed issues. I remember being startled when Larry Klein as a
Councilperson touted commercialized party venues as rooftop weddings. ie Larry's concept of a
vibrant downtown
#1 Who are the intended beneficiaries of rooftop spaces?
It would a failure of council stewardship for this narrow, creative workday benefit for tenants to morph
into active, after-hour venues for tenants, extended guests and paying customers.
Pleasant rooftops for tenants' workbreaks and lunch is one matter. However, we humans quickly play
beyond the rules. Rooftops are also inevitable places for many types of non-work recreation
such beer, wine, cheese and various smoked substances. Be careful for what you approve. Be
responsible for the intended consequences.
#2 Let's learn from the past.
Most Palo Altans and city staff have not internalized the Cuckoo Nest horror imposed upon
small sections of DTN. Noise spillover from Menlo Park's Cuckoo Nest haunted Downtown North
Neighborhood for months with no intervention from Menlo Park or Palo Alto officials. Call me or other
DTN citizens for more info on the Cuckoo history of office space morphing into a party
venue. Residents in DTN just learned that Cuckoo finances went cuckoo. Ongoing legal spats
among Cuckoo's principals are "enforcing" issues which were safely beyond the reach Palo Alto and
Menlo Park enforcement capabilities.
Any approved rooftop will create occasional code enforcement situations for commercial core
neighbors. Staff institutional memory is nil on this type of issue. Code enforcement of Palo Alto's
rooftops is likely to be worse than its institutional memory.
There are several roof top venues now and others coming online. Highest and best use for rooftops
warrants analysis not tossed out platitudes.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:48 AM
2
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 8:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>
Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 8:00 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:PAN Response to 285 Hamilton Prescreening Request for Roof Decks
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Councilmembers:
We, the co‐chairs and Zoning Committee members of PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods), are concerned that the
proposed roof deck amendment for nonconforming buildings will harm residents who live in our commercial
areas. Although the staff report indicates that the roof decks must meet “certain performance standards
related to the proximity of residential development," the proposed protections in the attached letter apply
only to “150 feet of any abutting residential zoning districts” – ignoring the fact that our commercial zones are
also increasingly residential.
The Downtown CD zone allows up to 1.0 FAR for residences. This is the same as RM‐40, our densest
residential zone. Many hope that more residences will be built downtown, taking advantage of the generous
FAR allowance. We could easily end up with more residents per acre downtown than in any R‐1 area. The
staff report says:
Roof decks on nonconforming buildings near residential land uses, especially single family zoned
properties are inappropriate.
Why then aren’t roof decks inappropriate in zones that contain residential land uses such as Downtown? We
also don’t understand the sentence’s implication that single family residences are more deserving of
protection that multi‐family ones. The intrusive noise, light, and loss of privacy from roof decks near multi‐
family residences will presumably harm even more people than those near single family properties.
The city should not rely on discretionary review or enforcement to protect residents from roof decks. Review
processes cannot protect residences that have yet to be built. And our enforcement mechanisms are ill‐suited
for evening noise complaints. Architectural Review Board member Wynne Furth pointed out at the March 17,
2016 hearing for 411‐437 Lytton that it was hard to get enforcement for conditions imposed on buildings. She
was speaking of a very similar situation, namely a proposed outdoor deck for employee functions at an office
building whose neighboring residents raised concerns about noise, light, and privacy intrusion.
The purpose of these large roof decks raises another concern. These decks aren’t just for a few employees to
get some fresh air on a break. Rather, they are designed for large‐scale employee events, which can be loud
and intrusive. Such events can instead be held indoors in restaurants. In fact, we want to encourage
Downtown offices to use our local restaurants and thus bolster our retail sector.
It seems unfortunate that this proposal stems from the desire of one tenant of a single non‐conforming
building to gain a non‐essential benefit but fails to address the much more vital goals of encouraging
residential and retail uses in our commercial areas.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 8:58 AM
2
Rather than support the roof deck proposal, either as a general change or as a “test case,” we suggest the
Council instead consider extending more of the protections our traditional residential zones enjoy to all our
other districts that allow residences. Doing so will make more of the city livable and attractive to residents
and seems both fair and appropriate, given our City focus on improving housing opportunities.
Thank you,
Sheri Furman, Co‐Chair of PAN and Zoning Committee Member
Rebecca Sanders, Co‐Chair of PAN and Zoning Committee Member
Jeff Levinsky, Zoning Committee Chair
Neilson Buchanan, Zoning Committee Member
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 2:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 2:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Use of Robots
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301
Elected Council Members:
I support the use of robots or other autonomous vehicles for commercial uses in Palo Alto providing that public safety is not put at
risk.
Please authorize their use with your vote.
Thanks.
Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA
• CITY OF PALO AL TO
MEMORANDUM
5
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: James Keene, City Manager
AGENDA DATE: October 30, 2017
SUBJECT: 10/30 Council Meeting Agenda Item 5: Regulation of Operation of
Autonomous Robots
Please find below responses to Council Member Kou's four additional questions received this
morning, Monday, October 30, 2017 in regard to Item 5: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing
the City Manager to Regulate Operation of Personal Delivery Devices, Also Known as
Autonomous Robots within the City of Palo Alto.
Q.1. In your staff report, the use of "a handful of companies" and "more than one POD
operator", exactly how many operators? Limit the number of operators to 2 In business
districts.
A.1. Staff is only aware of two companies that have expressed interest at this time.
Q.2. Detailed procedure for enforcement, especially because there are so many
departments involved. Staff report mentions 4 departments and others. I don't want to
find out the department passing to the compliant to other department and giving
people the run around.
A.2. The encroachment permit would be issued through the Development Services
department, which was designed precisely for this kind of multi-departmental
coordination.
Q.3. After the pilot program ends and if the City chooses to proceed or continue
allowing PDDs, it should be through a public hearing and not on consent calendar.
A.3. Staff would have no objections to posting any future permanent program as an
Action Item.
Q. 4 The Interim Autonomous Robot Regulations state a pilot program terminate date,
but the Resolution does not have a date of termination.
A. 4. Staff has revised the attached Resolution to reflect the same termination date.
NOT YET ADOPTED
Resolution No. ________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager
to Establish a Pilot Program for the Operation of Personal Delivery Devices,
also known as Autonomous Robots in the Public Rights of Way
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations.
a. The City of Palo Alto desires to implement a pilot program to temporarily allow the use
of Personal Delivery Devices (PDDs), also known as Autonomous Robots for the purpose
of delivering goods from Palo Alto businesses to Palo Alto customers.
b. The use of the PDDs, activated by customers’ smartphones, will initiate the delivery of
purchases when convenient for the customer and the robots will deliver the items
directly to the customer’s location.
c. PDD technology may reduce the inefficiencies associated with failed deliveries, facilitate
the return of unwanted goods, and reduce the number of vehicle trips and the resultant
emissions associated with the delivery of goods from local establishments.
d. Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 12.09 sets forth regulations applicable to the
operation and maintenance of equipment in the public rights of way and Chapter 12.12
authorizes the City Manager to issue permits for structures encroaching on public rights
of way, but the City does not currently have a regulation that specifically addresses the
operation of PDDs on City sidewalks, crosswalks and other public rights‐of‐way.
e. PDDs are an emerging technology with an unproven track record with respect to public
safety and impacts on the flow and circulation of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle traffic.
Additional regulation is necessary to ensure the safe and harmonious use of sidewalks
and public rights of way in the City of Palo Alto consistent with the public health and
welfare.
SECTION 2. Pilot Program Regulations.
a. PDD means a motorized device used to transport items, products, or any other
materials, and that is guided or controlled without a human operator sitting or standing
upon and actively and physically controlling the movements of the device.
b. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to adopt, and from time to time
amend, regulations governing the operation of PDDs within the City of Palo Alto. Such
regulations shall address, at a minimum, the following topics:
1. Maximum speed;
2. Areas of operation;
3. Paths of travel;
4. Additional precautions to ensure safe and convenient pedestrian circulation.
NOT YET ADOPTED
c. The pilot program authorized under this resolution shall expire upon the earlier of
December 31, 2018 or the adoption of an ordinance regulating autonomous robots by
the Palo Alto City Council.
SECTION 3. Environmental Review. The Council finds that the adoption of this
resolution is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act because it can
be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of a significant effect on the environment as a
result of the PDD pilot program.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
Deputy City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Development Services
_____________________________
Director of Public Works
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Svendsen, Janice
Sent:Thursday, October 26, 2017 5:16 PM
To:ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email; ORG - Clerk's Office
Cc:Eggleston, Brad; leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique; Gitelman, Hillary; Flaherty, Michelle;
Shikada, Ed; Keene, James; De Geus, Robert; Stump, Molly; Boyd, Holly; Sartor, Mike;
Portillo, Rumi; Blanch, Sandra; Perez, Lalo; Nose, Kiely; Pirnejad, Peter
Subject:10/30 Council Meeting Questions for Items 5: Autonomous Robots, 7: Salary Schedule
for SEIU and UMPAPA Employees, 8: Library Equipment, 9: On-call surveying
consultants
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries
made by council members regarding the October 30, 2017 council meeting.
Item 5: Regulate Operation of Autonomous Robots – CM Kou
Item 7: Salary Schedule for SEIU and UMPAPA Employees – CM Tanaka
Item 8: Maintenance of Library Equipment, EnvisionWare – CM Tanaka
Item 9: On‐call surveying consultants questions – CM Tanaka
Item 5 ‐ Robot Deliveries
Q.1. Why consent and not a public hearing since this will be a surprise for many
residents?
A.1. Staff believed this item would be appropriate on the consent calendar given
the limited scope of the pilot (both in terms of geography and time) and the fact
that these delivery devices are successfully operating in several other bay area
jurisdictions.
Q.2. This is a pilot program, why 1‐year contract instead of 6 months? or even have
a 1‐year with quarterly reviews or 6‐month review?
A.2. A one‐year timeline would provide staff with enough experience and time to
prepare a recommendation on a more permanent regulatory scheme (if that is
desirable). One year represents a maximum length for the pilot; however, the
City Manager may terminate the pilot at any time.
Q.3. What is the termination method if not successful?
A.3. From an operations perspective, the corresponding Encroachment Permit(s)
would be revoked, requiring cessation of operations. Also, if requirements need
to be adjusted, the City Manager would have the authority to amend regulations
during the course of the Pilot Program. At the end of the Pilot Program (or before
2
that, if that Council so desired), the Council could choose to cease the program or
continue it with new or different parameters.
Item 7: Salary Schedule for SEIU and UMPAPA Employees
Q.1. What are some specific examples of the "changes in work structure and
business needs” as mentioned in the report?
A.1. For example: The increased salary for the Gas Technicians is to compensate
for skills necessary for learning new technology and processes per changes in
industry standards.
Q.2. Will the recipients of the salaries with changes that were effective before
today's date (e.g. Electrical Equipment Technician ‐ Salary Change Effective
4/16/16) get compensation for the amount of pay they did not receive because the
salary schedule was not approved?
A.2. Yes
Q.2a. If so, is this extra compensation covered in the resource impact provided?
A.2a Yes
Q.3. What will the total financial impact be including the unfunded pension and
healthcare? Assume a 40 retirement lifespan and a 4% discount rate.
A.3. Currently, this calculation would require assistance from an outside actuary
consultant as the tools and expertise necessary are not readily available
internally. In addition, there is no policy rationale for staff to utilize these factors
for analysis. Actuarial assumptions are a future policy decision to be made by
council.
Item 8: Maintenance of Library Equipment, EnvisionWare
Q.1. Why are we agreeing to a five‐year contract? The city’s budget has been tight,
and to enter this agreement for a period spanning longer than a council person’s
term seems a little over‐done. Based on the type of service provided and the length
of the first contract, it should be easy to renew the contract again after three years
(like the first contract), if the city wishes.
A.1. Our reasoning had to do with guaranteeing the maintenance costs for two
substantial pieces of equipment which handle 70% of the total library circulation
(last FY: 1.5 million) over the next 5 years. We won’t stop using the equipment
and there is only one company that can do this work, so to know exactly what
we’ll be spending will allow us to adjust other budgetary items, should that be
necessary.
Item 9: On‐call surveying consultants questions
3
Q.1. What were the other bids for this project? Were they more or less expensive
than BKF Engineering?
A.1. Three proposals were submitted by BKF Engineers, Siegfried Engineering, Inc.
and Electrical Consultants, Inc. Since this is an on‐call contract rather than a
project, no “bids” were submitted. Task Orders will be issued when needed and
a scope and fee negotiated based on hourly rates submitted by the proposers.
The hourly rates were comparable for all three proposers.
Q.2. Why does surveying cost so much money? Where is the $450,000 specifically
going to? Labor cost?
A.2. Surveying is needed for the street maintenance program to obtain
topographic information to design new street improvement drainage features,
including curb and gutter replacement and installation of valley gutters. For
example, this three year contract will provide a survey for Page Mill Road to be
used to prepare improvement plans for a $950,000 Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) grant obtained by Public Works early this year. The contract will
also provide survey information for various streets in Barron Park that require
valley gutter design prior to the street resurfacing work. The primary cost is the
labor cost of the surveyors.
Q.3. How many more surveyors will there be with this new contract?
A.3. The number of surveyors will vary for individual task orders that are issued,
and is not known at this time. Typically, staff develops a task order scope and
schedule and a survey crew from the on‐call consultant performs the survey
(which can take up to two weeks), processes the data, and provides the
topographic information to City staff to proceed with the street design.
Q.4. Did only having one land surveyor with the last contract work well? Was BKF
the company hired for the last contract as well, or was it a different company?
A.4. For the last contract, the City contracted with Sandis for surveying services.
The company has various surveyors and civil engineers on staff to work on task
orders. The contract worked well for the street resurfacing program.
Q.5. On average, how many days of the year will these surveyors even be working?
A.5. Since this is an on‐call contract, the number of days per year is
unknown. The surveyors will work when task orders are issued.
Q.6. How much was the city paying in the last contract?
A.6. The previous contract was executed in 2014 with Sandis Engineers. The
contract was for $150,000 per year, not to exceed $450,000 over three years. The
staff report can be found here. The previous contract is identical to the proposed
contract with BKF Engineers. Out of the authorized $450,000, staff executed task
orders in the amount of $245,000 over the three‐year contract.
4
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 | 10/30/2017 7:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 25, 2017 5:02 PM
To:Stump, Molly
Cc:jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Reifschneider, James; Jay Boyarsky; Council, City; James Aram;
pressstrong@gmail.com; Keene, James; Watson, Ron; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external);
Perron, Zachary; HRC
Subject:BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U. S. 252 (1941)
You are a complete disgrace have zero knowledge of our constitution
and should be disbarred from practicing law anywhere....
“[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not
always with perfect good taste on all public institutions.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939)
even the expression of "legislative preferences beliefs" cannot transform minor matters of public
inconvenience or annoyance into substantive evils of sufficient weight to warrant the curtailment of
liberty of expression. Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 161.
--
"We don't print racy material, we just expose the "Naked" truth!!" sm
el lugar adecuado en el momento oportuno
Editor - Mark Petersen-Perez
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:celia chow <celia.cchow@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 26, 2017 10:09 AM
To:Yang, Albert
Cc:Atkinson, Rebecca; Gitelman, Hillary; Cervantes, Yolanda; jfleming@right-thing.net;
Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Re: Cell tower shot clock running out, no ARB hearing scheduled.
Dear Mr. Yang,
Thank you for your email.
Apparently, you misunderstood me. So let me try to be clearer this time about my purpose in writing.
What I am asking you to do is explain what Rebecca Atkinson meant when she wrote the following:
“For Cluster 1, the City believes the 150 day shot clock expiration date is November 29, 2017. Verizon had asserted that a 90 day
shot clock applies instead. Subsequently, Verizon prepared and signed an agreement with the City on September 21, 2017 that the 150 day shot clock will apply. Also see our Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.110(e) Permit Review ("Shot Clock") Time Periods, excerpt below. Verizon or any other wireless applicant is not simply entitled to consider their application approved after the shot clock expires. Additionally, the shot clock is established by an entity other than the City and is set forth presumptively as a reasonable time for the City to act (approve with conditions, deny, etc.). It is true that if the City does not act (actions include deny, approve with conditions, etc.) in that time, then the applicant may sue the City. In that proceeding, the City can argue that a longer period of time was reasonable given the particular circumstances of the application. Prior to any of that, if the City needs additional time for application processing, the City will approach Verizon about extending the shot clock. Please note that this is quite common – it would be a tolling agreement for a mutually agreed upon extension of time. Meanwhile, the City is still working to schedule an ARB meeting on the Cluster 1, but a specific meeting date has not yet been officially scheduled at this time. We still have a lot of analysis to complete on the Cluster 1 application before we can schedule. When a meeting is scheduled, it will be posted into our permit tracking system under status remarks. Notice will also be posted in the newspaper about ARB meetings and postcard notices
will also be mailed out to residents within the mailing radius outlined in our Municipal Code. I am awaiting direction from my
Director on if there any other additional notifications beyond what I have described above.”
If my interpretation of her words—an interpretation expressed in my October 20th email to her—was
incorrect, then please tell me, in plain English, what she did mean.
Sincerely,
Celia Chow
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
2
Dear Ms. Chow,
I’ve been asked to respond to your correspondence below. While I understand your desire for certainty and simple yes
or no answers, the interaction of federal, state, and local laws on wireless telecommunications often precludes us from
making the sorts of definitive statements you are seeking. This is particularly true with respect to potential litigation,
which is inherently uncertain. I can, however, assure you that City staff are hard at work to ensure that these
applications are processed pursuant to our wireless code and that Palo Alto residents have an opportunity to express
their interests on the proposed installations.
Sincerely,
Albert S. Yang | Deputy City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@cityofpaloalto.org
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may
not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in
error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: celia chow [mailto:celia.cchow@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 10:05 AM
To: Atkinson, Rebecca; Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Architectural Review Board
Cc: Jeanne Fleming; Cervantes, Yolanda
Subject: Re: Cell tower shot clock running out, no ARB hearing scheduled.
Dear Rebecca,
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to get back to me. I am glad you and your colleagues are keeping a
close watch on the shot clocks, and I trust you are pleased that we residents are as well.
What I understood you to say is:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
3
1) if November 29th, the date which the shot clock on Cluster One runs out, is fast approaching and Palo Alto’s decision‐
making process has not been completed, the city will negotiate a later date with Verizon;
2) if the city is unable to negotiate a later date with Verizon and Verizon sues the city, the city will win; and
3) more generally, there’s no way those cell towers in Cluster One are going to be installed unless the city has approved
them. Is that correct?
I know you are busy, and a simple “yes” or “no” would be fine.
Thank you very much for your help.
Sincerely,
Celia Chow
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hello Celia Chow.
Thank you again for your email.
Please note that I did not say that “there were no plans for the ARB to hold public hearings.” I did say “The Planning
Department did previously think that an ARB meeting on Cluster 1 might be possible to schedule in the November
timeframe, but an ARB meeting has not been scheduled at this time. We still have a lot of analysis to complete on the
Cluster 1 application before we can schedule.”
There are many understandings of the shot clock and how it works, so I am not surprised that it can be confusing. Let
me provide some clarifications to see if they help out:
For Cluster 1, the City believes the 150 day shot clock expiration date is November 29, 2017. Verizon had asserted that
a 90 day shot clock applies instead. Subsequently, Verizon prepared and signed an agreement with the City on
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
4
September 21, 2017 that the 150 day shot clock will apply. Also see our Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.110(e)
Permit Review ("Shot Clock") Time Periods, excerpt below. Verizon or any other wireless applicant is not simply entitled
to consider their application approved after the shot clock expires. Additionally, the shot clock is established by an
entity other than the City and is set forth presumptively as a reasonable time for the City to act (approve with
conditions, deny, etc.). It is true that if the City does not act (actions include deny, approve with conditions, etc.) in that
time, then the applicant may sue the City. In that proceeding, the City can argue that a longer period of time was
reasonable given the particular circumstances of the application. Prior to any of that, if the City needs additional time
for application processing, the City will approach Verizon about extending the shot clock. Please note that this is quite
common – it would be a tolling agreement for a mutually agreed upon extension of time. Meanwhile, the City is still
working to schedule an ARB meeting on the Cluster 1, but a specific meeting date has not yet been officially scheduled
at this time. We still have a lot of analysis to complete on the Cluster 1 application before we can schedule. When a
meeting is scheduled, it will be posted into our permit tracking system under status remarks. Notice will also be posted
in the newspaper about ARB meetings and postcard notices will also be mailed out to residents within the mailing
radius outlined in our Municipal Code. I am awaiting direction from my Director on if there any other additional
notifications beyond what I have described above.
The Planning Department tracks the shot clock carefully, but the City also has our City Attorney tracking this as one of
their many key roles.
I really hope that this clarification is helpful.
Please note that I have many analysis, coordination, other inquiries from the public and other items that I also need to
work on. I need to put any further questions on the shot clock in the queue amongst the questions that I have from
others for fairness.
Regards,
Rebecca
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.110 (e) Permit Review ("Shot Clock") Time Periods
(1) City review of application materials. The timeframe for review of an application shall begin to run when the application is submitted, but shall be tolled if the city finds the application incomplete and provides notice of incompleteness that delineates the missing information in writing. Such requests shall be made within 30
days of submission of the application. After submission of additional information, the city will notify the
applicant within 10 days of this submission if the additional information failed to complete the application. If
the city makes a determination pursuant to Section 18.42.110(e)(2)(i) that an application submitted as a Tier 1
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
5
eligible facilities request should be processed as a Tier 2 or Tier 3, then the Tier 2 or Tier 3 processing time, as
applicable, shall begin to run when the city issues this decision.
(2) Tier 1 processing time. For Tier 1 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the WCF application, together with any other city permits required for a proposed WCF modification, within 60 days, adjusted for
any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time.
(i) If the city determines that the application does not qualify as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request, the city
will notify the applicant of that determination in writing and will process the application as a Tier 2 or Tier 3
WCF Permit application, as applicable.
(ii) To the extent federal law provides a "deemed granted" remedy for Tier 1 WCF Permit applications not
timely acted upon by the city, no such application shall be deemed granted until the applicant provides notice
to the city, in writing, that the application has been deemed granted after the time period provided in Section
(e)(2) above has expired.
(iii) Any Tier 1 WCF Permit application that the city grants or that is deemed granted by operation of federal law shall be subject to all requirements of Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7) and 18.42.110(j)(1),
(2), (3), (4), (5) and (6).
(3) Tier 2 processing time. For Tier 2 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within
90 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions
of time.
(4) Tier 3 processing time. For Tier 3 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within
150 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon
extensions of time.
(5) Denial of application. If the city denies a WCF application, the city will notify the applicant of the
denial in writing of the reasons for the denial.
From: Atkinson, Rebecca
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 7:03 PM
To: 'celia chow'
Cc: 'Jeanne Fleming'
Subject: RE: Cell tower shot clock running out, no ARB hearing scheduled.
Hello Celia Chow.
Thank you for your email.
I am confirming receipt and that I am in the process of writing up information in response to your questions.
Regards,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
6
Rebecca
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: celia chow [mailto:celia.cchow@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 1:41 PM
To: Atkinson, Rebecca; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Gitelman, Hillary; Jeanne Fleming
Subject: Cell tower shot clock running out, no ARB hearing scheduled.
Dear Rebecca,
In your recent email (appended below), you said that there were no plans for the ARB to hold public hearings—public hearings that are
required before the ARB can make a recommendation—on any of Verizon’s proposed cell towers in October or November. I would
appreciate it if you would explain to me how that can be the case when, as you know, the shot clock on Verizon’s Cluster One runs out on
November 29th. Moreover, as you also know, if the City fails to act on Verizon’s applications by that date, the company is entitled to consider the applications to be approved.
In short, I am confused. I’m sure you and the Planning Department agree with my neighbors and me that under no circumstances should any cell tower shot clock simply be allowed to run out, so I would appreciate it if you would explain what is going on.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Celia Chow
(650) 327-5312
2090 Webster Street
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hello Celia Chow,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
7
Thank you for your email.
10/13/17:
The Planning Department did previously think that an ARB meeting on Cluster 1 might be possible to schedule in
the November timeframe, but an ARB meeting has not been scheduled at this time. We still have a lot of analysis to
complete on the Cluster 1 application before we can schedule. When a meeting is scheduled, it will be posted into our
permit tracking system under status remarks. Notice will also be posted in the newspaper about ARB meetings and
postcard notices will also be mailed out to residents within the mailing radius outlined in our Municipal Code. I am
awaiting direction from my Director on if there any other additional notifications beyond what I have described above.
The shot clock for Cluster 3 is still stopped, as I have not yet received a resubmittal.
Regards,
Rebecca
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: celia chow [mailto:celia.cchow@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 8:57 PM
To: Atkinson, Rebecca
Subject: Re: A formal request in regards to the Small Cell Installations in Palo Alto
Thank you for your detailed information. We always appreciate your help in providing requested information
to us.
Do you also know if the ARB has a hearing scheduled now for one or more of the clusters?
Thanks!
Celia
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hello Celia Chow,
Thank you for your email.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
8
As of 10/03/17:
It is my understanding that Vinculums/Verizon is in the process of hosting community meeting(s) that are required
prior to submitting more formal application(s). I haven’t received another formal application yet, but anticipate more
submittals toward the end of October. The applicant would know their own timeframe on this point.
The shot clock for Cluster 2 restarted, as I just received a resubmittal on Cluster 2 yesterday afternoon.
The shot clock for Cluster 3 is still stopped, as I have not yet received a resubmittal.
I don’t have any informal Preliminary Architectural Review application or formal Tier 3 Wireless Communication
Facility application yet from AT&T or T‐Mobile for proposed small cell nodes in the right of way, although there may be
some applications that are active proposed for private property.
It is my understanding that AT&T is working on putting together an informal Preliminary Architectural Review
application at this time.
Regards,
Rebecca
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: celia chow [mailto:celia.cchow@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 1:02 PM
To: Atkinson, Rebecca; Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject: A formal request in regards to the Small Cell Installations in Palo Alto
Hi Rebecca,
Please let us know if Verizon has submitted a 4th (or more) set of applications. Are the shot clocks for Cluster 2 & 3 are still stopped?
We also appreciate if you can tell us where the AT&T submission stands. And is TMobile submitting anything?
Thanks!
Celia
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Leah Schoolnik <leahjsch@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:18 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon installations
To member of the City Council of Palo Alto:
Please add my NO vote to the Verizon idea to install cell towers on existing poles.
NO.
Thank you,
Leah Schoolnik
2530 Greer Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650 856 8573
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:promiserani <promiserani@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cell towers
Dear City Council,
Please consider the issue of cell phone towers in residential neighborhoods and put them on the Council's agenda. Please also direct City Staff to use every possible tool to keep those towers out of our neighborhoods
and if needed, pass new ordinances towards that end. This is an urgent issue due to the proposal of 93 new
towers in Palo Alto neighborhoods and the potential impact on our children and health.
thank you Prerana Jayakumar
Midtown
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@right-thing.net>
Sent:Thursday, October 26, 2017 5:37 PM
To:'Palo Alto Public Records Center'
Subject:RE: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: W000957-101617 Cell Towers in Palo
Alto
Dear Yolanda Cervantes,
Thank you for this update.
As I understand it, you are telling me that it will take the City almost a month to “make an initial determination”
regarding my request for information that 1) is unequivocally part of the public record, and 2) has certainly already been
assembled.
If there are elements of my request that are holding the process up, I would appreciate it if you would tell me what
those are and what the stumbling block is. I would also appreciate it if you would provide me with access now to letters
sent by the public to the Planning Department and to all applications that telecom companies have submitted to the City
in the past twelve months.
Thank you for your help. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: Palo Alto Public Records Center [mailto:paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:28 PM
To: jfleming@right‐thing.net
Subject: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: W000957‐101617
‐‐‐ Please respond above this line ‐‐‐
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
13
10/24/2017
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of October 15, 2017, Reference # W000957‐101617
Dear Jeanne,
I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code
§ 6250 et seq.) received by the City on 10/15/2017.
Pursuant to Government Code section 6253(c), the City requires an extension of time to respond to your
requests. The requested records require searching for, collecting and appropriately examining a voluminous
amount of separate and distinct records from multiple City departments.
The City will provide an initial determination regarding your request by 11/8/2017.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me by responding to this
message.
Sincerely,
Yolanda Cervantes
Administrative Assistant
Planning and Community Environment
To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the [NAMEOFSYSTEM]
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Jackie Schneider <jackieschneider215@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 27, 2017 11:30 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please - no cell towers in Old Palo Alto
To whom it may concern.
I am a resident of Old Palo Alto and deeply concerned about the install of cell towers and more noise, more
noise and more noise. I am not referring to the construction, but rather constant humming and noise emitted throughout the day and night in our neighborhoods.
I understand that you are considering the approval to install 93 Verizon cell towers and more after that given
AT&T also wants to construct more towers. This approval would pave the way.
I am particularly disturbed by constant 24x7 humming. The attraction to this neighborhood is peace and quiet,
even beyond the aesthetics we all dearly choose to pay for. This would be lost. There is no doubt home values
would suffer, therefore city revenue too, and this would be irresponsible on the cities part, given this is within
your control.
Berkeley, Palos verdes, and other California communities have not allowed the towers and everyone has decent
cell coverage. These are NOT necessary and no one wants them. Verizon and other companies can find other
innovative ways to deliver their services and/or put the utilities underground as in Crescent Park.
Please take every step to defend our cities aesthetics, home values and peace and quiet. Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Jackie Schneider
M 650-814-9349
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:46 AM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Assim Gupta <assimg@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 28, 2017 4:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Regarding cell towers
I will like to add my voice to the petition below:
We, the residents of Palo Alto, ask our elected representatives on City Council to prohibit Verizon and all other
cell companies from installing their ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting towers in Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. Other California cities—including Berkeley, Calabasas, Irvine, Piedmont and Palos Verdes—
have succeeding in doing so, and we expect no less of our City Council. I especially believe that the
children's long term health is way more important than quality of cell signals - anyways why are the
drivers on their cell phones while driving?
We call on City Council: 1) to immediately hold its own public hearings on this issue; 2) to, in the strongest
terms, direct city staff and any experts who have been called in to advise the city to use every possible tool to
keep cell towers out of our neighborhoods; and 3) to, if needed, pass tough, new ordinances to accomplish that
end.
Assim
650-224-6775
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/1/2017 12:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bryan Chan <chan_bk@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 10:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proliferation of Cell Towers
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am a concerned resident in Palo Alto writing to you to strongly consider holding public hears about the proposed proliferation of so-called "small cell" towers throughout the city. SB 649 was recently vetoed by Gov.
Brown, who recognized that each local municipality has a right to determine whether or not companies like
Verizon and build cell towers anywhere they want.
Don't let the Verizon consultants fool you. They are telling you that its for "public safety"; however, at a recent meeting with residents, the same Verizon consulting firm said that most of the "small cell" towers will allow
"drivers passing through the city" to use 5G. Do we want to encourage drivers to use their cellphones even
more?
In addition, there are no safety studies demonstrating that these are actually safe. Just because they are "smaller" than the usual cell towers doesn't mean they are safe, especially if they will be located adjacent to
residences. Verizon always says that the FCC says they are safe; but did you know that the FCC safety
standards have not been updated since the 1980s? Did you know that the FCC limits for RF exposure were set
during the 1960s and 1970s and are now considered obsolete when compared to other countries including
China?
The reality is that residential neighborhoods don't need 5G when they already have high-speed broadband
internet wired to every home. We need Verizon to improve its technology so that it does not require "small
cell" towers next to homes to work before the City can consider a new Verizon network. Other cities have
stepped up and backed their citizens. What will our City Council decide to do?
Thank you,
Bryan Chan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/1/2017 12:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 8:37 PM
To:Gitelman, Hillary; Stump, Molly; Keene, James
Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:City Staff failing to adhere to California Public Records Act in responding to requests
for information regarding cell tower installations
Dear Ms. Gitelman, Ms. Stump and Mr. Keene:
Under the California Public Records Act, the City must respond to a formal request for information
within ten days.
I have made several requests of City Staff, all regarding the proposed installation of cell towers in
residential neighborhoods. All my requests were made over ten days ago, and all were copied to Ms.
Gitelman and to Vice-Mayor Ed Shikada. Yet the City has not provided me with even a subset of the
information I am seeking.
On the contrary, City employee Yolanda Cervantes has notified me by email that I will have to wait
until November 8th—that is, three and one-half weeks after my October 15th requests—to even
receive what she calls “an initial determination” in response to those requests. And City employee
Rebecca Atkinson has notified me by email that a separate request I made for information on October
18th (i.e., thirteen days ago) will not be fulfilled until Ms. Cervantes responds on November 8th to my
other requests.
I am writing to you to insist that the City of Palo Alto abide by the California Public Records Act and
immediately provide me with the information I have requested.
Please understand, I do not believe that Ms. Cervantes and Ms. Atkinson are rogue employees who
are, on their own, thwarting my requests for public information. I assume they are ignoring the law at
the direction of their supervisors.
A final point: Others in United Neighbors—for example, Celia Chow and Annette Fazzino—have also
sent emails to City Hall requesting information, emails that have been ignored completely (i.e., no one
ever responded to them at all).
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D.
JFleming@Metricus.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 8:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Carole Hyde <carole.hyde@paloaltohumane.org>
Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 8:01 AM
To:De Geus, Robert
Cc:Council, City; Alaee, Khashayar; Keene, James; Scottie Zimmerman
Subject:Closure of Palo Alto Spay/Neuter Clinic
Hello, Rob,
Thank you for your note about upcoming information on the status of the animal shelter and why the city’s
invaluable Spay/Neuter Clinic is closing.
The closure is a surprise. In Palo Alto Humane Society's discussions with city staff, Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter, and Pets In Need, no mention of this closure was ever made, including as part of a transition plan to a privatized shelter.
This closure is not good for the pet-owning residents of Palo Alto. You are asking them to make very
inconvenient travel in terrible traffic to clinics much out of the Palo Alto area; the closest one--Pets In Need—
while very good, does not provide spay/neuter services at their Redwood City facility to the full range of pets (cats and dogs only) nor to non-tame stray cats which make up almost half of all animals currently neutered at our city clinic. Non-availability of this service will mean a substantial increase in the numbers of un-owned
animals on our streets. The other clinics recommended are as far away as San Mateo or Santa Clara.
In addition to being a true detriment to the community’s residents, the closure of an income-generating
operation of Animal Services is very puzzling, especially as funding for Animal Services has been such an issue.
This issue could be solved with the services of a contract veterinarian. Other shelters do this and it has been
previously done many times before in Palo Alto.
We are uneasy about this open-ended closure of the clinic, especially as an agreement to privatize Animal
Services has not yet been reached. We urge you to reconsider this decision which will surely be met with a very
negative response.
Carole
Carole Hyde
Executive Director
Palo Alto Humane Society (PAHS)
p: (650) 424‐1901
P.O. Box 60715, Palo Alto, CA 94306
www.paloaltohumane.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/1/2017 12:54 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 01, 2017 8:04 AM
To:dprice@padailypost.com; Reifschneider, James; Council, City; Perron, Zachary; Watson,
Ron; SWebby@da.sccgov.org; sdremann@paweekly.com; bjohnson@paweekly.com;
Keith, Claudia; Keene, James; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky;
gsheyner@paweekly.com; jeramygordon@me.com; Reichental, Jonathan; bajadrew911
@aol.com
Subject:DMCA Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
What’s your next move Price.... File another bogas Digital Millennial Copy Act claim shutting down our
Twitter account again? You can’t hide or walk away from your past Price... And either can I asshole!
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
11/1/17, 6:40 AM
Editor @DavePrice94301 “Giving away news online is a dumb way to do business,” More #PaloAlto “News you cant trust” nyti.ms/2zoeP9K pic.twitter.com/iWHlVwhsNI
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 27, 2017 6:45 AM
To:Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external)
Cc:Watson, Ron; Lum, Patty; Council, City; Perron, Zachary; Keith, Claudia;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Reifschneider, James; Jay Boyarsky
Subject:Elder abuse
Now exceeds 6k views in combo with @PAFreePress... I will be back to picket the streets of Palo Alto Mr. Mayor and state that you advocate elder abuse....by taking no ACTION....
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Ann Michel <maryannm7@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 26, 2017 9:38 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Garden 🔒
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mary Ann Michel <maryannm7@gmail.com>
Date: October 24, 2017 at 6:47:18 PM PDT
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Garden 🔒
This message Slipped away before I finished.
This is a terrible idea. Rich,
white folk we are and now we are afraid. There are not many edibles this time of year and when
the garden is at its peak many gardeners do not harvest their produce. perhaps a better solution
would be to have a free table for those who need food. As far as sleeping , until we have better
possibilities for the homeless and more evidence of sleepovers in the garden I would not lock our garden.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Thank you for your service.
Mary Ann Michel
MAMichel
850 Webster Street
Palo Alto CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tom Richardson <tomrichardson87@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 25, 2017 12:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Here's an idea for difficult traffic
Tom Richardson 415-516-7416
Art Directors Guild Profile
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Richardson <tomrichardson87@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 7:29 PM
Subject: Here's an idea for difficult traffic
To: Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org, Roger P <roger.petersen@gmail.com>, Len Filppu
<lenfilppu@earthlink.net>
Not a very expensive solution used by a town in Iceland:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:43 AM
2
We need something like this in the Fairmeadow neighborhood which is plagued by cut-through traffic promoted
by the Waze app (Alma to Charleston to avoid the long light at Alma to Charleston and vice-versa and East Meadow to Charleston - Google and Freeway traffic, which endangers school traffic).
I spent my career painting big scenery for movies, TV and live theater and Rock-n-Roll, done stuff like this a
million times and even know the products to use on a street and where to buy them. What do you think, can we
give it a chance. I'll do it with volunteers with city support.
I propose the intersections of Starr King and Redwood, South Court and Redwood and Redwood and Carlson
Court.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:43 AM
3
I know these are all included in the Neighborhood Traffic Safety & Bicycle Boulevard Projects - Phase I, but how
about let's get going.
Tom Richardson
415-516-7416
Art Directors Guild Profile
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 29, 2017 12:40 PM
To:CAC-TACC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); ConnectedCity; Council, City; UAC
Subject:How Broadband Populists Are Pushing for Government-Run Internet One Step at a
Time
CAC members,
Here, below the "###" line, is a critique of "How Broadband Populists Are Pushing for Government-Run Internet One Step
at a Time," one of the nine things on staff's reading list to prepare for the 11-08-17 CAC meeting. (My comments are the
paragraphs beginning with "###".)
The authors of the paper work for the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF). ITIF is funded by the
incumbents.
http://stopthecap.com/tag/information-technology-and-innovation-foundation/
Generally, the paper doesn't really address the questions of whether Palo Alto could be successful at deploying a citywide
municipal FTTP network, or whether such a network would benefit Palo Altans. Rather, it just asserts that the incumbents'
networks are serving Americans well enough already, and that "government" interference in the "free market" of
telecom is somehow un-American.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
#########################################################################
http://www2.itif.org/2017-broadband-populism.pdf
How Broadband Populists Are Pushing for Government-Run Internet One Step at a Time
BY ROBERT D. ATKINSON AND DOUG BRAKE | JANUARY 2017
To most observers of U.S. broadband policy, it would seem that the regular and increasingly heated debates in this area
are about an evolving set of discrete issues: net neutrality, broadband privacy, set-top box competition, usage-based
pricing, mergers, municipal broadband, international rankings, and so on. As each issue emerges, the factions take their
positions—companies fighting for their firms’ advantage, "public interest" groups working for more regulation, free market
advocates working for less, and some moderate academics and think tanks taking more nuanced and varied positions.
### As an exception to this generality, public interest groups want to eliminate the barriers to municipal broadband
imposed by some states.
http://www.baller.com/wp-content/uploads/BallerStokesLideStateBarriers11-1-16.pdf
But at a higher level, these debates are about more than the specific issue at hand; they are subcomponents of a broader
debate about the kind of broadband system America should have. One side wants to keep on the path that has brought
America to where it is today: a lightly regulated industry made up of competing private companies.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:55 AM
2
### The Internet was first implemented and first made successful on the networks of phone companies that were heavily
regulated because they were, in effect, monopolies. The courts required that the infrastructure providers (the phone
companies) provide open access to Internet service providers (ISPs). The courts also required that the infrastructure
providers NOT be ISPs themselves. In other words, there was a structural separation between infrastructure providers
and ISPs.
Another side, made up of most public interest groups and many liberal academics, rejects this, advocating instead for a
heavily regulated, utility-like industry at minimum and ideally a government-owned system made up largely of municipally
owned networks.
### I see lots of advocacy for municipally-owned FTTP networks (whenever municipalities freely choose to deploy
them). I don't see much advocacy for "government-owned" systems other than municipally-owned networks, so I don't
know what the authors mean.
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) firmly believes the former model—lightly regulated
competition—is the superior one.
### What exactly does ITIF mean by "lightly-regulated"? They probably mean what regulation was possible
when broadband services were classified as Title I "information" services. But, for example, the courts have already said
that the FCC cannot require net neutrality for Title I services.
But if we are to get broadband policy right going forward, it’s this broader strategic issue we need to identify and debate,
not just narrow tactical matters.
--- page 2 ---
The loose coalition of self-described "progressives" pushing to change the structure of America’s broadband industry, a
group we term "broadband populists,"
### It is a cheap rhetorical trick to characterize one's opponents with a label that has negative connotations. Populism
sometimes connotes anti-intellectualism, but it's unfair to imply that all the arguments by advocates for municipal
broadband are anti-intellectual.
is unified in its disdain for a lightly regulated private structure, with many preferring government-owned and operated
networks. Despite this unifying interest, broadband populists have a variety of ideological underpinnings. Sometimes they
talk about policy like reconstructed liberal New Dealers, at other times they sound like cooperative, self-reliant utopian
localists, and still others, like socialist revolutionaries.
### If a "broadband populist" could be any of these, then there's no point in using the term, other than to confuse the
issue.
In the Roosevelt administration, liberal New Dealers rejected the rising socialist threat but wanted businesses, especially
utilities, to be heavily regulated. [1] Today, some broadband populists channel this same view, seeing broadband as akin
to roads and water pipes—natural utilities that the private sector can operate, but with government calling the shots. Law
professor and liberal advocate Susan Crawford, like a modern-day Ida Tarbell, argues that when it comes to broadband,
"America needs to move to a utility model." [2]
### These days, I think Crawford is advocating for requiring infrastructure providers to provide open access to their
networks to competing ISPs, so that competition among ISPs will result in competitive services at competitive
prices. Also, she's advocating for municipalities to deploy such infrastructures voluntarily, without having to be required to
do so.
Ben Scott, former policy director of the advocacy group Free Press, proclaimed in 2009 that "[i]ncreasingly the Internet is
no longer a commercial service, it’s an infrastructure. … What we’re witnessing at the FCC now is the logical next step
which is we are going to create a regulatory framework for the Internet which recognizes it is an infrastructure now and not
just a commercial service." [3]
### Obviously, the Trump-era FCC, under Chairman Ajit Pai, intends to undo this vision.
A second line of thought follows Eugene Debs and the various socialists and populists who advocated for government to
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:55 AM
3
take over production in many industries; today’s netroots populists want to do the same for broadband. Liberal journalist
and blogger Matt Yglesias tweets that the "US could benefit from a few doses of socialism: ‘postal’ banking, municipal
broadband, electrical utilities …" Robert McChesney, founder of Free Press and former co-editor of the socialist journal
Monthly Review, has stated, "What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private
property, but a public utility. We want an Internet that you don’t pay a penny to use." [4]
### The actual quote (from 08-09-09) is, "We want an Internet where you don't have to use a password and that you don't
pay a penny to use." Most advocates of municipal broadband would say that it's perfectly OK for the ISP to charge a fee
for providing Internet service. In this 05-11-10 article, Art Brodsky says the incumbents' minions are misquoting
McChesney.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-brodsky/a-little-rhetorical-trick_b_495428.html
But I don't know what McChesney meant.
In Susan Crawford’s more candid moments, she says that "by treating fiber as just like the street grid, or the tree canopy,
or electricity, or clean water, it’s part of what the city provides, in order for the free market to flourish above it. I mean, the
only way to do that is for the city to be deeply involved in the control and ownership of that infrastructure." [5]
Finally, a third narrative calls to mind the 19th-century utopian Fourierian cooperatists who advocated for intentional, local
cooperatives. [6] Many broadband populists reflect this Fourierian view when they assert that broadband is part of the
fabric of local life and should be owned by local governments or even better by self-governed neighborhood cooperatives.
The New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute often espouses this view, seeing broadband as something that
shouldn’t even rely on government, that individuals and neighborhood associations can provide on their own.
### This source lists 1,113 FTTP networks (as of 10-28-17), of which 202 are municipal and 50 are electric co-ops.
http://www.bbpmag.com/search.php
### From 1986 to 2000, Palo Alto was served by Cable Co-op. (It was a co-op but not an electric co-op.) It had to sell
out to the private sector because it couldn't obtain the financing necessary to upgrade its infrastructure from all-coax to
HFC.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/2000_Jan_7.CABLE.html
They write, "[C]ommunity-led networks around the world are already demonstrating a similar decentralized, cooperative
‘common-pool resource’ approach to designing and building networked communications technologies. This is not simply a
fusion of private (corporate) and public (government) forces, but rather relies on community leadership, skills, and
--- page 3 ---
expertise." [7] David Isenberg, the organizer of an annual gathering of broadband populists called Freedom to Connect
Conference, writes, "Structural separation is the ‘single payer rule’ of networks …" and that "it is the only long-term
enforceable, sustainable way to save the Internet and to preserve our investments in community broadband networks." [8]
### Most municipal broadband advocates think that structural separation won't be imposed by the FCC any time soon.
On the surface, many broadband populists present their case in instrumental terms: Broadband as a utility, either privately
or publically owned, would be superior to the current market-based system because it would deliver lower prices and
better services. But at its heart, their argument doesn’t depend on the relative performance of either system; it’s grounded
in an ideological conviction about who should own and control this key communications infrastructure.
### On what evidence do the authors assert this?
For them, lightly regulated, for-profit corporations have no place in America’s broadband infrastructure, even if it could be
demonstrated (which it can) that they deliver superior broadband performance.
### Where is the evidence for this? Longmont, CO, is delivering 1-Gbps symmetrical Internet service to residents (to
"charter members" who sign up within 3 months of when the service becomes available in their areas) for $49.95 per
month.
https://www.longmontcolorado.gov/departments/departments-e-m/longmont-power-communications/nextlight-
broadband/rates-and-services-gig-promo
Where is the private sector doing that? Chattanooga, TN, is delivering 10-Gbps symmetrical Internet service to residents
for $299 per month.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:55 AM
4
https://epb.com/home-store/internet#pricing
Where is the private sector doing that?
Many broadband populists are not motivated by pragmatics, but instead by an anticorporate, antimarket animus. For
example, Christopher Mitchell of the Institute for Self-Reliance
### Institute for Local Self-Reliance
reflects this underlying desire of the broadband populists when he says, "We really want to decentralize power. That’s the
end goal." [9]
### In an email message, Mitchell further said, "Decentralizing power is our end goal, which is why we favor municipal
networks, are hesitant about state networks, and oppose a federal network. Further ILSR as a whole focuses on the threat
large firms pose against local firms and communities. As such, we tend to support local private ISPs though we fear they
will be consolidated over time. This is very much pro-market, not anti-market. Our analysis shows that large firms with
significant market power distort and break markets, something ITIF never addresses. For ITIF, the bigger the better from
what I can tell. They assert without evidence that larger firms are more innovative. I don't believe that, with the exception
of some outliers like Bell Labs."
The broadband populists, regardless of their particular sect, do everything they can to present this broader debate as a
series of individual, tactical skirmishes over hot-button issues (such as protecting net neutrality, limiting the ability of ISPs
to monetize information, zero rating and usage based pricing, fighting mergers, etc.) because they know that if the debate
were about the strategic choice—private-sector broadband versus government-controlled broadband—most Americans,
consumers and experts alike, would favor the former model, not the latter.
### What about Pew study that found that 70 percent of Americans polled said that municipalities should be allowed to
build their own networks, and only 27 percent said they should not be allowed to do that?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/04/11/most-americans-want-to-let-cities-build-and-sell-
homegrown-internet-service/?utm_term=.63345fd7aaf3
Recognizing the unlikelihood of nationalizing existing broadband infrastructure, broadband populists’ tactics on individual
issues are generally in the service of their broader and longer-term strategic goal of moving the industry to a regulated-
utility model and ideally to full-blown government ownership.
This line of thinking, where incremental broadband policy "victories" further the ultimate goal of government ownership, is
clearly expressed in a recent Boston Review essay by Brooklyn Law School professor and New America Foundation
Fellow K. Sabeel Rahman, arguing for expanding the public utility model to online platforms. He writes that the FCC’s
order (which he calls a "ruling") classifying broadband as a common carrier:
[R]epresents a tentative first step toward the creation of an outright public utility. While reclassifying ISPs
as common carriers avoids full-blown imposition of rate regulations, the ruling also paves the way for
municipally owned and operated broadband, which may enhance the negotiating positions of municipal
governments trying to craft new franchise agreements with ISPs. [10]
### I don't see how reclassifying broadband services as Title II services "paves the way" for municipalities to
offer broadband services.
### In California, the incumbents can be franchised by the state, so municipalities have no power to negotiate the
franchise agreements they'd like.
Susan Crawford is also quite clear in her view of net neutrality as a politically expedient stepping stone to full government
ownership. In a blog post titled "The Limits of Net Neutrality," she writes that while she is "just as hardcore about net
neutrality as anyone," and celebrates the Title II classification, "it’s only a beginning, and stopping here would be
--- page 4 ---
a mistake. It’s a temporizing approach to a deeper, structural dilemma: how much power to give the private providers of
what should be a utility service." [11] She goes on to describe the next steps after the Title II order was upheld at the D.C.
Circuit:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:55 AM
5
Now that the courts have given the FCC authority to regulate internet access, it’s time to exercise that
authority. The optimal U.S. approach: put in place city-owned (and, ultimately, federally regulated)
conduits that reach all houses and businesses, or at least get very close to them, and fill them with city-
owned dark fiber.[12]
Broadband populists like Crawford are also well aware that to advance their agenda requires softening up the terrain with
a full-scale assault on the integrity and viability of the private-sector, competitive, and innovation-based ISP model. That is
why they work so hard to distort data to purportedly show that the United States is falling behind other nations in
broadband, that there is not enough competition, that prices and profits are too high, that providers have nefarious
motivations (to block legal websites at their whim); that broadband is a fundamental human right that only government can
serve, etc. These arguments and claims need to be seen for what they are: propaganda designed to discredit the current
model so that the preferred model of government or even community-run networks becomes the dominant one.
In short, the populist case against the market-based model is not grounded in an analysis of outcomes or performance. It
is strategic, in service of a broader political and economic goal, which in turn is based on ideological preference for one
structure over another. Thus, broadband populists’ advocacy for or against particular policies (e.g., net neutrality, muni
broadband, mergers, Title II coverage, privacy, set-top boxes, Wi-Fi) is based, despite their rhetoric about protecting
consumers, on advancing one and only one goal: limiting the viability of the private-sector, competition-based model by
restricting revenue, adding costs, and spurring government-provided alternatives.
The problem with this approach is that populists are motivated more by their visceral distrust of corporations than an
empirical assessment of what industry structure best supports the goals most Americans want from ISPs: efficiency,
innovation, quality, reasonable prices, and adequate coverage. And by obscuring the real nature of the strategic debate at
hand, policymakers may not foresee the long-term implications of individual tactical decisions.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PRIVATE-SECTOR, COMPETITIVE MODEL
Judging by their words and actions, broadband populists know that their best chance of attaining their long-term goal of
government ownership of communications infrastructure is not to seek that end immediately but rather to win tactical
battles.
### Most advocates of municipal broadband want the infrastructure in a municipality to be owned by the municipality --
not by "government" in general.
Individual issues are chosen and shaped on the one hand to achieve rules and regulations that constrain private sector
broadband business models—for example, regulating broadband under Title II—while on the other hand supporting the
emergence of government alternatives, such as municipal broadband or cooperatively maintained Wi-Fi networks.
--- page 5 ---
Winning these tactical battles depends on softening up the ground through a long intellectual assault designed to call into
question the efficacy of the private-sector model. Absent nagging doubt over private-sector success, political support to
constrain the private model and enable the public one will be fleeting.
Law professor Tim Wu, in explaining how broadband populists prevailed in their fight to have broadband classified as a
Title II communications service, said, "Most true revolution is styled as a counter-revolution." [13] In other words, the
community sought to present their arguments as if they were preserving the status quo (free speech, openness, etc.)
rather than engaging in a dramatic change, that is weakening of the for-profit business model. Perhaps the most acute
example of this is the framing of the recent Title II fight as "reclassification," as if it were a return to normalcy, despite the
fact that neither wireless nor cable broadband ever was legally classified as a telecommunications service under Title II,
and DSL only for a relatively short period of time.
### FCC made its Carterfone ruling in 1968.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/06/carterfone-40-years/
So dial-up enjoyed a classification even better than Title II.
Coupled with a push for regulations that constrain the private-broadband business model, broadband populists have
attempted to normalize government-owned networks through a never-ending and relentless campaign to paint U.S.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:55 AM
6
broadband performance in the worst possible terms: Prices and profits are too high, speeds too low, coverage too limited,
etc. In other words, the private-sector model fails. Toward that end, they make a variety of claims.
Claim 1: America is far behind other nations in broadband and getting worse.
There is a cottage industry of reports decrying how far the United States is falling behind in broadband. If the populists
can make it appear that other nations, presumably ones with a more government-directed open-access models or even
government-owned networks, are more successful than the United States, then it creates doubt about the U.S. industrial
organization of intermodal competition (i.e., competition among cable, telephony, and wireless broadband). But there are
always several problems with these claims. These reports usually involve significant exaggeration, making general policy
proclamations based on cherry-picking foreign fiber networks of limited geographic scope. They also often rely on
advertised speed data, which puts U.S. firms at a disadvantage rankings-wise because U.S. networks consistently deliver
on what is advertised; this is not so in foreign countries.[14] Furthermore, these reports do not recognize the unique
geographic and demographic conditions of America: in particular, that the United States is a much more suburban and
rural nation and has much higher rates of poverty than the other OECD nations that it is compared with. [15]
Susan Crawford provides a case in point of exaggeration. In her jeremiad of a book, Captive Audience, she claims that
U.S. speeds ranked only the 22nd-fastest in the world. [16]
### Crawford (at page 336) was citing The Economist.
12-24-10: "The Difference Engine: Politics and the web"
https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/12/net_neutrality
### And:
04-20-10: "American Broadband Speeds Continue to Decline: Romania, Latvia, and Czech Republic All Beat U.S.
Broadband"
http://stopthecap.com/2010/04/20/american-broadband-speeds-continue-to-decline-romania-latvia-and-czech-republic-all-
beat-u-s-broadband/
"Akamai’s State of the Internet Report for the final quarter of 2009 (report only available with permission from Akamai)
rates America 22nd fastest in broadband connections, averaging 3.8Mbps, and declining. Speeds dropped 0.9 percent
for the quarter, 2.5 percent for the year."
In fact, at the time she wrote this, Akamai rankings (which uses a highly accurate analytics platform) had America at
number nine in the world for download speed. [17]
### Reference 17 cites Akamai rankings from 1st quarter of 2013, and U.S. is ranked 9th (page 14).
https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/akamai-q1-2013-state-of-the-internet-
connectivity-report.pdf
Crawford's book, Captive Audience, has a copyright date of 2013, but any given piece of the book could have been
written earlier.
Ninth is no reason to rest on our laurels, but not the failure populists depict, and certainly doesn’t justify a radical change
in policy.
### This Akamai blog item
04-17-13: "Clarifying State of Internal Report Metrics"
https://blogs.akamai.com/2013/04/clarifying-state-of-the-internet-report-metrics.html
says that the speed tests by various entities are measuring different things in different ways, so it's not surprising that test
results vary.
### In any case, if a municipality wants to provide better Internet access to its residents and businesses than they can get
from the incumbents, what's wrong with that?
Robert Reich, in his attempt to lay the intellectual groundwork for broadband as a utility, makes even wilder claims,
lamenting that "the
--- page 6 ---
United States ha[s] some of the slowest [broadband] speeds," among advanced nations. This simply isn’t true, and Reich
offers no support for his assertion. [18]
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:55 AM
7
The latest Akamai data has the United States ranking 12th in average speed, just 10 Mbps behind South Korea, the
nation with the fastest average download speed in the world. [19]
### Akamai's Q1 2017 report says (PDF page 14) that for IPv4 Internet speed,
https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-
report.pdf
the United States ranks 10th, at 18.7 Mbps. South Korea ranks first, at 28.6 Mbps. Anyhow, still no reason to rest on
laurels.
Potentially contributing to the slide from 9th to 12th is the fact that Akamai continues to assess only data from connections
using Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) for its speed comparisons. The company has been attempting to include IPv6 data
in its metrics, but the process has proven more complicated than expected. [20] This means that consumers using newer
operating systems, newer networking equipment, and the latest access technologies are systematically excluded from
Akamai measurements. The United States has been a leader in in IPv6 adoption, hovering between third and fifth best
(here, the top spot belongs to Belgium), so it will be interesting to see if there is any significant movement in U.S. speed
rankings once IPv6 data is included. [21]
According to FCC data, measured average download speeds in the United States have quadrupled in the past five years,
and increased by nearly 30 percent in the last year alone. [22] Quadrupling output is plainly inconsistent with claims of
rapacious monopolies constraining supply.
Figure 1: Ranking of percentage of connections over 15 Mbps [23]
### Here's a text version of the data in Figure 1:
### Percent of Connections Over 15 Mbps -- United States
1. Delaware -- 58%
2. Rhode Island -- 58%
3. New Jersey -- 55%
4. Washington DC -- 55%
5. Massachusetts -- 54%
6. Maryland -- 53%
7. Virginia -- 50%
8. New York -- 49%
9. Pennsylvania -- 45%
10. Connecticut -- 44%
### Percent of Connections Over 15 Mbps -- Global
1. South Korea -- 61%
2. Hong Kong -- 49%
3. Norway -- 48%
4. Singapore -- 46%
5. Japan -- 46%
6. Sweden -- 43%
7. Switzerland -- 42%
8. Netherlands -- 41%
9. Latvia -- 40%
10. United States -- 39%
### NOTE: California isn't in the top 10 states. Anyhow, my advocacy of citywide municipal FTTP for Palo Alto isn't
based on where California ranks.
More important than raw download speed is the percentage of connections above a certain threshold speed. After a
certain data rate, measurements are less about the ability for citizens to leverage broadband to productive ends and more
about how many simultaneous video streams of what resolution an average household can run. The United States claims
a respectable 10th place on the percent of connections above 15 Mbps. Compare individual
--- page 7 ---
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:55 AM
8
U.S. states to other countries, sometimes a better comparison in terms of population and density, and the "falling behind"
mantra quickly falls apart.
The point is not that we have "won" the broadband game—with 61 percent of U.S. connections under 15 Mbps, certainly
there is still work to be done (note 39 percent are less than 10 Mbps and only 12 percent of U.S. connections are less
than 4 Mbps). [24] The point is that when U.S. states with policies and geographies amenable to broadband deployment
stack up competitively against Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated places on the planet, it is hard to see a
failure that justifies radical policy changes.
The data are clear: There is nothing justifying a fundamental shift away from facilities-based competition to highly
regulated or government-operated broadband. [25] The data indicates that "facilities-based competition has served as the
primary driver of investments in upgrading broadband networks." [26] Likely the best way for the United States to jump up
the international rankings would be more generous programs to support digital literacy and massive subsidies to build or
upgrade networks in high cost rural areas.
### If "massive subsidies" subsidize obsolete equipment (e.g., 10/1 Mbps), what's the point?
https://muninetworks.org/content/california-lawmakers-pass-61-mbps-smackdown-rural-constituents
Anyhow, Palo Alto isn't going to benefit from this kind of subsidy.
### Later, the authors say that competitive overbuilding is wasteful, so apparently the incumbents want the "massive
subsidies" only for their own networks (or for places that have never had a network).
Claim 2: U.S. broadband prices are excessive because of monopoly power.
### In a way, if the incumbents' prices are excessive, advocates of a municipal alternative shouldn't have to "prove" that
it's because of "monopoly power."
In order to justify public ownership of broadband networks, broadband populists attempt to convince the public, the media,
and policymakers that U.S. broadband prices are excessive because of excessive profits. Robert Reich writes that
"Americans pay more for broadband … than the citizens of any other advanced nation" because competition is limited and
profits are excessive. [27] Both claims are wrong.
Some may be surprised by the fact that the United States has some of the lowest entry-level broadband prices in the
world. The International Telecommunications Union of the United Nations has consistently ranked the United States as
the third-best country for entry-level broadband prices, with low-speed broadband clocking in at 0.35 percent of gross
national income per capita. [28]
### Footnote 28 says that the "low-speed broadband" discussed here is only 2 Mbps (down, presumably). Since
"broadband" in the U.S. is currently defined to be at least 25 Mbps down and at least 3 Mbps up, why are the authors
citing a source that talks about a service that is only 2 Mbps? The price of this 2-Mbps service is third-lowest in terms of
the percentage of gross national income per capita, but it's 57th-lowest in terms of dollars.
The European Commission, as a part of its Digital Single Market initiative, commissioned a study on retail broadband
access prices performed by the Van Dijk consultancy. [29] The survey compared normalized broadband prices of 28 EU
countries, Japan, Canada, and a sample of U.S. states.
### The cited document doesn't use the term "normalized," but it says prices are expressed as a percentage of income
(page 13). Why is that the best way to view pricing?
The data (reproduced below)
### "Below" apparently means Figure 2.
show the United States in line with Japan and Canada at lower speed tiers, and cheaper than Canada, where costs of
deployment are high and revenue bases similarly dispersed.
Although the United States has unusually low entry-level pricing, higher-speed tiers are indeed more expensive than
average. This progressive pricing—whereby wealthier Americans pay more for the fastest speeds, essentially subsidizing
cheaper, entry-level broadband—is something you would expect broadband progressives to embrace.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:55 AM
9
### I think this is a phony taunt. What I'd like to see is pricing that is in line with costs. It costs a lot to connect a premises
for FTTP, but then it costs relatively little to provide bandwidth over that connection. Prices should reflect
that. Subsidizing access for the disadvantaged is a separate issue.
One reason U.S. prices for high-speed broadband are not the lowest is that U.S. costs are among the highest. At a high
level, the ability to profitably deploy, operate, and upgrade a broadband service depends on two factors: geographic
density and share of households adopting. Higher density and higher adoption means reduced costs per customer and
--- page 8 ---
increased revenues per home passed. On both factors, America has real challenges that other broadband leaders do not
face.
It costs significantly more to provide broadband service to American suburbs and rural areas than it does to high-rise-
dwelling Hong Kong, Japanese, Korean, and Singaporean populations. The fact that much of the U.S. population lives in
detached single-family homes, instead of high-rise multi-dwelling units, dramatically changes the economics of broadband
deployment.
Figure 2: Least expensive stand-alone broadband offering by speed tier [30]
### See page 35 of the cited document. I won't attempt to provide a text equivalent. Again, the vertical axis -- pricing -- is
shown as a percentage of national income. To me, that's just confusing. I'd like to see the data in dollars.
The United States ranks 28th in the OECD on urbanicity—a metric combining the population living in cities and the
population density of cities themselves. [31]
### The cited reference (page 59) hints at a definition of urbanicity. ("Urbanicity is the share of a country's population
living in urban areas, multiplied by the average population density of those urban areas.")
### Where does Palo Alto rank on the "urbanicity" metric?
Only Australia has less-dense cities than the United States, which is a more revealing measure than top-level population
density (because unpopulated areas do not need broadband). [32] This is noteworthy because Australia is actually
pursuing the model espoused by many broadband populists—full structural separation, with government ownership of the
underlying infrastructure and retail competition on top.
Australia’s open-access wholesale National Broadband Network (NBN) is by all accounts far behind its deployment
schedule, with higher costs and lower uptake forcing a significant scaling-back of initial plans. [33] The low uptake of NBN
services makes it difficult to draw conclusions, but, on average, Australia continues to have relatively high prices and low
speeds compared with other countries. [34] One residential broadband pricing scorecard has the United States and
Australia about even for the price of higher-speed broadband, but ranks the United States 10th and Australia 75th when it
comes to entry-level broadband. [35] This evidence suggests that open-access, government-funded fiber networks like
those proposed by populists are no cure for the tough economics of suburban sprawl.
### NBN is being done by Australia's national government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network
What I'd like to see for Palo Alto is citywide FTTP done by Palo Alto's municipal government. One of NBN's mistakes was
to start settling for inferior technologies -- FTTN, FTTC, HFC, fixed wireless, and satellite --- rather than sticking with the
original vision of FTTP.
### This article summarizes the situation.
06-04-17: "The NBN: how a national infrastructure dream fell short"
http://theconversation.com/the-nbn-how-a-national-infrastructure-dream-fell-short-77780
Please listen to the 48-second video, remarks by Tony Windsor.
--- page 9 ---
Many of the reports and blogs claiming Americans have costlier and slower broadband have severe methodological
problems. Often these reports, such as the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute (OTI) report, "Cost of
Connectivity," cherry-pick specific cities to compare, touting new fiber builds in some cities, and ignoring limited rural
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:55 AM
10
capacity. [36] Another problem is continued reliance on advertised, rather than actual speeds. This makes for poor
international comparisons; on average, U.S. fixed broadband providers over-deliver advertised speeds, whereas
Europeans actually receive, on average, about 75 percent of advertised speeds, according to SamKnows measurements.
[37] Even given these methodological problems, the "Cost of Connectivity" report shows municipal broadband offerings,
where those networks are operating successfully, as offering consumers similar speeds and similar prices as incumbent
providers.[38]
### Longmont is offering 1-Gbps symmetrical Internet service for $49.95 per month (to residential "charter
members"). Sandy, OR, is offering 1-Gbps symmetrical Internet services for $59.95 per month
(residential). Chattanooga's EPB is offering 10-Gbps symmetrical Internet service for $299 per month (residential). Are
the incumbents offering similar speeds and prices? I don't think so.
On the other hand, some of the best speeds and prices, according to OTI, are where Google Fiber has been deployed—
actually supporting the argument for continuing facilities-based competition.
### Now that Google Fiber has "paused," that weakens the case for facilities-based competition among private-sector
companies.
Adoption challenges in the United States also play a part in broadband economics, in large part because of the significant
share of low-income households in America, many with low levels of literacy. This leads broadband adoption to be lower
than in other nations, when controlling for broadband network deployment. When both these factors are taken into
account, they show that the cost of providing broadband per person are much higher for U.S. providers compared with
countries with higher speeds. But that doesn’t stop the populists’ claim that the problem is monopoly and that if we simply
had more retail competitors as they do in Europe (though they have little intermodal competition), prices would fall and
service quality would increase.
### Intermodal competition -- facilities-based competition -- is not somehow better than, say, competition among ISPs on
an open access network. As recently as 2007, Qwest was claiming that BPL was an "emerging technology" (capable of
facilities-based competition)
https://www.justice.gov/atr/facilities-based-competition-mass-market-telecom-period-rapid-change
But it never emerged. The website cited for a listing of BPL trial installations (www.bpldatabase.org) no longer exists.
Figure 3: Monthly price per GB used [39]
### OK, bits have gotten cheaper over time.
In a 2015 note to investors, New Street Research argued that broadband was mis-priced and should be more expensive
relative to cable companies’ video offerings. [40]
### More recently, as reported here:
10-02-17: "Comcast to lead doubling of consumer broadband pricing, analyst says"
http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/comcast-to-lead-doubling-consumer-broadband-pricing-analyst-says
the same analyst, Jonathan Chapin, said broadband pricing could double. And, as reported here, Karl Bode identifies the
reasons: apathetic regulators and limited competition.
10-05-17: "Wall Street Predicts Apathetic Regulators And Limited Competition Will Let Comcast Double Prices"
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171004/09404038343/wall-street-predicts-apathetic-regulators-limited-competition-
will-let-comcast-double-broadband-prices.shtml
While the price of an average broadband connection has remained relatively steady, analysts pointed to the increase in
output in the form of higher speeds. [41] This increase in broadband speeds
--- page 10 ---
has allowed consumers much more productive uses of broadband over 15 years, with the cost per GB consumed falling
by 99 percent. [42]
This dramatic increase in consumer value somehow gets lost in the discussion of broadband prices. Some complain that
there is no "Moore’s Law" equivalent for broadband prices—if you look at consumption, there is something close. [43]
### Moore's Law assumes free market competition.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 26, 2017 4:28 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:James Aram; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com;
Reifschneider, James; Watson, Ron; Keene, James; Perron, Zachary; Philip, Brian;
pressstrong@gmail.com; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external)
Subject:How you love to sway the jury by ticking the ears that feed you both...How disgusting
Tweet by Bay Area Free Press on Twitter
Bay Area Free Press (@BayAreaFreePres)
10/24/17, 8:21 AM @cityofpaloalto @MGennaco Over the past 10 years the IPA reports have been filled with platitudes for
@PaloAltoPolice As an accountant and part of many audits , #KMPG, #PriceWaterHouseCoopers not one
has ever included how corporative the finance org was...#SEC Get real! pic.twitter.com/xHAOhCS7PO
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/1/2017 12:53 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 31, 2017 7:32 AM
To:Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external)
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Impeachment proceedings must begin Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
10/31/17, 8:27 AM
The citizens of #PaloAlto have never been in charge bit.ly/2z0sssx @cityofpaloalto Council ignores the will of its citizens pic.twitter.com/AfZ4EFrnpW
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 29, 2017 7:04 AM
To:James Aram
Cc:Council, City; Stump, Molly; Reifschneider, James; Keene, James; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
Jay Boyarsky; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Dave Price; bjohnson@paweekly.com;
sdremann@paweekly.com; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com;
stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com; SWebby@da.sccgov.org; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org;
Philip, Brian; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov
Subject:Joe Webb - Tweet by Bay Area Free Press on Twitter
Covered up by Palo Alto fake news media more information can be found in the Gennaco chronicles or IPA
reports on successfully banning Free Speech and the sequestering team of Palo Alto city council
Bay Area Free Press (@BayAreaFreePres)
10/29/17, 7:56 AM
@PaloAlto_USD Joe Webb @cityofpaloalto ‘s One Man Ban to curtail the #FirstAmendment and covered
up by @paloaltoweekly #FakeNewsMedia #PaloAlto @SFPPC pic.twitter.com/d8jgeWSNeQ
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone