Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-12 City Council Emails 701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 09/12/2022 Document dates: 09/06/2022 – 09/12/2022 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Aram James To:Greg Tanaka; Winter Dellenbach; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Council, City; Planning Commission; Shikada, Ed; chuck jagoda; Human Relations Commission; Binder, Andrew; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Wagner, April; Julie Lythcott-Haims; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Jeff Rosen; Jethroe Moore; Jay Boyarsky; Rebecca Eisenberg; Josh Becker; Sean Allen; Jethroe Moore; Joe Simitian; Greer Stone; Raj; Perron, Zachary; Enberg, Nicholas; ladoris cordell Subject:What is AB-481? What do police and military have to do with the bill? ( see item 15 on tonight’s city council agenda 9:45-10:30 pm) Date:Monday, September 12, 2022 12:08:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://youtu.be/Q06VDcUFyWA Sent from my iPhone From:Tina Long To:Council, City Subject:Parking - Embarcadero Way Date:Monday, September 12, 2022 9:56:24 AM Attachments:image001.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from tina@bioscienceprop.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, We have had multiple RV’s parked in front of our buildings for over a week now. I have alerted parking enforcement but have been told it can take several days/weeks before officers can come out to cite these vehicles. Once they are cited, the vehicles return after 3 days. It has taken up much of my time to call into the abandoned vehicle hotline and parking enforcement department to report these vehicles weekly. The RV owners have been leaving mass amounts of trash on our lawns which has resulted in us having to hire a janitorial crew to clean up their mess daily. The RV owners have also been disruptive to our tenants by playing loud music during the day and operating a barbeque on a public street. Our tenants are also concerned about the safety of their offices and possible break-ins, especially at night and on weekends. We are requesting to petition for no overnight parking along Embarcadero Way (cross street Embarcadero Road). If you could inform me of this process, we can get started to move towards a resolution. I will call into the City Council meeting on Monday 9/26 to speak on this further. Thank you, Tina Long Tina Long Property Manager | BioScience Property Investments M: 650.867.5981E: tina@bioscienceprop.com bioscienceprop.com AFTERHOURS EMERGENCY: 800.568.8829 From:Aruna Busacca To:Council, City Subject:Development behind Town & Country Village Date:Monday, September 12, 2022 9:35:32 AM Attachments:image001.png F5 oppose development letter.doc Some people who received this message don't often get email fromabusacca@crossroadstrading.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please accept the attached letter regarding the proposed development behind the Town & Country Village. Thank you. Aruna Busacca Chief Operating Officer Crossroads Trading Company p. 510-559-9600 ext. 245 www.crossroadstrading.com September 8, 2022 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Proposed Development at 70 Encina Avenue, Palo Alto, CA Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers, I hope this letter finds you well. My name is Aruna Busacca and I’m the Chief Operating Office with Crossroads Trading Co, the parent company of Fillmore & 5th, a retail tenant at Town & Country Village. I’m writing you today to express my concern about the proposed development at 70 Encina Avenue. As I’m sure you are aware, Storm Land is proposing a five story development on a portion of the north parking lot of Town & Country Village, directly behind Jamba Juice. This project is proposed at 55 feet, and up to 70 feet in height with mechanical. Town & Country Village is a neighborhood of more than 70 brick & mortar retailers, operating in an economic environment that makes sustaining successful brick & mortar retail increasingly difficult. For years, it has been our impression that the City of Palo Alto wanted to do everything they could to protect and enhance the retail experience of this venue. The current proposal for 70 Encina runs counter to that. Approving a development of this size and scale, that would need variances and exceptions to so many established zoning and land use policies, doesn’t make sense to me. Few cities put more effort into their land use policy than Palo Alto, so why such a significant exception to the rules would be made here is hard to understand. If the developer wants to construct a one, two, or three-story building, that seems appropriate for this location. But a five-story, 55 foot tall structure in the middle of a surface parking lot directly adjacent to a historic, single-story shopping center does not. Ultimately, my hope is that if the proposed project moves forward, three things occur: 1. The height is reduced to one, two, or three stories. 2. The design of the building is enhanced to reduce its boxy and overwhelming feel. 3. The ground floor is used for something other than parking. I believe these changes will help align this proposed project with both the surrounding area and general standards the City of Palo Alto has for developments in the community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Aruna Busacca Crossroads Trading Co., Fillmore & 5th From:Mike Alpert To:Council, City Subject:Estimating Services - Follow Up! Date:Monday, September 12, 2022 9:35:15 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mike@generalestimation.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I'm following up on the email I sent earlier. I have no intention of bothering you. I hope you are having a wonderful day. Since I sent you an email regarding your construction project's cost estimation services, it has been a while. I am sending you an email again because I see potential in working together. CSI has the best team of professionals, which you can trust. Let us save your precious time and money. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts Thanks Regards, Mike Alpert Business Development Manager CSI Estimation, LLC Tel: 516 856 3212 78th St Brooklyn NY 11214 www(dot)csiestimation(dot)com From:Danielle To:Council, City Subject:Rent registry Date:Monday, September 12, 2022 9:25:06 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from danimewes@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I am writing in support of a rent registry in Palo Alto. We need to do what we can to protect renters in this expensive city and by keeping track of evictions and rent hikes we will know which landlords are skirting the law and making it even more difficult for people, other than millionaires to live in Palo Alto. Thanks for considering this idea, Danielle Mewes 539 Seale Ave 650 269-3652 Sent from my iPhone View this email in your browser Visit us on www.lwvpaloalto.org, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter SEPTEMBER E-BLAST Septermber 12, 2022 In this Issue LWVPA Fall Kickoff LWVPA Updates From:LWV Palo Alto (Eblast) To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA September E-Blast: Fall Kickoff, Candidate Forums, Neighborhood Gatherings and More Date:Monday, September 12, 2022 8:43:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Subscribe to our Google Calendar League of Women Voters Election Events 2022 Candidate Forums 2022 Pros and Cons Voter Services Call to Action! Seeking Volunteers! Important Dates Get Prepared to Vote! Neighborhood Gatherings Climate Calls Upcoming Events How to Fund Housing & Homelessness Projects in California Climate Justice: Mobilize & Support State of the Nation: US Elections Systems/Security and How We Can Better Engage Voters! In Case You Missed It "Making Democracy Work" recordings "The Rise and Fall of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: And What We Must Do About It" recording LWVPA FALL KICKOFF Please join us for wine and hors d’oeuvres at our Resumed Annual Fall Kickoff Event Sunday, October 2, 2022 4:00 - 6:00 pm The Foster Museum 940 Commercial St, Palo Alto 94303 This is a great chance to reconnect, bring guests, introduce them to the League of Women Voters Palo Alto and learn more about our advocacy and voter services committees. Featuring our Guest Speaker and Moderator Kemi A. Oyewole Register Now Kemi A. Oyewole is a Ph.D. candidate studying education and organization studies at the Stanford Graduate School of Education. Her research centers on understanding leadership development and organizational learning to advance equitable education reform. Beyond her scholarship, Kemi enacts her commitment to community uplift by mentoring young people, volunteering with civic organizations, and building her faith community. The Spelman College alumna believes in the power of diverse coalitions, workers' rights, and radical imaginings. Kemi will discuss a multi-level advocacy framework that combines interpersonal, organizational, and governmental engagement for a layered, sustainable approach to policy change. The model is based on her personal journey and leadership as the graduate fellow in-residence at Stanford's Otero Public Service and Civic Engagement Theme Dorm. At a moment of political polarization and partisan gridlock, using a variety of approaches offers us the small successes necessary to continue empowering voters and expanding democracy. Kemi will then introduce the film: "Suppressed and Sabotaged: The Fight to Vote" and moderate a discussion and Q&A following the viewing This powerful documentary from Brave New Films is about the growing threat of voter suppression and election sabotage to our 2022 midterm elections. The film focuses on the recent wave of laws being enacted in a number of states and how the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race between Stacey Abrams and Brian Kemp provides a case study for understanding today’s voter suppression laws across the country. It ends with an urgent call to action. Co-Sponsored By: San Francisco Peninsula Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Register early to help us plan for the catering. LWVPA UPDATES League of Women Voters Election Events 2022 Candidate Forums Click on the event to register. All events are on Zoom. Wednesday, September 21, 6-7 pm, Santa Clara County Sheriff Candidate Forum, hosted by LWV of San Jose/Santa Clara Thursday, September 22, 7-8:30 pm, PAUSD School Board Candidate Forum, hosted by LWV of Palo Alto Thursday, September 29, 7-8:30 pm, Palo Alto City Council Candidate Forum, hosted by LWV of Palo Alto Thursday, October 6, 7-9 pm, Santa Clara Valley Water District 7 Candidate Forum, hosted by LWV of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Friday, October 7, 7-9 pm, Congressional District 16 Candidate Forum, hosted by LWV of Southwest Santa Clara Valley 2022 Pros and Cons Join a webinar presentation of the pros and cons of state and local measures appearing on the ballot. Click on a date to register: Saturday, October 8, 11-12 pm Tuesday, October 11, 7-8 pm Voter Services Call to Action! Seeking Volunteers! It’s election season and we have a few specific needs: 1. Pros/Cons presenters: There is a high demand for League presentations of the pros/cons for the November ballot measures. Our team is small and we need more people willing to immerse themselves in the measures and then make presentations during October to share what they’ve learned with others. 2. Zoom handler: During several pros/cons presentations in the month of October, we need someone who can manage the Zoom room (pressing the “record” button; sharing the screen as needed; letting people into the meeting; managing the chat; etc.) so that the presenter can focus on the presentation. 3. Voter registration and outreach: We have many opportunities for volunteers to table or speak to voters at various places such as the farmer’s market, Opportunity Center, YMCA, senior living centers, Palo Alto high schools, our public libraries, and more. If any of these specific jobs appeal to you, or if you want to help out in other ways with voter outreach, voter registration, candidate forums, pros/cons presentations, please contact us at voterservices@lwvpaloalto.org. Important Dates September 20 - National Voter Registration Day SCC Registrar of Voters: Voter Language Workshops in 13 languages, September 27 - October 20, view HERE Week of October 10th - Ballots are mailed to every registered voter in CA. October 24 - Last day to register (online or by that day’s mail postmark) to vote. If you miss the deadline you can go to the SCC Registrar of Voters or any Vote Center before or on election day. November 1 - Last day to request a Vote-by-Mail Ballot replacement by mail. Or, go to a Vote Center. Tuesday, November 8 - Election Day! Get Prepared to Vote! Visit our website for more information on Candidate Forums and Pros & Cons. And visit VotersEdge.org to: See who and what will be on your ballot. Get info on candidates, measures, and who supports them. Check where, when, and how to vote. Track your ballot after you have voted. NeighborhoodGatherings Join us in September and October! League members are opening their homes in neighborhoods across Palo Alto for informal conversations and the latest news on the work of your League. Sign up here to connect with old and new friends! Climate Calls Photo by Karsten Würth on Unsplash Switching to Electric and Solving Power Shortages: Can We Do Both at the Same Time? In the midst of record heat waves causing energy shortages, you may wonder if we have enough electricity to switch away from fossil fuels in our cars and homes. Our problem is a supply/demand mismatch: we have more than enough electricity during peak summer solar hours between 9 am and 4 pm, but struggle to balance supply and demand between 4 pm and 9 pm on the super-hot days. We can each help solve this mismatch by using our homes and our cars to “store” excess midday power to use later in the day. In addition to charging EVs during the 9 am-to-4 pm window whenever possible, new technology enables homeowners to tap into their EV batteries to power their homes in the evenings or during a power emergency. The Nissan Leaf, Mitsubishi Outlander electric-gas hybrid, Ford F-150 Lightning, and VW ID4 all support bidirectional charging —the ability to power your home using the car’s battery. GM, Ford and Hyundai are conducting bi- directional charging pilots. Between 9 am and 4 pm, a smart electric water heater can be super-heated to 140 degrees, providing hot water long after the sun goes down. ‘Precool’ your home to 72° from 1 to 4 pm during a heat wave using plentiful renewable energy. At 4 pm, set your AC to 78° to take advantage of the reservoir of cool air you stored in your house. Here are some mid- to longer-term solutions that will help us better match electricity supply and demand at a system level: California utility regulators are developing demand flexibility policies and electricity rate changes to motivate consumers to shift their electricity usage in response to a price signal or other incentives. California is significantly increasing investments in offshore wind farms, geothermal power plants, and utility-level battery storage so we have more power sources after the sun goes down. Burning fossil fuels has led to rising temperatures and a drought that reduced hydroelectric power 48% below the 10-year average in 2021. We need to both switch to electric and create more flexible power sources at the same time. Want to be part of this important effort? Please write to us at climate@lwvpaloalto.org with the subject header: Climate Calls. All League members are welcome to join! UPCOMING EVENTS How to Fund Housing & Homelessness Projects in California LWV California Wednesday, September 14, 2022 5:00 pm You are invited to join us to learn about how housing and homelessness projects are funded in California, along with the issues faced by developers, communities, and other stakeholders throughout the process. If you want to learn more about the homelessness crisis in our state and some of the current challenges, join us to hear insight from the leading experts in the field. Panelists: Adam Briones, Chief Executive Officer at California Community Builders Ricardo Flores, Executive Director at LISC San Diego Climate Justice: Mobilize & Support LWV California Thursday, September 15, 2022 5:15 - 6:30 pm We are currently enduring one of the top 10 heat spells recorded in California history. The climate crisis requires us all to learn and act. Join our panel of leading experts to learn about how to mobilize and support efforts related to climate and environmental justice. Panelists: Carolina Martínez, Climate Justice Director at Environmental Health Coalition (California) Register Now Cate Mingoya, Director of Capacity Building at Groundwork USA (New York) Kim Sudderth, Senior Manager, Strategy and Organizational Effectiveness at Health Resources in Action (Virginia) State of the Nation: US Elections Systems/Security and How We Can Better Engage Voters! LWV Southwest Santa Clara Valley Saturday, October 8, 2022 10:00 am – 12:00 pm What can the League of Women Voters— and you—do to improve our elections? In this first of the two webinars on “State of the Nation: Threats to Our Election Systems/Security and How We Can Better Engage Voters”, keynote speaker Kim Alexander, President of the California Voter Foundation (CVF), will explore what some major election problems are and offer possible solutions. In response to growing threats and harassment of election officials, Kim and CVF are leading a nationwide, nonpartisan network of leaders across multiple sectors working to support and protect election officials and election administration. Current priorities include improving election workers’ safety and security, curtailing election mis- and disinformation, increasing funding, and support for election administration. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT Register Now Register Now "Making Democracy Work", a joint project by the LWV of Marin County & the LWV of Sonoma County, is a series of seven presentations highlighting current governance issues. View the presentations HERE. Alice Smith, Palo Alto League member and Executive Director and Co-Founder of National Voter Corps (a non-partisan voting rights organization), gave a talk about voter suppression for the LWV of North and Central San Mateo County on 6/4/22: "The Rise and Fall of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: And What We Must Do About It". View the recording HERE. JOIN A TEAM! Come to an LWVPA team meeting and learn about important issues affecting you and your community. You can make a difference! Learn More About Our Teams and Programs on our Website! Stay Informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for Email News and Action Alerts from LWVUS Facebook Twitter Website Instagram Copyright © 2022 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can unsubscribe from this list. i® From:Jessica Beeli To:Council, City Subject:Rent registry Date:Monday, September 12, 2022 8:06:54 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jmbeeli@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Palo Alto city, As a new Palo Alto resident and renter I highly support the creation of a rent registry. While cities have data on when homes are bought and sold and how the cost of buying a home changes, there is nothing like that for renters. A registry of rental properties would give the city data on how rent is rising and falling, but also which landlords are frequently evicting tenants or raising rent. You can see the full staff report here. Here are some good talking points to use: Implementing a rent registry as soon as possible should be the highest priority renter initiative. Evictions happen everyday in Palo Alto and several landlords regularly evict tenants and raise rent, a rent registry would give the city data to identify landlords who are not complying with the law. This program can pay for itself by setting a fee that offsets the operation of the program, which means very little additional cost to the City while providing important data on nearly half the city’s population. Thank you for your consideration! Jessica From:Mike Alpert To:Council, City Subject:Estimating Services - Follow Up! Date:Monday, September 12, 2022 9:35:15 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mike@generalestimation.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I'm following up on the email I sent earlier. I have no intention of bothering you. I hope you are having a wonderful day. Since I sent you an email regarding your construction project's cost estimation services, it has been a while. I am sending you an email again because I see potential in working together. CSI has the best team of professionals, which you can trust. Let us save your precious time and money. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts Thanks Regards, Mike Alpert Business Development Manager CSI Estimation, LLC Tel: 516 856 3212 78th St Brooklyn NY 11214 www(dot)csiestimation(dot)com From:Danielle To:Council, City Subject:Rent registry Date:Monday, September 12, 2022 9:25:06 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from danimewes@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I am writing in support of a rent registry in Palo Alto. We need to do what we can to protect renters in this expensive city and by keeping track of evictions and rent hikes we will know which landlords are skirting the law and making it even more difficult for people, other than millionaires to live in Palo Alto. Thanks for considering this idea, Danielle Mewes 539 Seale Ave 650 269-3652 Sent from my iPhone View this email in your browser Visit us on www.lwvpaloalto.org, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter SEPTEMBER E-BLAST Septermber 12, 2022 In this Issue LWVPA Fall Kickoff LWVPA Updates From:LWV Palo Alto (Eblast) To:Council, City Subject:LWVPA September E-Blast: Fall Kickoff, Candidate Forums, Neighborhood Gatherings and More Date:Monday, September 12, 2022 8:43:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Subscribe to our Google Calendar League of Women Voters Election Events 2022 Candidate Forums 2022 Pros and Cons Voter Services Call to Action! Seeking Volunteers! Important Dates Get Prepared to Vote! Neighborhood Gatherings Climate Calls Upcoming Events How to Fund Housing & Homelessness Projects in California Climate Justice: Mobilize & Support State of the Nation: US Elections Systems/Security and How We Can Better Engage Voters! In Case You Missed It "Making Democracy Work" recordings "The Rise and Fall of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: And What We Must Do About It" recording LWVPA FALL KICKOFF Please join us for wine and hors d’oeuvres at our Resumed Annual Fall Kickoff Event Sunday, October 2, 2022 4:00 - 6:00 pm The Foster Museum 940 Commercial St, Palo Alto 94303 This is a great chance to reconnect, bring guests, introduce them to the League of Women Voters Palo Alto and learn more about our advocacy and voter services committees. Featuring our Guest Speaker and Moderator Kemi A. Oyewole Register Now Kemi A. Oyewole is a Ph.D. candidate studying education and organization studies at the Stanford Graduate School of Education. Her research centers on understanding leadership development and organizational learning to advance equitable education reform. Beyond her scholarship, Kemi enacts her commitment to community uplift by mentoring young people, volunteering with civic organizations, and building her faith community. The Spelman College alumna believes in the power of diverse coalitions, workers' rights, and radical imaginings. Kemi will discuss a multi-level advocacy framework that combines interpersonal, organizational, and governmental engagement for a layered, sustainable approach to policy change. The model is based on her personal journey and leadership as the graduate fellow in-residence at Stanford's Otero Public Service and Civic Engagement Theme Dorm. At a moment of political polarization and partisan gridlock, using a variety of approaches offers us the small successes necessary to continue empowering voters and expanding democracy. Kemi will then introduce the film: "Suppressed and Sabotaged: The Fight to Vote" and moderate a discussion and Q&A following the viewing This powerful documentary from Brave New Films is about the growing threat of voter suppression and election sabotage to our 2022 midterm elections. The film focuses on the recent wave of laws being enacted in a number of states and how the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race between Stacey Abrams and Brian Kemp provides a case study for understanding today’s voter suppression laws across the country. It ends with an urgent call to action. Co-Sponsored By: San Francisco Peninsula Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Register early to help us plan for the catering. LWVPA UPDATES League of Women Voters Election Events 2022 Candidate Forums Click on the event to register. All events are on Zoom. Wednesday, September 21, 6-7 pm, Santa Clara County Sheriff Candidate Forum, hosted by LWV of San Jose/Santa Clara Thursday, September 22, 7-8:30 pm, PAUSD School Board Candidate Forum, hosted by LWV of Palo Alto Thursday, September 29, 7-8:30 pm, Palo Alto City Council Candidate Forum, hosted by LWV of Palo Alto Thursday, October 6, 7-9 pm, Santa Clara Valley Water District 7 Candidate Forum, hosted by LWV of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Friday, October 7, 7-9 pm, Congressional District 16 Candidate Forum, hosted by LWV of Southwest Santa Clara Valley 2022 Pros and Cons Join a webinar presentation of the pros and cons of state and local measures appearing on the ballot. Click on a date to register: Saturday, October 8, 11-12 pm Tuesday, October 11, 7-8 pm Voter Services Call to Action! Seeking Volunteers! It’s election season and we have a few specific needs: 1. Pros/Cons presenters: There is a high demand for League presentations of the pros/cons for the November ballot measures. Our team is small and we need more people willing to immerse themselves in the measures and then make presentations during October to share what they’ve learned with others. 2. Zoom handler: During several pros/cons presentations in the month of October, we need someone who can manage the Zoom room (pressing the “record” button; sharing the screen as needed; letting people into the meeting; managing the chat; etc.) so that the presenter can focus on the presentation. 3. Voter registration and outreach: We have many opportunities for volunteers to table or speak to voters at various places such as the farmer’s market, Opportunity Center, YMCA, senior living centers, Palo Alto high schools, our public libraries, and more. If any of these specific jobs appeal to you, or if you want to help out in other ways with voter outreach, voter registration, candidate forums, pros/cons presentations, please contact us at voterservices@lwvpaloalto.org. Important Dates September 20 - National Voter Registration Day SCC Registrar of Voters: Voter Language Workshops in 13 languages, September 27 - October 20, view HERE Week of October 10th - Ballots are mailed to every registered voter in CA. October 24 - Last day to register (online or by that day’s mail postmark) to vote. If you miss the deadline you can go to the SCC Registrar of Voters or any Vote Center before or on election day. November 1 - Last day to request a Vote-by-Mail Ballot replacement by mail. Or, go to a Vote Center. Tuesday, November 8 - Election Day! Get Prepared to Vote! Visit our website for more information on Candidate Forums and Pros & Cons. And visit VotersEdge.org to: See who and what will be on your ballot. Get info on candidates, measures, and who supports them. Check where, when, and how to vote. Track your ballot after you have voted. NeighborhoodGatherings Join us in September and October! League members are opening their homes in neighborhoods across Palo Alto for informal conversations and the latest news on the work of your League. Sign up here to connect with old and new friends! Climate Calls Photo by Karsten Würth on Unsplash Switching to Electric and Solving Power Shortages: Can We Do Both at the Same Time? In the midst of record heat waves causing energy shortages, you may wonder if we have enough electricity to switch away from fossil fuels in our cars and homes. Our problem is a supply/demand mismatch: we have more than enough electricity during peak summer solar hours between 9 am and 4 pm, but struggle to balance supply and demand between 4 pm and 9 pm on the super-hot days. We can each help solve this mismatch by using our homes and our cars to “store” excess midday power to use later in the day. In addition to charging EVs during the 9 am-to-4 pm window whenever possible, new technology enables homeowners to tap into their EV batteries to power their homes in the evenings or during a power emergency. The Nissan Leaf, Mitsubishi Outlander electric-gas hybrid, Ford F-150 Lightning, and VW ID4 all support bidirectional charging —the ability to power your home using the car’s battery. GM, Ford and Hyundai are conducting bi- directional charging pilots. Between 9 am and 4 pm, a smart electric water heater can be super-heated to 140 degrees, providing hot water long after the sun goes down. ‘Precool’ your home to 72° from 1 to 4 pm during a heat wave using plentiful renewable energy. At 4 pm, set your AC to 78° to take advantage of the reservoir of cool air you stored in your house. Here are some mid- to longer-term solutions that will help us better match electricity supply and demand at a system level: California utility regulators are developing demand flexibility policies and electricity rate changes to motivate consumers to shift their electricity usage in response to a price signal or other incentives. California is significantly increasing investments in offshore wind farms, geothermal power plants, and utility-level battery storage so we have more power sources after the sun goes down. Burning fossil fuels has led to rising temperatures and a drought that reduced hydroelectric power 48% below the 10-year average in 2021. We need to both switch to electric and create more flexible power sources at the same time. Want to be part of this important effort? Please write to us at climate@lwvpaloalto.org with the subject header: Climate Calls. All League members are welcome to join! UPCOMING EVENTS How to Fund Housing & Homelessness Projects in California LWV California Wednesday, September 14, 2022 5:00 pm You are invited to join us to learn about how housing and homelessness projects are funded in California, along with the issues faced by developers, communities, and other stakeholders throughout the process. If you want to learn more about the homelessness crisis in our state and some of the current challenges, join us to hear insight from the leading experts in the field. Panelists: Adam Briones, Chief Executive Officer at California Community Builders Ricardo Flores, Executive Director at LISC San Diego Climate Justice: Mobilize & Support LWV California Thursday, September 15, 2022 5:15 - 6:30 pm We are currently enduring one of the top 10 heat spells recorded in California history. The climate crisis requires us all to learn and act. Join our panel of leading experts to learn about how to mobilize and support efforts related to climate and environmental justice. Panelists: Carolina Martínez, Climate Justice Director at Environmental Health Coalition (California) Register Now Cate Mingoya, Director of Capacity Building at Groundwork USA (New York) Kim Sudderth, Senior Manager, Strategy and Organizational Effectiveness at Health Resources in Action (Virginia) State of the Nation: US Elections Systems/Security and How We Can Better Engage Voters! LWV Southwest Santa Clara Valley Saturday, October 8, 2022 10:00 am – 12:00 pm What can the League of Women Voters— and you—do to improve our elections? In this first of the two webinars on “State of the Nation: Threats to Our Election Systems/Security and How We Can Better Engage Voters”, keynote speaker Kim Alexander, President of the California Voter Foundation (CVF), will explore what some major election problems are and offer possible solutions. In response to growing threats and harassment of election officials, Kim and CVF are leading a nationwide, nonpartisan network of leaders across multiple sectors working to support and protect election officials and election administration. Current priorities include improving election workers’ safety and security, curtailing election mis- and disinformation, increasing funding, and support for election administration. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT Register Now Register Now "Making Democracy Work", a joint project by the LWV of Marin County & the LWV of Sonoma County, is a series of seven presentations highlighting current governance issues. View the presentations HERE. Alice Smith, Palo Alto League member and Executive Director and Co-Founder of National Voter Corps (a non-partisan voting rights organization), gave a talk about voter suppression for the LWV of North and Central San Mateo County on 6/4/22: "The Rise and Fall of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: And What We Must Do About It". View the recording HERE. JOIN A TEAM! Come to an LWVPA team meeting and learn about important issues affecting you and your community. You can make a difference! Learn More About Our Teams and Programs on our Website! Stay Informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for Email News and Action Alerts from LWVUS Facebook Twitter Website Instagram Copyright © 2022 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can unsubscribe from this list. i® From:FEC United To:Council, City Subject:FEC United Faith Pillar Newsletter Date:Monday, September 12, 2022 8:20:46 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Image   FEC United Faith Pillar Devotional September 12, 2022   ABIDE IN HIM… If you are anything like me, I'm growing wearing of one bad headline after another. I'm frustrated having to search for news sources that are actually reporting the truth. I'm angry that our country is being torn apart. The good news is the more I (we) spend with God through prayer, His Word, and worship the more internal joy I have, the more hope I gain, and the more understanding of current events I possess. The word ABIDE is defined as: to wait for; to be prepared for; to remain in. We have talked before about how hard it is to wait. We want God to act now, save the nation now, help our people now, fix the government now…BUT God knows the big picture, and we only know a little bit about what is happening. Therefore, we must ABIDE in the Lord, spend time with Him, Trust Him, Love Him, Believe in Him. His ways are not our ways. We win in the end! So for now, Abide! Here are a few scriptures to encourage you to Abide in the Lord: John 15:4 (ESV) Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. John 15:7 (ESV) If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. John 15:10 (ESV) If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. I John 2:6 (BSB) Whoever claims to abide in Him must walk as Jesus walked. I John 2:28 (ESV) And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming. I John 4:16 (ESV) So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. Psalm 91:11 (ESV) He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty. If you would like to be a part of the FEC UNITED Pikes Peak Faith Pillar, CONTACT: National FEC Chaplin and Pikes Peak Faith Pillar Pastor Garrett Graupner: ggraupner@fecunited.com Pikes Peak Faith Pillar Admin. Jeri S: jeri@fecunited.com   Copyright © 2022 FEC United, All rights reserved. Mailing Address: PO Box 891, Parker, CO 80134 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can unsubscribe from this list. Unsubscribe at https://papp.pidoxa.com/unsub Sent by FEC United PO Box 891 , Parker CO 80134. Copyright 2022 by FEC United or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. From:McHale Newport-Berra To:Council, City Subject:In support of a Palo Alto rent registry Date:Monday, September 12, 2022 8:19:16 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mchalenb@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I am writing to advocate for the implementation of a rent registry as soon as possible. Although we are lucky to finally be homeowners in Palo Alto, we rented in Palo Alto (College Terrace) for 10 years before we were able to buy, and nearly half of the city's population rents. Evictions happen everyday in Palo Alto and several landlords regularly evict tenants and raise rent, a rent registry would give the city data to identify landlords who are not complying with the law. This program can pay for itself by setting a fee that offsets the operation of the program. This means it would require very little additional cost for the city to gather important data to better understand, and support, the housing situation for nearly half of the city's residents. Thank you for your consideration, McHale Newport-Berra From:Aram James To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan; Winter Dellenbach; Shikada, Ed; chuck jagoda; Joe Simitian; Human Relations Commission; Jeff Moore; Jethroe Moore; Roberta Ahlquist; wilpfpeninsulapaloalto@gmail.com Subject:Habitat for Humanity opens housing in Redwood City to 20 families Date:Sunday, September 11, 2022 6:15:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZvKcSEirm0 Habitat for Humanity opens housing in Redwood City to 20 families Sent from my iPhone From:Yahoo Mail.® To:Honky Subject:BE YEE FREE OR BE YEE SLAVE ? WHAT DO YOU CHOOSE TO BE ? FREEDOM 101 IS WHAT I DO AND I CHOSE FREEDOM A LONG TIME AGO Date:Sunday, September 11, 2022 4:42:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. HI BROTHERS AND SISTERS THANKS FOR CONNECTING WITH ME ON LINKED IN If the message board on linked-in did not work for you? HENCE I've MANY others, another 19 e-mail accounts? If ever a QUESTION or just need a chat LEAN ON ME I'll back atcha ASAP In Any Event KEEP STRONG BROTHERS AND SISTERS :) <3 FACT CHECKRS ARE EVIL BOUGHT AND PAID FOR TRAITORS My friend and mentor told me all about 9/11 3 MONTHS BEFORE 9/11 Milton William "Bill" Cooper (RIP) THE HOUR OF OUR TIME RADIO ? Milton OWNED IT and could NOT be STOPPED so he was MURDERED bout 3 weeks after 9 /11? GEEEZ I WONDER WHY Bill Cooper — The Radio Patriot Cowboy Logic - 09/05/22: Dr. David Martin Bill Cooper — The Radio Patriot BE YE FREE OR BE YE SLAVE SO WHAT DO YOU CHOOSE FREEDOM 101 IS WHAT I DO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYUGabNgKHM... Cowboy Logic - 09/05/22: Dr. David Martin Cowboy Logic - 09/05/22: Dr. David Martin returns to Cowboy Logicto discuss the role insurance underwriters pla... Santos Bonacci interview after court 29/01/14 Where's the EVIDENCE that Your LAWS Apply? Scottsdale Poltical Comedy https://www.google.com/search? client=opera&q=loveforlife.com+court&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Where's the EVIDENCE that Your LAWS Apply? Scottsdale Poltical Comedy From:Annette Glanckopf To:Council, City Cc:Sauls, Garrett; Clerk, City Subject:Send back to drawing board - Replacement of Creekside Inn with Apartments Date:Sunday, September 11, 2022 2:03:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I wanted to comment on the proposed development of the Creekside Inn site. I don't want to lose the driftwood market and the Creekside Inn, I realize we do need more housing. However, this project needs to go back to the drawing board. The Barron Park Association has made numerous cogent points against this development for you to consider. Some significant points include 1) the 64 foot height exceeds the city height limit. The buildings will overlook surrounding residential homes destroying privacy. 2) increased traffic in an area that already is congested 3) lack of parking for residents (at 1 space per unit which is est $150/mo). People will park on Matadero etc, exasperating traffic issues and cause increasing issues in pedestrian and bike safety 4) destruction of the beautiful habitat and mature heritage trees so close to the creek. I am also concerned about the impact on wildlife. 5) loss of 2 important retail businesses, so important to Barron Park. The hotel is where I have my guests stay when they visit Palo Alto I totally support the conclusion to the Barron Park letter to council: "The profound impact on the area’s water usage, waste management, parking, environment (with potential toxic damage to Matadero Creek), and privacy will disrupt lives, bring unnecessary stressors to the neighborhood and increase traffic tenfold." This project should be rejected for a re-write. Do not allow the proposed exceptions. Do not re-zone, Do not waive fees. respectfully submitted, Annette Glanckopf From:Robert Brickley To:Council, City Cc:Milton, Lesley Subject:Weed Abatement Program Date:Sunday, September 11, 2022 2:02:56 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from bbrickley@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good Evening Mayor Burt and Members of the City Council: Please allow this communication to serve as an addendum to my email directed to the City Council on August 8, 2022 regarding our objection to being included as one of the violators identified in the Fire Chief's Weed Abatement Program report being considered on September 12, 2022. The property in question is located at 179 El Dorado Avenue, Palo Alto. The owner of the property is Corinne P. Simonini who passed away on September 3, 2022 and who obviously is now unable to defend herself. I am her son-in-law and am named as a Trustee in her Trust and am authorized to speak on her behalf. As I mentioned in my email of August 8th, we question the accuracy of the Fire Chief's findings regarding a weed problem in the lot at 179 El Dorado Avenue. As stated in my August 8th email, we have employed a landscapper for the past number of years who maintains the property to include weed abatement on the lot. He responds to the property once a week and has always been very diligent in performing his duties. To insure the security and maintenance of the property, a neighbor, Mrs. Linda DeMeo, who resides at the corner of El Dorado Avenue and Emerson Street, watches over the property and home as it is unoccupied at this time. She confirms that the landscapper, Tomas Martinez, keeps the property, to include the lot, in excellent shape. In cases involving violations of city codes and ordinances, city staff generally will take photographs of the alleged violations. and will provide these as evidence should the need arise. I would expect that the fire chief would have these photographs and I am respectfully requesting that I be provided with copies of this photographic evidence. I visited the property on August 6, 2022 and found the lot, other than several fruit trees, bare of any weeds. In fact, only bare dirt was visible. Mr. Martinez, the landscaper, informs me that he includes weed abatement in the lot as a part of his weekly duties. I believe that the fire department personnel conducting the weed abatement program may have mistakenly included 179 El Dorado Avenue in it's report. I had planned to personally appear at the council meeting this coming Tuesday but find that due to previous commitments which I have for that day and the fact that I reside 175 east of Palo Alto, I will be unable to attend therefore am submitting my appeal via email. Thank you for considering my appeal feel free to contact me should any questions or concerns exist. Sincerely, Robert E. Brickley 4285 Puerta del Sol Camino, CA 95709 (530)647-8096 From:Susan Kemp To:Council, City Cc:Gary Mahany; Susan Kemp Subject:Agenda Item 14 Sept 12 Meeting: Weed Abatement Date:Sunday, September 11, 2022 12:02:50 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from skemp650@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and Palo Alto City Council Members, With regard to Palo Alto’s Weed Abatement program in partnership with the County of Santa Clara. What is a higher priority: mitigating fire hazards or collecting fees to cover the cost of the program?? The current Weed Abatement program is confusing and leaves the homeowner in the dark. We understand that the City of Palo Alto has been contracting with Santa Clara County to perform Weed Abatement since 1977 and that the goal is to reduce fire hazards due to overgrown weeds and unmanaged vegetation. The agreement between Palo Alto and Santa Clara County looks good on paper, especially the part about no cost to the City – because costs are covered by the fees that Santa Clara County collects -- but execution of the program, especially the gap between inspection and notification to the homeowner defeats the purpose of the inspection. If there is a clear and present fire hazard, why isn’t the homeowner notified immediately, instead of the time it takes to carry a baby to term? In our case, the inspection took place and photos were taken in May 2021, yet we knew nothing until nine months later, February 2022, when we received the notice in the mail. Well before this time, the weeds in question had been cut back through routine maintenance months before. The February 2022 packet contained confusing and impractical information, including deadlines already past for returning responses. Materials referred to various abatement guidelines that are inapplicable to suburban houses in Palo Alto. It was only when we phoned Santa Clara County and were able to obtain photos of what the inspectors saw that caused the weed abatement concerns that we finally got a picture of what the issue was (patches of weeds in our parking strip and front yard growing more than 6 inches tall). Meanwhile, we were imagining all sorts of drastic measures we were going to have to take such as removing vegetation from under the eaves of our house, etc. The timing of Santa Clara County’s notifications and even the timing of tonight’s meeting lead one to conclude that the County/City is less interested in removing fire hazards than in collecting the fees. If our infraction occurred in May 2021 and was documented in photos taken by County personnel/inspector then, why didn’t we receive any alert about the transgression until February 2022? The 2021 fire season ended long before then. We also understand that we will be on the County’s list for 3 years and subject to the ~$91 annual inspection fee as well for each of those years. When are we notified if their April 30, 2022, inspection again find a transgression – next February? (In fact, through contacting our county supervisor’s office, we found out that they had been by this year and found us to be in compliance, which we are grateful to hear.) We believe that there should be a clearly defined process, including a timetable of events, included in the initial packet sent to the homeowner so they know what to expect and when. The packet should include a copy of the photos taken of our property that prompted their concern (or at least a way to look online and find our photos). Better yet, why wasn’t a notice left on our doorknob the day of the inspection so we would be alerted to the potential fire hazard in a timely manner? The current process is so confusing and punitive without addressing the urgency of the weed abatement fire hazard at all. It feels to the homeowner more like a way for the county to collect unwarranted fees in order to fund their obligation to the City. In contrast, if a homeowner receives a notice from the City of Palo Alto regarding a hedge protruding too far into the pedestrian sidewalk, they are provided with a diagram and given a time frame within which to remedy the situation. This is so much more straightforward and in alignment with the goal of removing obstructions. With regard to the timing of tonight’s meeting, we were not notified that the Weed Abatement agenda item had been bumped from the August 8 Palo Alto City Council Meeting Agenda; instead, our official notice came in the form of another letter from the City Clerk stating that it was now scheduled for 5 pm on September 12. Meanwhile, after checking the City Council Agenda online, we learned that the Weed Abatement agenda item had been rescheduled to later in the evening of the September 12 meeting, i.e., to 9:15 pm. We suggest that homeowners who find themselves on the Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report for the City of Palo Alto be given some way to opt in to updated City Council meeting agenda changes, say, by being added to an email list collected by either Santa Clara County or by the City of Palo Alto, once it receives the annual list. We hope the City of Palo Alto will consider the above concerns when next renewing the arrangement with the Santa Clara County to focus more on providing real time and specific information to the homeowner so they can address the actual potential fire hazard in a timely manner, than on fee collection. Sincerely, Susan Kemp and Gary Mahany From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Aram James Cc:Stump, Molly; Council, City; Sean Allen; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Shikada, Ed; Gennady Sheyner; Diana Diamond; Sue Dremann; Bill Johnson; chuck jagoda; Reifschneider, James; Wagner, April; Perron, Zachary; Winter Dellenbach; Dennis Upton; ladoris cordell; darylsavage@gmail.com Subject:Re: To Palo Alto City Council et al —a must read in preparation for item # 15 on the city council agenda for September 12. See the article linked below titled: Deadly Exchange. Date:Sunday, September 11, 2022 5:41:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. The militarization of the Palo Alto Police has been ongoing.. right under everyone's noses. They have also acquired 50 caliber sniper rifles... Mark Petersen-PerezEditor in chief Palo Alto Free Press Reporting internationally from Nicaragua On Sep 10, 2022, at 10:43 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  15. . Adoption of an Ordinance Approving the Police Department's Military Equipment Use Policy Under AB 481 Item number updated (9:45 –10:30m) Please read the below article titled Deadly Exchange re the training of American law Enforcement by the Israeli Military and Police. This is an extremely scary article that calls out for our community to closely scrutinize— and ask the hard questions -re the proposed adoption of any ordinancethat allows for the expansion of the possession and use of military equipment by our police department. And why is such a critical topic ( buried) set to be discussed stating at 9:45 pm -10:30pm— 5 hours into a council meeting loaded with other issues—when council members and community members are likely to be exhausted???? ****The city manager and mayor should set this item for another date to be heard at an earlier time —6 or 7 pm., as an example. https://deadly exchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Deadly-Exchange-Report.pdf Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Representative Eshoo; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Salem Ajluni; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; chuck jagoda; Human Relations Commission; Donna Wallach Subject:To Palo Alto City Council et al —a must read in preparation for item # 15 on the city council agenda for September 12. See the article linked below titled: Deadly Exchange. Date:Saturday, September 10, 2022 10:04:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Date: September 10, 2022 at 9:43:01 PM PDT To: Molly Stump <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>, Supervisor Susan Ellenberg <supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org>, Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com>, Diana Diamond <dianaLdiamond@gmail.com>, Sue Dremann <sdremann@paweekly.com>, Bill Johnson <Bjohnson@embarcaderopublishing.com>, chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>, James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>, paloaltofreepress@gmail.com, April Wagner <april.wagner@cityofpaloalto.org>, Zachary Perron <zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org>, Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>, Dennis Upton <kathy8420@qq.com>, ladoris cordell <ladoris@judgecordell.com>, darylsavage@gmail.com Subject: To Palo Alto City Council et al —a must read in preparation for item # 15 on the city council agenda for September 12. See the article linked below titled: Deadly Exchange.  15. . Adoption of an Ordinance Approving the Police Department's Military Equipment Use Policy Under AB 481 Item number updated (9:45 –10:30m) Please read the below article titled Deadly Exchange re the training of American law Enforcement by the Israeli Military and Police. This is an extremely scary article that calls out for our community to closely scrutinize— and ask the hard questions -re the proposed adoption of any ordinance that allows for the expansion of the possession and use of military equipment by our police department. And why is such a critical topic ( buried) set to be discussed stating at 9:45 pm -10:30pm— 5 hours into a council meeting loaded with other issues—when council members and community members are likely to be exhausted???? ****The city manager and mayor should set this item for another date to be heard at an earlier time —6 or 7 pm., as an example. https://deadly exchange.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/07/Deadly-Exchange-Report.pdf Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Stump, Molly; Council, City; Sean Allen; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Shikada, Ed; Gennady Sheyner; Diana Diamond; Sue Dremann; Bill Johnson; chuck jagoda; Reifschneider, James; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Wagner, April; Perron, Zachary; Winter Dellenbach; Dennis Upton; ladoris cordell; darylsavage@gmail.com Subject:To Palo Alto City Council et al —a must read in preparation for item # 15 on the city council agenda for September 12. See the article linked below titled: Deadly Exchange. Date:Saturday, September 10, 2022 9:43:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 15. . Adoption of an Ordinance Approving the Police Department's Military Equipment Use Policy Under AB 481 Item number updated (9:45 –10:30m) Please read the below article titled Deadly Exchange re the training of American law Enforcement by the Israeli Military and Police. This is an extremely scary article that calls out for our community to closely scrutinize— and ask the hard questions -re the proposed adoption of any ordinance that allows for the expansion of the possession and use of military equipment by our police department. And why is such a critical topic ( buried) set to be discussed stating at 9:45 pm -10:30pm— 5 hours into a council meeting loaded with other issues—when council members and community members are likely to be exhausted???? ****The city manager and mayor should set this item for another date to be heard at an earlier time —6 or 7 pm., as an example. https://deadly exchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Deadly- Exchange-Report.pdf Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Winter Dellenbach; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; Raj; Council, City; Planning Commission; Binder, Andrew; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Rosen; chuck jagoda; wilpfpeninsulapaloalto@gmail.com; Roberta Ahlquist; EPA Today; Human Relations Commission; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Cindy Chavez; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright Subject:To Palo Alto City Council et al —a must read in preparation for item # 15 on the city council agenda for September 12. See the article linked below titled: Deadly Exchange. Date:Saturday, September 10, 2022 9:35:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 15. . Adoption of an Ordinance Approving the Police Department's Military Equipment Use Policy Under AB 481 Item number updated (9:45 –10:30m) Please read the below article titled Deadly Exchange re the training of American law Enforcement by the Israeli Military and Police. This is an extremely scary article that calls out for our community to closely scrutinize— and ask the hard questions -re the proposed adoption of any ordinance that allows for the expansion of the possession and use of military equipment by our police department. And why is such a critical topic ( buried) set to be discussed stating at 9:45 pm -10:30pm— 5 hours into a council meeting loaded with other issues—when council members and community members are likely to be exhausted???? ****The city manager and mayor should set this item for another date to be heard at an earlier time —6 or 7 pm., as an example. https://deadly exchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Deadly-Exchange- Report.pdf Sent from my iPhone From:Jeff Hoel To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City Subject:UAC subcommittee on FTTP -- 09-14-22 Colleagues Memo Date:Saturday, September 10, 2022 4:05:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. Commissioners, At your 09-14-22 meeting, you will consider an item VII.6, a Colleagues' Memo about FTTP. Agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda- and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/09-14-2022/09-14-2022-uac-agenda-and-packet.pdf Colleagues Memo: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda- and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/09-14-2022/09-14-2022-id-14742-item-6.pdf I would like to comment (below the "######" line) on this document. My comments are paragraphs in red beginning with "###". SUMMARY: I agree with the colleagues: let's build a citywide municipal FTTP network and offer internet services to all residents and businesses. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ################################################################################################################# --- page 1 --- City of Palo Alto (ID # 14742) Utilities Advisory Commission Staff Report Meeting Date: 9/14/2022 Report Type: VII. NEW BUSINESS Title: Colleagues Memo From A.C. Johnston, Phil Metz, and Loren Smith: Implementation of a City-Owned FTTP network and City-Owned Internet Service Provider ### Aren't Colleagues Memos typically written by the colleagues? This Colleagues Memo appears to be written by staff. From: Director of Utilities Lead Department: Utilities Discussion The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the results of the UAC sub-committee for FTTP Initiative investigation and work with city staff and 3rd party Magellan Advisors on the proposed implementation of a City-Owned FTTP network and a City-Owned Internet Service Provider (ISP). Attachments: • Attachment A: Colleagues Memo City of Palo Alto Page 1 --- page 2 --- MEMORANDUM Date: 14 September 2022 To: Utilities Advisory Commission, City of Palo Alto From: Utilities Advisory Commission, Sub-Committee on FTTP Initiative Vice Chair A.C Johnston, Commissioners Phil Metz and Loren M. Smith Subject: Implementation of a City-Owned FTTP network and City-Owned Internet Service Provider The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the results of the UAC sub-committee for FTTP Initiative investigation and work with City Staff and 3rd party Magellan Advisors on the proposed implementation of a City-Owned FTTP network and a City-Owned Internet Service Provider (ISP). Based upon our research, a complete review of the business and financial models, as well as the results of the City of Palo Alto survey, we recommend that the UAC recommend to the Palo Alto City Council that the Council authorize CPAU to proceed forward with plans to offer fiber-based broadband ### There are 17 occurrences of "broadband" in this document (not counting my comments and a URL). The speeds we want to be able to offer are much higher that FCC's current definition of broadband (25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up). Also, the term "broadband" applies to a number of services (like traditional TV and traditional phone) that we're currently proposing not to offer. In each case, how about substituting the term "sufficiently fast internet"? ### I take it that, in this context, "fiber-based" means FTTP. (Comcast sometimes claims its hybrid fiber coax network is "fiber-based.") https://www.broadbandtechreport.com/fiber/article/14235437/comcast-reports-fiberbased-network-now-passes-11k-in-rural-pa through a City-Owned FTTP network and a City-Owned Internet Service Provider to all Palo Alto residents. ### Good. ### The last staff report considered the possibility of outsourcing the operation of the network to an entity which the City didn't own but had a contractual relationship with. Are the colleagues recommending we not do this? We also provide some specific recommendations to address the risks inherent in establishing a city owned ISP. A Brief History of FTTP in the City of Palo Alto ### Any history of FTTP in Palo Alto that fails to mention the 67-home FTTH Trial (2001-2005), the Uptown Services analysis (2002-2004), the failed 180 Connect Consortium partnership (2006-2009), the pursuit of Google Fiber (2010, 2014-2016), the Tellus Venture Associates analysis of user-financed FTTP models (2012), the CTC analysis (2015), and the FTTN misadventure (2017-2019) is too brief. On the other hand, the description of the City's dark fiber network was perhaps not brief enough. For more than 20 years, the City of Palo Alto has investigated, engineered, built and operated a dark fiber network. Originally conceived in the mid-1990s, the City’s initial telecommunications strategy was to build a dark fiber ring around Palo Alto that would be capable of supporting multiple network developers and/or service providers with significant growth potential. The first phase of the fiber network construction occurred in 1996 - 1997 and consisted of 33 route miles ### It was 15 route miles in 1996, 24 route miles in 1997, 29 route miles in 1999. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda- and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2016/11-02-16-meeting/letters-to-the-uac.pdf with 144 or more strands of single-mode fiber along most routes. After the “dot com bubble” burst in 2001, the City’s efforts were more subdued, but since the late 1990s, the fiber backbone has been expanded to approximately 49 route miles of mostly 144 or 288 count single-mode fiber. Page 1 --- page 3 --- In 2000, the City began to license “dark fiber” for commercial purposes. ### This 12-19-97 article https://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/news/1997_Dec_19.LOOP.html says there were two dark fiber customers, WebTV Networks and Brooks Fiber Communications. And "[a]greements are close to being finalized with six others." Dark fiber is unused fiber through which no light is transmitted, i.e., installed fiber optic cable that is not carrying a signal. ### It would make more sense to say that the City's dark fiber network contains some fiber strands that are lit by customers and some fiber strands that are unused. Today, the City currently licenses dark fiber connections to 99 commercial and City customers, ### Utilities Quarterly Updates used to report on the number of dark fiber customers and active connections. For example, the 2Q20 report said there were 92 accounts (91 customers, plus the City) and 208 connections. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/uac-informational-reports/2020-informational-reports/04- 15-2020/item-info-mini-packet-041520.pdf The City should resume this practice. including the following City accounts: IT Infrastructure Services, Utilities Substations, Utilities Engineering, Public Works, Water Quality Control Plant and Community Services (Art Center) ### Has the City recently decided to call each of these an account for reporting purposes? The 2Q20 Utilities Quarterly Update (see above) said there was just one City account. yielding a total number of dark fiber service connections of 162 (serving commercial customers and the City). Over that same period, the Fiber reserve balance at the end of FY 2022 is approximately $34 million (Actuals anticipated end of September 2022). In this same period, going on 15 years, the City has studied, planned and worked to develop a business case to build a citywide Fiber-to-the- Premises (“FTTP”) network to serve homes and business ### businesses. ### Staff presented a "FTTH Business Case," written by staff and consultant Uptown Services, to UAC on 12-03-02. That was nearly 20 years ago. (Too bad it's no longer available on the City's website.) On 04-05-99, Council voted (7-1) to implement a FTTH Trial network, and to issue an RFP for a Universal Telecommunications System (UTS) to connect the whole City. 21 members of the public spoke. That was more than 23 years ago. (The RFP got no bids. But the FTTH Trial network was built and operated successfully.) (Reference: “History of the City of Palo Alto Dark Fiber Optic Backbone Network”, Ver 6.0, 7 August 2019). ### On 10-19-16, as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Fiber and Wireless, I commented on a then-unpublished staff document "History of the City of Palo Alto Dark Fiber Optic Backbone Network," Version 1.0, 10-11-16. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda- and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2016/11-02-16-meeting/letters-to-the-uac.pdf ### I found this 08-21-19 document which contains an attachment (pages 30-34) titled “History of the City of Palo Alto Dark Fiber Optic Backbone Network,” Version 2.0, 02-04-17, with many of the same mistakes as the previous document. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2017/id-7616.pdf (If a Version 6.0 had existed in this timeframe, why wouldn't it have appeared here?) On June 24, 2019, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) was directed by City Council to assume the primary advisory role and serve as the public input forum for fiber and wireless expansion initiatives by the City of Palo Alto. ### On 06-24-19, Council "sunsetted" the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) on Fiber & Wireless. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2019/id-9620- mini-packet-61319.pdf Since then, the UAC has devoted significant attention to how this underutilized asset can be used for the betterment of the City of Palo Alto population. On June 24, 2019, the UAC recommended and Council agreed to leverage the existing dark fiber network into benefiting its infrastructure, e.g., emergency services, city owned buildings and our pending AMI network. On June 1, 2020, the UAC recommended and Council agreed to engage Magellan Advisors (Ref.: https://www.magellanbroadband.com/ ) and on May 24, 2021, the UAC recommended and Council agreed to accelerate the consultant’s work, ### UAC recommended (04-21-21) and Council approved (05-24-21). including to: 1) Design and engineer the expansion of the City of Palo Alto’s dark fiber network; 2) Engineer the incorporation of an AMI network into the network; 3) Engineer the incorporation of a FTTP solution into the network; and 4) Provide a business case and associated financial model for the development of a FTTP ISP service offering by the City of Palo Alto. The once-in-a-generation event that was the COVID-19 pandemic (declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, by the World Health Organization) highlighted the many dependencies our population may have taken for granted, namely: 1) Our food supply; 2) Other necessary supplies, including bathroom tissue; 3) The resiliency of small businesses; and 4) The need for Broadband communication. Indeed, our experience during the initial months of the pandemic shed light on the fragile nature of our supply chain and our services. Not to be left out, as our offices were shuttered, and our population migrated to work-from-home (WFH) and our children attended school-from- home (SFH), the stresses on our broadband infrastructure eroded our ability to function routinely. In a matter of days, the necessity for broadband services moved from a convenience to an “essential Page 2 --- page 4 --- service/public good,” similar to electricity, water and sewer, and became a non-negotiable requirement of our community. As if by luck, our City had already engaged Magellan Advisors, and a suitable, appropriate and deliberate response was already in the making. Why does the City of Palo Alto need to build a city-owned FTTP network? Broadband service to the City of Palo Alto’s population is currently dominated by two large companies: AT&T and Comcast/Xfinity. Recent survey results by Magellan Advisors reveals a population concerned with unreliable connectivity, reduced speeds and poor customer service. Digging deeper into the survey results reveals a clear opportunity for the City to create a successful City-owned broadband network (ref. Table 1 below). As shown in Table 1, survey results show that Palo Alto’s population is very sophisticated when it comes to an understanding of and the potential for a City-Owned FTTP network. Indeed, offering a service that provides superior speed, reliability and service at a competitive cost was shown to be a sufficient and compelling reason for support of such a City-wide initiative. Key Findings City Provided Fiber Based Internet Opportunity One third of households are dissatisfied with their current internet services Provide higher speed, affordable prices and more reliability Over half of the City has only one gigabit speed broadband provider Create additional ISP choice for households ### There are 4 occurrences of "gigabit" in this document (not counting my comments). In each case, the document should say "gigabit per second" -- or "Gbps." ### What is a "one gigabit per second broadband provider"? If it's an ISP that provides 1 Gbps symmetrical internet service, then over half of the City has access to NO such providers. Price, speed and reliability are the most important aspects of internet services Provide a 100% fiber network with no data caps, symmetrical speeds and better reliability at a competitive price Over 50% of households already subscribe to internet service only Provide high- quality, reliable and expandable services to support streaming ### Over 50% of households already receive only internet service from their ISP (but might receive other services from other providers). Table 1: City of Palo Alto Population Key Findings As highlighted in Magellan’s research, there are risks in developing a City-Owned FTTP network. Unlike current City-Owned utility services, developing a City-Owned FTTP network or City-Owned Internet Service Provider (ISP) would enter the CPAU into a “competitive business” whereby the City would engage directly with 3rd party competitors whose actions the City has limited ability to influence. As a service provider and as one of the few municipalities with a fully-owned utilities service capability, however, the City of Palo Alto’s Utilities Department (CPAU) is well-versed in managing a service organization that has provided quality services to the citizens and businesses of Palo Alto since 1896. Given CPAU’s service reputation and brand, as well as the survey results, it’s apparent the City’s population is confident in the CPAUs' ability. But more to the point, they are demanding better pricing, higher speeds, and more reliable broadband service. Given the opportunity to get all this AND keep dollars local to the City of Palo Alto, creating a provider owned and operated by the City is a risk worth taking. Page 3 --- page 5 --- Another risk deserving of discussion is the reaction by existing ISP providers in Palo Alto to the introduction of a City-Owned ISP offering. It is entirely reasonable to expect a strong response to the City’s initiative, likely through the offering of incentives for new customers or bonuses for service extension by existing customers. Given the extent of the existing fiber network, as well as its substantial service capabilities, the City is well positioned to offer faster broadband speeds and lower monthly service costs while ensuring service reliability backed by the CPAU brand and years of performance as a service business. As per Magellan Advisors suggested initial product mix, the City would offer “synchronous” ### There are 6 occurrences of "synchronous" in this document (not counting my comments). In each case, the document should say "symmetrical." broadband services [1] at both a higher speed and a lower price. That is, CPAU could offer a very competitive service for both residential and business particularly in terms of “speed-to-price” ratios ### Why talk about speed-to-price ratios? as is highlighted in Table 2: Residential Service Offering below. Service Level Est. Monthly Rate (USD / Month) 5 Gigabit* USD 300 2 Gigabit* 150 1 Gigabit* 80 600 Megabit* 65 300 Megabit* 50 ### There are 2 occurrences of "Megabit" in this document (not counting my comments). In each case, the document should say "megabit per second" -- or "Mbps." *Note: The City of Palo Alto’s service is based upon providing Synchronous Broadband access to subscribers, i.e., the same upload and download speeds. Table 2: Residential Service Offering An additional risk for a City owned and operated ISP is finding and hiring staff. Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, CPAU struggled to fill vacancies, and for this reason Magellan Advisors was asked to develop business plans and financial models based upon three assumptions with respect to staffing models: 1) insourced; 2) outsourced; and 3) hybrid. A review of these assumptions reveals that either a fully- outsourced model or a hybrid model could substantially reduce the need for CPAU staffing whereas a fully insourced model would likely add to CPAU's current staffing deficit. In reviewing Magellan’s output, both outsourced and hybrid models create a viable business without overburdening the existing CPAU staff. CPAU’s ability to create a viable business without overburdening the existing CPAU staff is supported even when employing a very conservative Take Rate (how many Palo Alto households are expected to subscribe to the City owned service). Under both the outsourced and hybrid models, using conservative assumptions, it was demonstrated that a minimum Take Rate needed for a City-Owned ISP’s revenues to exceed expenses is roughly 27% - 30% of ----------------------------------- [1] Synchronous service offers the same upload and download speeds whereas “asynchronous” ### There are 2 occurrences of "asynchronous" in this document (not counting my comments). In each case, the document should say "asymmetrical." connections offer faster download speeds and slower upload speeds and is the common and typical service offered by AT&T and Xfinity in Palo Alto. ### AT&T's FTTP service is symmetrical. AT&T's DSL service and Comcast's HFC service are asymmetrical. Unlike asynchronous, synchronous connectivity comes with guaranteed bandwidth services that are easy to manage and consistent in their speeds. If you pay for a 500 Mbps connection, you get 500 Mbps upload and download speeds across your entire home or office network. ### No, in any oversubscribed network, whether it's symmetrical or not, the speed you subscribe to is not guaranteed. ### Depending on what your home or office network is, it could be the bottleneck. Page 4 --- page 6 --- households. Interestingly, survey results indicate the City can comfortably assume a higher initial Take Rate, so current financial modeling assumes a 40% Take Rate. Indeed, some survey results indicate the Take Rate could be as high as 60%, but these have been discounted to a more conservative assumption for the purposes of financial modeling. As such, it’s realistic to assume the City’s Take Rate of 40% is highly likely and at least two of our business models are realistic, fully outsourced and hybrid. Finally, inherent in any technology investment is the risk of technology obsolescence. ### Sure, in theory. But FTTP looks pretty future-proof. https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2021/02/01/why-fiber/ ### I think active Ethernet is more capable than PON. Uploads are lower latency. Also, with active Ethernet, downloaded packets are sent only to the intended recipient; with PON, downloaded packets are sent to all premises on the same PON net, so customers must rely on encryption to assure that only the intended recipient can understand them. 5G has recently been launched but remains a limited viable option, even within the City of Palo Alto. ### According to this, the first 5G network was launched in 2013, but 5G was launched in the U.S. in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G ### But consultant Doug Dawson claims that we still haven't seen "real" 5G. https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2022/01/19/when-will-we-see-real-5g/ ### In this talk show about telecom, Travis Carter, CEO of U.S Internet, a FTTP provider in Minneapolis, says (0:54:35) in jest, "My current stance on wireless is, what I'm really fearing is 14G. That's where, I think, it's really going to compete heavy with fiber. So, since we're only at 5G today, I'd say we have some time." https://muninetworks.org/content/join-us-thursday-january-20th-5pm-et-talk-about-fiber-2022-episode-30-connect-show Further and worthy of consideration, 5G and other mobile technology typically require a fiber “backhaul” of data and traffic from the wireless antennae back to the telecom carrier’s central office telecom switch. For future consideration, as 5G continues to roll out and as the City of Palo Alto builds out its fiber network further, the need for wireless backhaul by service providers may become another source of revenue for the City-owned fiber network. ### This 04-05-22 article says some wireless providers (AT&T, Verizon) say that owning their own fiber networks is essential, but other providers (T-Mobile, Dish Network) don't say that. https://www.lightreading.com/broadband-tech/do-5g-providers-need-to-own-fiber-network-too/d/d-id/776545 ### Are any wireless providers currently using the City's dark fiber network for wireless backhaul? Satellite-based service offerings are also available but may not be as compelling as a source of competition to a City-owned ISP model given equipment costs of $599 for residential service and a high monthly subscription fee ($110 per month). ### Starlink https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/03/starlink-hikes-prices-to-599-up-front-and-110-per-month-blames-inflation/ might provide speeds of less than 100 Mbps for downloads and less than 10 Mbps for uploads. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/how-fast-is-elon-musks-starlink-the-results-are-in FCC recently rejected a Starlink application for federal grants, because FCC thought Starlink couldn't deliver 100/20 Mbps as promised. https://www.axios.com/2022/08/10/fcc-spacex-nearly-900m-funding-internet-service Table 3 below summarizes key risks identified in our research and study. RISK Recommendation Competition CPAU would be entering a competitive business. Researching potential competitor reaction to a City-Owned ISP recommended Take Rate Assumptions Continuous monitoring and reporting of residential subscriptions recommended Technology Obsolescence Current mobile service providers are beginning to offer 5G services. 5G represents both a risk/threat as well as an opportunity. Researching the potential impact of 5G services in Palo Alto recommended ### In this talk show about telecom, host Christopher Mitchell, who runs MuniNetworks, comments on wireless hype over the years (47:57). "When I started, it was, you don't need fiber. We got Wi-Fi. And then it was LTE -- no, no, no, then it was WiMAX. And then it was 4G. And then it was, you know, 4G-LTE. And then it was 5G. Now I hear people being, like, Tarana's AMAZING. It solves ALL of the problems." https://muninetworks.org/content/join-us-thursday-january-20th-5pm-et-talk-about-fiber-2022-episode-30-connect-show His point: No, the next wireless sensation isn't going to obsolete FTTP. Capital Investment Current financial models represent a $117 million capital investment. $32 million is available immediately. Deficit of $85 million be funded via a revenue bond. Monitoring of City’s Triple A credit rating recommended Table 3: Summary of Key Risks Why the time is right to build a City-Owned ISP in Palo Alto As highlighted in Table 4 below, a City-owned and operated ISP would likely provide significant value to Palo Alto residents. With more stable, synchronous broadband service at a reduced price, together with CPAU’s high quality service, the City of Palo Alto population will find it easier to work from home, to school from home and to access other services requiring stable, high-speed synchronous broadband services. Looking out further, and considering the impact of increased competition, it’s realistic to expect a projected 10% reduction in Internet spending Page 5 -- page 7 --- community-wide amounting to $580 per residential household [2] . ### Over 10 years. Importantly, the fees for this service stay local with the City of Palo Alto, and dollars earned can be used to reinvest, augment services, or reduce rates or offer additional service offerings. Value Proposition Benefit Improve reliability and speed Faster, more reliable internet makes it easier to work from home, increases access to virtual learning and healthcare Reduce community spend Over 10 years, projected 10% reduction in internet rates could reduce overall community-wide internet spending by $15 million or $580 per residential household (25,876 households) Equal access for all Next generation, high-speed internet available to all residents and businesses in Palo Alto Keep dollars local Fees for service stay local and dollars are reinvested to improve broadband services or reduce rates More control The community determines what services (immediate or future) are to be provided by a City-Owned ISP More choice Citizens have more broadband services options pushing providers to offer better services and compete on price Economic Tool Enhanced incentives for businesses to stay or relocate to the City Table 4: Value Proposition Any recommendation for providing a new service by the CPAU must recognize the strong history of accomplishment and capability of our CPAU staff. As all are aware, the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department currently manages all services associated with: electricity, water, sewer & stormwater, gas and dark fiber. With a service history going back to 1896, the CPAU has a strong “service first” mindset which has resulted in a strong brand and an appreciative population. Additionally the CPAU has been recognized by the professional community for its commitment to energy savings, sustainability, excellence, reliability and safety as is evidenced by the long list of awards received, Ref. Appendix: Table 5 - CPAU Awards attached. Finally, the CPAU has a demonstrated history of fiscal mindedness resulting in a well-run organization with reserves appropriate for pushing into additional services, including FTTP. As highlighted above, the City’s fiber reserve balance at the end of FY 2022 is approximately $34 million. These funds are immediately available to be used for operations and capital investment related to the City of Palo Alto’s fiber network. [3] Additionally, CPAU staff and Magellan Advisors ----------------------------------- [2] According to the FY 2020 Utilities at a Glance, the City of Palo Alto has 25,876 residential and 3,973 commercial electric accounts. Source: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Utilities/Customer-Service/Utilities-at-a-Glance [3] Meeting Sept. 28, 2015. City of Palo Alto staff interpretation of use restriction of fiber funds. Referencing Part D of the motion, i.e., "wireless plans will not use fiber funds”. Sept 28, 2015 Action Minutes. Ref.: Page 6 --- page 8 --- confirmed that funding the capital investment shortfall of $85 million for building a City-Owned ISP could come in the form of a “revenue bond” (also called municipal revenue bonds). Such a bond is supported by the revenue from a specific project, such as a toll bridge, highway, or local stadium. Revenue bonds that finance income-producing projects are thus secured by a specified revenue source, in this case, revenues from the City-Owned ISP business. These differ from general obligation bonds (GO bonds) that are repaid through a variety of tax sources. A key takeaway is that revenue bonds are a class of municipal bonds issued to fund public projects which then repay investors from the income created by that project. Unlike GO bonds, revenue bonds are project-specific and are not funded by taxpayers. A second key takeaway is that a decision to issue a revenue bond can come directly from the City Council and does not require a ballot measure. More importantly, however, we understand that City staff believes that the issuance of a fiber revenue bond will not impact the City of Palo Alto’s General Fund or other utilities triple A ratings. UAC Sub-Committee Recommendation It is therefore our recommendation that the UAC recommend to the City of Palo Alto City Council that the Council authorize CPAU to proceed forward with plans to offer fiber-based broadband services through a City-Owned FTTP network and City-Owned Internet Service Provider to all Palo Alto residents. ----------------------------------- Page 7 --- page 9 --- Appendix: Table 5 - CPAU Awards ### Dedicating a whole page to CPAU's and the City's awards seems excessive. Date Organization Giving Award or Recognition Person/Program Receiving Title and Description of Award or Recognition Award or Recognition 2021 American Public Power Association (APPA) City of Palo Alto Utilities Smart Energy Provider Award 2021 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency City of Palo Alto Utilities Champion Award for Responsible Appliance Disposal Program 2021 American Public Power Association (APPA) City of Palo Alto Utilities Reliable Public Power Provider (RP3) for industry-recognized leading practices in reliability & safety 2019 American Public Power Association (APPA) City of Palo Alto Utilities Smart Energy Provider Award 2019 American Public Power Association (APPA) City of Palo Alto Utilities Energy Innovator Award for the Home Efficiency Genie 2019 American Public Power Association (APPA) City of Palo Alto Utilities Reliable Public Power Provider -Utility designation for providing reliable and safe service 2019 Arbor Day Foundation City of Palo Alto Tree Line USA Utility - In recognition of quality tree care, annual worker training, tree planting, and public education 2018 National Research Center and City of Palo Alto Voice of the People Award for Excellence in Natural Environment International City/County Management Association (ICMA) 2018 American Public Power Association (APPA) City of Palo Alto Utilities Reliable Public Power Provider (RP3) “Diamond” level – the highest honor - for proficiency, sound business practices, and a utility-wide commitment to safe and reliable delivery of electricity, system improvement, energy efficiency and workforce development. 2018 Arbor Day Foundation City of Palo Alto Utilities Tree Line USA Utility – In recognition of quality tree care, annual worker training, tree planting and public education. 2017 Institute for Local Government City of Palo Alto 2017 Platinum Level Beacon Award Winner 2017 Smart Electric Power Alliance (SEPA) City of Palo Alto Utilities First place for Watts-per-Customer installed in 2016. Fourth time on Top Ten list of utilities integrating the most solar onto the grid. 2016 Moody's City of Palo Alto Moody's upgraded the City's Water Enterprise bond rating from Aa2 to Aa1, Water Enterprise a rare event for water operations. 2016 Solar Electric Power Association City of Palo Alto Utilities Top Ten list of utilities that integrated the most solar into the grid. #3 on the Watts- per-Customer list for 2015. 2016 Arbor Day Foundation City of Palo Alto Utilities Tree Line USA Utility - In recognition of quality tree care, annual worker training, tree planting, and public education 2015 Arbor Day Foundation City of Palo Alto Utilities Tree Line USA Utility - In recognition of quality tree care, annual worker training, tree planting, and public education 2015 Acterra City of Palo Alto Sustainability Award (Ref.: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Utilities ) ### On this page, click on "Awards" to see the same table. Page 8 From:Robert Cool To:Council, City Subject:Creekside Inn Property Development Date:Saturday, September 10, 2022 7:35:18 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from bcoolkicks@icloud.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Council Members As a long time resident of Barron Park I welcome the addition of new housing for the working class that contribute so much to our community. I am pleased with the affordable housing about to come on line along El Camino Real, and hope it is but a beginning for more such housing. Yet, I have grave concerns about the massive housing development proposed for the current Creekside Inn site, and ask you to proceed with extreme caution in assessing the proposal from an outside developer. My concerns include: The Creekside Inn is an upscale lodging facility beckoning to professional travelers while offering value to Palo Alto in the form of hotel taxes. Careful consideration should be given to removing it. Driftwood Market is a bustling family owned business which enjoys local support by providing goods and services not found elsewhere in Barron Park. We should not displace such businesses without careful consideration. The massive scale of the proposed project threatens the preservation of Matadero Creek and its riparian right away. No project on this site will garner my support unless there is absolute assurance for the preservation of and continued vitality of Matadero Creek. Respectfully Bob Cool Sent from my iPad From:Romola Georgia To:Council, City Subject:Creekside Inn Proposal Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 8:45:06 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rgeorgia@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. September 9, 2022 To Palo Alto City Council Members: Although I am a great proponent of low and moderate income housing for Palo Alto, I am very dubious about the current proposal. I have read and largely concur with the Barron Park Association letter addressing this issue. Additionally: 1. As a Master Gardener and California Native Plant advocate, I am concerned about preserving Matadero Creek as a wildlife corridor and increasing native plantings in the corridor and throughout Barron Park. 2. For over 40 years my family and many neighbors have depended on the existing businesses. The Creekside Inn has hosted many important community meetings and is a useful voting site as well as housing my parents and many visitors. The Driftwood Market supports the Barron Park Association, most recently providing lunches for the Senior group. Friends and neighbors have worked there, while nearly everyone counts on them for sandwiches and other necessities. 3. It is important to remember that Barron Park has no sidewalks. The entire neighborhood has preserved a "country" (not suburban) feel. Children and the elderly as well as runners and athletes are walking adjacent to traffic which is often too fast. This huge development is not consistent with maintaining our rural environment. Thank you for your attention, Romola Georgia Tippawingo St. From:Dan Farley To:Council, City Subject:Barron Park Hotel Proposal Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 7:51:15 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from dancfarley@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello City Council Members, I would urge you to significantly downsize the Barron Park hotel proposal to the current limits of allowed units. Two concerns I have are traffic and community. The El Camino/Matadero intersection cannot handle the traffic increase that the proposed development would bring. And the preservation of a place for Driftwood Market and Cibo restaurant is important to keep community businesses that serve Barron Park residents via walking. Thank you, Dan Farley 717 Chimalus Drive. Palo Alto From:Molly O"Connor To:Sauls, Garrett; Council, City; Burt, Patrick Subject:Creekside Inn Housing Development Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 5:18:48 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from oconnormollyc@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you as a former (and future again in the upcoming years, I'm sure) Palo Alto (renting) resident with a currently large amount of family still there (having had my family live in Barron Park for 70-odd years now) regarding the proposed development at the Creekside Inn site. I generally consider myself a YIMBY - I was fairly offended when Palo Alto opted not to allow new housing development at the former Fry's location and at several locations close to the Caltrain, especially as the evidence suggests that any new housing (including at market rate) will generally lower rents for everyone - while affordable housing is desperately needed, I can no longer reasonably afford to pay rent in Palo Alto on a $100k salary. For this proposal, however, I would like to ask you to proceed with caution (and not just because of my lifelong devotion to Driftwood) - allowing massive amounts of housing without appropriate parking will not encourage people to use public transit, but will instead cause people to park in every available spot in Barron Park, which is currently quiet, safe, and easy for visitors to find parking in. It would make a large quality of life difference for everyone in the neighborhood, especially the large population of less mobile retirees and the large number of families with young children, if the car density situation were to become unnecessarily competitive and unsafe. I ask that you will please consider moving forward in your considerations with a responsibility to the current residents of Barron Park with regards to cars and parking in mind, as well as being more generous in allowing housing development in more industrial and still transit- convenient areas along Park Blvd and elsewhere in Palo Alto. Sincerely yours, Molly O'Connor From:carol chun To:Council, City Subject:Creekside Inn at Barron Park Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 5:00:38 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cchunpharmd@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I would like to express my deep concern and opposition for the massive apartment complex being planned at the Creekside Inn. I am very concerned about increase in traffic along Matadero, environmental impact on Matafeto Creek and also changes in our neighborhood from a quiet residential area to a busy area. Thank you for your time. Carol Chun 3798 Laguna Ave From:Rob O"Connor To:Council, City Subject:Creekside Inn Housing Proposal Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 4:58:56 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email fromroboconnor1@googlemail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council I would like to bring to your attention three aspects of the housing proposal at the current site of Creekside Inn at the intersection of El Camino and Matadero. Traffic Hazard Matadero is a bicycle thoroughfare that channels extensive elementary school traffic. It is already subject to long waits at the signal with gridlock at commute times with traffic emerging onto Matadero from the Creekside. Adding greater than 350 residents and their cars into this mix is not feasible or safe. Parking The current plan does not provide parking for all the resident automobiles, which would cause a significant overspill of parking into the residential neighborhood, both changing the nature of the residential area and narrowing the streets - making Matadero even more hazardous for bicyclists and auto traffic. Food Desert Driftwood market is the last remaining market that can be reached on foot by Barron Park residents, in addition to being a truly great locally owned business. The removal of Driftwood would fully cement Barron Park as a food desert where residents need a car to get any food supplies. In closing, the proposed development includes several multiples of the number of units that would normally be considered acceptable on this site and will cause significant detriment to the local community as proposed. We ask that the council ask the developer to withdraw the current proposal. Best Regards Rob O’Connor 788 Josina Ave From:Jeff Hoel To:Council, City; UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:Minutes -- 04-05-99 Council meeting -- FTTH Trial and the Universal Telecommunications System RFP Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 2:51:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Council members and Commissioners, The URL for the minutes of Council's 04-05-99 meeting no longer works. Worse, even the Wayback Machine can't find these minutes. https://web.archive.org/web/20220121071323/http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil- archive/1999/990405.html So I'd like to provide a copy. Item 17 is about "Fiber to the Home." This is the meeting where Council authorized 1) building a FTTH Trial network and 2) issuing an RFP for a Universal Telecommunications System citywide network. (Actually, the City document was in a format that was hard to read, so I inserted carriage returns to make it more readable.) Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- PS: A recent report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities- advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/09-14-2022/09-14-2022- id-14742-item-6.pdf said the City had been working on FTTP for "going on 15 years." Here's evidence that it's been longer than that. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> To: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 at 01:31:25 PM PDT Subject: Minutes -- 04-05-99 Council meeting Backup of minutes of 04-05-99 Council meeting -- just in case. Where Council approved the FTTH Trial and the Universal Telecommunications System RFP ############################################################################ http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-archive/1999/990405.html City Council Minutes Regular Meeting April 5, 1999 1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Public Art Commission 88-127 2. Appointments to Human Relations Commission 88-127 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 88-128 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 88-128 3. Community Development Block Grant Funding - Refer to Finance Committee 88-129 4. Resolution 7841 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the Utility Standards for Water, Gas and Wastewater, Second Edition of the City of Palo Alto" 88-129 5. Consulting Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Deloitte & Touche, LLP to Provide Risk Management Consulting Services 88-129 7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Rabbit Office Automation for Citywide Convenience Copier Rental 88-129 8. Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Contract No. C9106646 Between the City of Palo Alto and Group 4/Architecture, Research and Planning, Inc. for Professional Consulting Services Related to the Interior Improvements and Space Planning Project 88-129 9. Resolution 7842 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Federal Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Funding for the Embarcadero Bridge and Bike Path Project and for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of Forest Area Caltrain Pedestrian/Bicycle Undercrossing Projects" 88-129 10. Resolution 7843 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Submittal of an Application to the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for Funds from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air 40% Program Manager Fund for the Arastradero Road Bike Lanes Project and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of Forest Area Caltrain Pedestrian/Bicycle Undercrossing Project" 88-129 11. Ordinance 4552 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $50,000 for Legal Contract Assistance in the City Attorney's Office" 88-130 12. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council to adopt the proposed 1999 Legislative Objectives as the basis for the City's legislative advocacy in 1999. 88-130 13. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and N. V. Heathorn, Inc. for the Replacement of a Wastewater Channel Screening System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 88-130 14. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Power Engineering Contractors for the Aeration Diffusers and Baffle System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 88-130 15. Recommendation for Approval of Process for Implementation of a Heating, Venting and Air-Conditioning Unit for the Lucie Stern Community Center Theatre Through Award of Design-Build Contract and Waiver of Committee Review of Scope of Services 88-130 16. Request for Approval of Increased Change Order Authority for Contract No. C8104259 Between the City of Palo Alto and Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction Inc. for Construction of Temporary Seismic Bracing at the Municipal Service Center 88-130 17. The Policy and Services Committee re "Fiber to the Home" 88-130 18. The Utilities Advisory Commission re Requested Guidance on the Utilities Advisory Commission's Role in Telecommunications 88-154 19. Approval of Cost-Sharing with the City of Menlo Park for the Second Phase of the San Francisquito Creek Bank Stabilization and Revegetation Study 88-154 20. Council Members Dick Rosenbaum and Vic Ojakian and Mayor Gary Fazzino re Joint City-School District Project to Add Gymnasium Facilities at the Middle Schools 88-155 21. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements 88-155 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. 88-155 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Eakins SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Council Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Public Art Commission City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Brian Bolitho, Gerald Brett, Michael Chacon, Carol Doyle, Tony Eppstein, Patrice Langevin, David Levin, Patrick Ford, Jane Moorman, Barbara Mortkowitz, and Judith Wasserman each received four or more votes and would be interviewed on Monday, April 19, 1999. MOTION: Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, that the City Council would not interview the three incumbents, leaving 8 candidates to be interviewed on April 19, 1999. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Eakins absent. 2. Appointments to Human Relations Commission Council Member Ojakian thanked the current members of the Human Relations Commission (HRC) who were dedicated to the community. Roy Blitzer had done an outstanding job during the six years of serving on the HRC, and Pat Singer had done impressive work. Mayor Fazzino instructed Council Members to cast their votes. FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ROSEMARIE BEDNAR: Schneider VOTING FOR WILLIAM BENNETT: VOTING FOR ROY BLITZER: Rosenbaum, Huber, Schneider, Ojakian, Mossar, Kniss, Wheeler, Fazzino VOTING FOR ROBERTA COLIN: VOTING FOR RONALD LEE JONES: VOTING FOR VICTOR FROST: VOTING FOR RANDY MONT-REYNAUD: VOTING FOR KENNETH RUSSELL: Fazzino VOTING FOR PAT SINGER: Rosenbaum, Huber, Ojakian, Mossar, Kniss, Wheeler VOTING FOR PETER J. ULLMAN: City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Roy Blitzer and Pat Singer each received more than five votes and were appointed to the Human Relations Commission on the first ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Cleveland Kennard, homeless, spoke about police harassment. Alex Christenson, 1705 Fulton Street, spoke regarding a public in-line skatepark. Ed Powers, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke about civic responsibility. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the minutes of January 25, 1999, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Eakins absent. Council Member Mossar said page 8 of the minutes of February 8, 1999, contained an error. Martin Bernstein requested the name of the company be changed from "Mumford" to "Rumford." MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the minutes of February 8, 1999, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Eakins absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Fazzino said staff requested removal of Consent Calendar Item No. 6 from the Consent Calendar until the determination was made regarding who could or could not participate in historic preservation, which created a problem with obtaining a quorum of Council Members eligible to vote. Council Member Ojakian would abstain from voting on Consent Calendar Item Nos. 9 and 10 due to a potential conflict of interest, since his wife worked for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). Council Member Mossar said she and Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case discussed the issue prior to the meeting. Consent Calendar Item Nos. 9 and 10 were not a conflict since grant applications for funding were being discussed, and PAMF was not a beneficiary or directly involved. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case said the issue was for funding of and receiving a grant for a bicycle path that PAMF had given to the City which, therefore, would not cause a conflict of interest. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 5, and 7 - 16, with Consent Calendar Item No. 6 removed due to lack of quorum to vote on the issue. 3. Community Development Block Grant Funding - Refer to Finance Committee 4. Resolution 7841 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the Utility Standards for Water, Gas and Wastewater, Second Edition of the City of Palo Alto" 5. Consulting Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Deloitte & Touche, LLP to Provide Risk Management Consulting Services 6. Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C9109545 Between the City of Palo Alto and Dames & Moore for Phase 2 of the Historic Inventory Project 7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Rabbit Office Automation for Citywide Convenience Copier Rental 8. Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Contract No. C9106646 Between the City of Palo Alto and Group 4/Architecture, Research and Planning, Inc. for Professional Consulting Services Related to the Interior Improvements and Space Planning Project 9. Resolution 7842 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Federal Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Funding for the Embarcadero Bridge and Bike Path Project and for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of Forest Area Caltrain Pedestrian/Bicycle Undercrossing Projects" 10. Resolution 7843 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Submittal of an Application to the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for Funds from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air 40% Program Manager Fund for the Arastradero Road Bike Lanes Project and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of Forest Area Caltrain Pedestrian/Bicycle Undercrossing Project" 11. Ordinance 4552 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $50,000 for Legal Contract Assistance in the City Attorney's Office" 12. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council to adopt the proposed 1999 Legislative Objectives as the basis for the City's legislative advocacy in 1999. 13. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and N. V. Heathorn, Inc. for the Replacement of a Wastewater Channel Screening System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 14. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Power Engineering Contractors for the Aeration Diffusers and Baffle System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 15. Recommendation for Approval of Process for Implementation of a Heating, Venting and Air-Conditioning Unit for the Lucie Stern Community Center Theatre Through Award of Design-Build Contract and Waiver of Committee Review of Scope of Services 16. Request for Approval of Increased Change Order Authority for Contract No. C8104259 Between the City of Palo Alto and Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction Inc. for Construction of Temporary Seismic Bracing at the Municipal Service Center MOTION PASSED 8-0, for Item Nos. 3-5, 7, 8, and 11-16, Eakins absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0, for Item Nos. 9 and 10, Ojakian "abstain," Eakins absent. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 17. The Policy and Services Committee re "Fiber to the Home" Council Member Kniss said Council Member Eakins, Chairperson of the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee, was absent, so she would explain the P&S Committee motion regarding the Fiber to the Home (FTTH) issue. In May 1995, the Council moved to expedite upgrading of telecommunications facilities and applied for funding. The motion would only afford a small segment of the community an opportunity to be connected from their home to the fiber. The Council was faced with three alternatives: 1) Proceed with the Universal Telecommunications Service Request for Proposal (UTS-RFP) without the trial while pursuing other strategies; 2) Proceed with the trial and submit the UTS-RFP after the trial, incorporating information gained during the trial; and 3) Proceed with the trial and UTS-RFP on a parallel track, the third of which represented the recommendations of both the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and the P&S Committee. The Council appreciated the support of the public. Utilities Advisory Commissioner Paul Johnston said the UAC first became involved with dark fiber in 1996. Although installed the fiber was under-utilized. The FTTH concept was in existence for a number of years. The question was whether and when the City would move forward and actually use the facilities it had begun to build or watch what the rest of the world did before moving forward. The UAC had considered the issue and thought it was time the City moved forward. The issues raised during the UAC meeting with regard to FTTH were largely financial concerns with regard to the payback period. They were issues which could be easily resolved to the satisfaction of the UAC with adjustments to reduce some of the costs and, if necessary, increase monthly payments to produce a payback period more acceptable to the City. The UAC thought the City should move forward on both programs. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said the two projects under evaluation were: 1) a short-term project whereby the City became responsible for construction of a trial FTTH; and 2) the long-term issue of how high-speed telecommunications services could be provided to the entire City. FTTH was an option which included such things as wireless communications, cable modem service, and high-speed telephone connections. The staff report (CMR:162:99) focused on the short-term FTTH trial. The options of how to pursue the long-term project would be thoroughly explored in the Request for Proposal (RFP) for telecommunications services, which staff called "UTS-RFP." Staff focused on the short-term project of the FTTH trial because both the UAC and the P&S Committee were recommending to the Council that the trial proceed in conjunction with the UTS-RFP. Two of the risks associated with the short-term trial were that there would be less participation than predicted for marketability risk, and the cost would not be recovered over an economically reasonable period of time. Staff prepared a proposal for the Council, Attachment B of the staff report (CMR:162:99), to ensure recovery of the City's capital investment for the FTTH trial in the five-year period. For 10 megabyte per second (Mb/s) service, the resident would pay $1,200 up front and $75 per month. In addition, a resident would have to pay an Internet Service Provider (ISP) a base fee of $25 to $50 per month plus a possible usage charge. ncept of a public/private partnership for high-speed telecommunication services to the home. The City, by owning its own Electric Utility, brought valuable assets to the table in such a partnership. The City owned rights-of-way, conduit and electric line poles to string fiber or cable, the dark fiber ring which could be a critical element for high-speed telecommunications services, using both wireless and coax technology, and valuable real property which could be sites for wireless technology. Staff agreed with the UAC that it was likely that many customers would be satisfied with connection speeds less than 10 Mb/s, and would want to take advantage of alternative technologies immediately. Some residents might be unwilling to pay for FTTH, but would be willing to pay for a lessor technology which was still superior to a 56K modem. A working relationship with Cable Co-op might provide an opportunity for a hybrid fiber coaxial solution that would be less expensive than FTTH. All of the possibilities would be explored through the UTS-RFP. Some members of the community expressed reservations about the UTS-RFP, saying it precluded FTTH as a solution, which was incorrect. The staff report (CMR:162:99) summarized the pros and cons of the alternatives. In putting together the pros and cons, staff worked with representatives of Palo Alto FiberNetwork group (PA-FiberNet). Mayor Fazzino opened the public hearing. Michael Eager, President of PA-FiberNet, 1960 Park Boulevard, spoke in support of the FTTH trial. PA-FiberNet worked with the staff, both of whom learned a great deal in the process. Ken Poulton, 884 Los Robles Avenue, said the fiber system was 10 to 100 times faster than other types of technologies at a similar cost. Long term, fiber could offer 10 to 100 times more bandwidth per user than competing technologies and could be upgraded easily in the future, compared with other technologies which would face limits to expansions. To build another FTTH system, in competition with the City's system, was uneconomical. The FTTH system was unlikely to have other competitors with similar capabilities. The building blocks of the network included the physical structure, such as, poles, wires, equipment, and the day-to-day operation of the network which included the running of the network, security, billing, and 24-hour customer support. Internet access carried the bits from the local network into the Internet. In the long run, PA- FiberNet was interested in competing with Internet Access Providers (IAP), which was a key part of the network and could be competitive in a city-wide arrangement. Because of the scale of the FTTH system, it made more sense to have a single integrated IAP and network operator. In terms of day-to-day operations, the City would install and maintain the fiber infrastructure. The City would chose an IAP as the network operating partner for network operations. City ownership was not a necessity for the long-term system but would provide a unique benefit. The privately-owned system operator normally chose one IAP, typically the same as the ISP. The policies of the system interpreted what was possible with the computers, for instance, not able to run a web server or any kind of services out of a home. With a publicly-owned system, a chance could be taken for multiple IAPs, allowing and enabling competition. Key questions included the size of the FTTH trial, a key concern of which was efficiency. The larger the trial area, the further the overhead of construction, and operations were spread. It was important to learn enough from the trial to determine whether it made sense to move forward with a city-wide system. A larger trial provided larger numbers thereby reducing the uncertainties of statistics, more areas of a greater diversity of population, poles and underground construction, and a wider variety of home constructions. A benchmarking of other trials showed a range from 180 to 2,000, making the City's trial of 160 homes small in comparison and 69 homes inadequate. Cost recovery was another important decision for the Council to make. Short cost-recovery goals increased prices, and increased the revenue stream if the base remained the same but could reduce participation to the point revenues dropped and cost-recovery time actually increased. High pricing placed the City into a smaller market that served only the most extreme users willing to pay the higher prices. However, the goal was to provide a service useful to everyone in the City; therefore, the prices should be as low as possible. The longest cost-recovery period that made sense with the technology and the market was the best alternative. The staff report (CMR:162:99) mentioned 10-15 years, but PA-FiberNet thought 10 years was appropriate. Less than eight years was unadvisable. Mr. Eager thanked staff for their work and explained the differences PA- Fibernet had with the staff report (CMR:162:99). Staff recommended an RFP process to solve all the problems to provide communications quickly and without risk. PA-FiberNet, however, was not convinced that was the case. Bidders on the RFP would provide nothing more than what was already available, unless the RFP actually specified FTTH. PA-FiberNet was not opposed to the RFP, but the City would not get something for nothing. Staff had done a reasonable job of providing the pros and cons of the FTTH proposal. Staff's original estimates were conservative, with a 20 percent contingency fee. The staff report (CMR:162:99) contained an additional 15 percent. PA-FiberNet questioned the need for an additional staff person to administer contracts for a FTTH trial. The best market assessment possible was to sign up people for the trial. Staff should request adequate funding for the trial but the number should be representative of the actual cost. Staff previously estimated the trial at six months from approval to operation, which was somewhat inflated. Margaret Cooley, 830 University Avenue, said the City was asked to build the infrastructure since it already held rights of way, in the same way the City helped build streets. A full-scale trial could set the standard for what could be expected in Palo Alto for whomever provided city-wide deployment in the future. The City should maintain local control for the infrastructure because it would minimize the amount of disruption in rights of way in neighborhoods. When it came time for companies to offer services, open access and competition would be ensured. The costs to the users could be kept to a minimum. By using the City's fiber ring in the build-out, a local area network could be created in the City, connecting homes to the schools, libraries, and medical facilities, without entering the Internet. The Council had the opportunity to provide national leadership and vision for other cities throughout the country and would leave residents a lasting legacy. The Council was urged to vote in favor of a full-scale trial. Mr. Eager urged the Council to take a bold step into the next century to create a lasting benefit to Palo Alto and its residents. Palo Alto was respected throughout the world and what was done would be viewed as a precedent others would follow. The Council was trusted to balance concerns with the benefits of the project. Brian Reid, 2960 Waverley Street, spoke in opposition to PA-FiberNet's advice. The City should not consider involvement in the telecommunications service business, but should be getting the City to build the infrastructure necessary for someone else to run the service business. The project should be termed a data communications project rather than telecommunications project. Fiber optics was invented in 1935 and was less expensive. Copper wire was not obsolete and fiber would not become obsolete. Investments in fiber equipment were slow. Fiber was able to carry light forever and could last over 100 years. Bill Kruse, 3230 Ross Road, spoke in support of FTTH. Louis Rocha, 3099 Yancy Drive, San Jose, lineman for Pacific Bell (PacBell)spoke in support of offering telecommunications services to all levels of people in Palo Alto. Steve Kroes, 915 "L" Street, Ste. 800, Sacramento, spoke on behalf of the California Taxpayers Association (CTA) in opposition to the proposal because of the significant financial risk which required a commitment of approximately $.5 million of taxpayer or ratepayer funds. Care should be exercised in the expenditure of such funds, particularly for the benefit of only a small group. Of concern also was the policy aspect, for instance, government's purpose should not compete against the private sector. Any business could undercut competitors if free from property tax on equipment and income tax on earnings, and with lighter regulatory burdens. CTA was concerned about local governments entering into what remained a private sector business. Proponents of FTTH already acknowledged no competition would exist if the City wired the neighborhoods first, which was not an appropriate role for the government. Governments were often unable to continually upgrade equipment, standing in the way of progress in the community where governments established businesses. The equipment might be state-of- the-art in 1999, but he questioned the future and how long the trial would lose money before making money. Using $.5 million of ratepayer or taxpayer funds for eight to ten years was not wise stewardship of the funds. CTA sought to minimize unnecessary taxation by focusing on government spending and promoting efficient, quality services. The Council was urged to exhibit caution. Michael W. Condry, 985 Paradise Way, Director of Internet Standards for Sun Microsystems, Inc. (Sun) said Sun was committed to assisting in connecting all Sun employees to the fiber and ensure each home had strong equipment. A collection of monitoring and experimental tasks would be run and reported back to the City on a regular basis. In addition, Sun would provide high-performance experimental web terminals to the City for use in the school system, particularly elementary schools. Sun would in turn gain information about the performance of its terminals and its product while helping to provide funding and objectives in the FTTH trial. Randy Okamura, 345 Hamilton Avenue, No. 308, PacBell representative, said fiber was a superior medium used for some of PacBell's customers in the area. An OC48 speed was used, which was a very high optical channel speed. In 1995, the City offered high-speed telecommunications. Since that time, a number of products were introduced into the marketplace. Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) would not have been used as a term back in 1995. Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) would not have been used as a product. But when the subject was raised in 1998, PacBell conducted a trial for Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL). Since then ADSL had been ruled out. PacBell responded to the market by reducing prices by 45 percent. Although not as fast as 10 Mb/s, for $149 per month PacBell offered downloads of 6.0 Mb/s. Most consumers used the 1.5 download and 384 upload at an average of $39 per month with a one-year commitment. For an additional $10, PacBell Internet could be utilized. The staff report (CMR:162:99) was incorrect regarding two/one lines which were available for $350 per month. The discounted services were offered to community-based organizations and schools at a cost of $175 per month. The PAUSD was a recipient of PacBell's grants at 50 percent off. The list of companies was growing, with AT&T, MCI, @Home, and Regional Communication Network (RCN) all coming into the area. The number of companies using PacBell's central office to provide fiber was growing. Most of the goals set out by the City in 1995 had been met, including no financial risk to the City. Using a lower risk cost-recovery method of leasing the dark fiber should be compared with a full-fledged IAP situation which increased the financial risk. Mayor Fazzino noted the City Manager provided him with a copy of an e- mail from Michael Condry. Kate Sherwood, 558 Forest Avenue, spoke in favor of FTTH. As a current Cable Co-op cable modem user, she was willing to pay more than staff's figures indicated. Her use of the Internet was extensive and of great value to her. FTTH was an investment in the value to her home. Good fiber would give her a competitive edge over the rest of the world. One million people per month in the United States came on line. Terry Andre, 598 Vista, spoke in favor of the City installing an infrastructure so universal access to all citizens was possible. If a private organization installed the lowest level of infrastructure, the community would be tied into that particular infrastructure. The Council was encouraged to approve the FTTH trial. Having public ownership of the infrastructure would allow more competition. The Council was encouraged to base the trial on 160 homes since it would take a long time to complete the trial and many citizens outside of the trial period wanted to be involved. The larger the number, the faster fiber could be accessed by the entire City. Geoff Thompson, 416 Oxford Avenue, Chairperson of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Standards Committee that standardized the Ethernet, said the fiber backbone was an inspired investment on the part of the City. The real leverage and vision was to bring the potential of the fiber backbone into residences and get it to the residential taxpayers who had paid for it. In an era of deregulation, it was important to have a path into service providers not currently available. The Council was urged to commit to high-speed access to homes by providing the infrastructure. Long-term contracts should be avoided when technology was moving rapidly in an adventuresome and experimental era. Paul Botterff, 3776 La Donna Avenue, said new technology was currently bottle-necked at access networks. The new services in the next millennium would require the capacity of the fiber networks, for professionals, schools, and everyday learning and interaction. It would be a mistake for Palo Alto not to lead the way to such access to residents. Michael Silverton, 114 Greenmeadow Way, said market demand in the community was exciting to see for his company, Fiberhood Network. As an Ethernet-to-the-home company, Fiberhood was currently studying several installations in Palo Alto using existing guidelines. A few basic NII guidelines included competition in the local loop, removal of barriers to entry, and promotion of private investment and information infrastructure. Although excited about FTTH, he was unsure government was the means by which to accomplish the job since it was unlikely another provider would build another fiber infrastructure, which was a barrier to entry and could be an inhibitor to private investment. He took exception to the position that no private company could provide an open architecture infrastructure. He worked at Sun where open architecture worked well. In general, private companies could provide open solutions that worked well in the marketplace. The idea of an RFP where public and private worked together in partnership was ideal. He questioned the long cost-recovery phase and how long the trial would take. The FTTH trial was demonstrative of the visionary insight that led to the first fiber backbone. He looked forward to FTTH in Palo Alto. Colin Mick, 2130 Hanover Street, spoke about the benefits of the FTTH trial and infrastructure. Trials enabled an examination of new service approaches, new alliances, and new technologies. Nothing in the model prohibited PacBell or any other company from being a service provider on the infrastructure. The issues of marketing data, cost of connections, price elasticity, adoption rates, packaging, marketing in the future, and service use would be better understood after the trial. Applications testing was important. Benefits from the infrastructure might include the revenue to recover some of the fiber backbone. Citizen participation was important. Business communication for the City and traffic reduction were important elements. Better Internet connectivity was a good option. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, Board of Directors, Cable Co-op, said although Cable Co-op should be afraid of competition, no objections were raised to the City's participation in the FTTH trial because if the City failed to install FTTH, no one else would either. With over $23 million in surplus for the Electric Utility and $70 million in the Calaveras Reserve, $.5 million was not a big amount for the City to expend. The Council was urged to move forward with the FTTH. Disagreement was voiced with the staff report (CMR:162:99) which recommended a manager at over $100,000 per year as an extravagance. The $40,000 fee for a consultant to evaluate the RFP was a waste of time and money. The time it would take to write, evaluate, and prepare a contract proposal was not as great as staff estimated. Cable Co-op recently conducted an engineering study to determine how much it would cost to convert the entire system to fiber, estimated at $16 million. Cable Co-op considered fiber in 1986, but the cost was prohibitive. The fiber Cable Co-op considered installing in 1986 would have been the same fiber Palo Alto was currently considering. Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, spoke in agreement with other speakers in favor of FTTH. As a resident in one of the proposed trial areas, she was willing to pay the proposed $1,200 installation fee along with the monthly fees. The Council was urged to act expeditiously to initiate the trial. Bill Zamuch, 912 Clara Drive, said the FTTH would restore bandwidth and provide benefits to more than only just end users, but local businesses who would be given an edge over larger companies enabling the community to keep valuable businesses. Regarding the CTA, the network should not make the same mistakes the transportation infrastructure made. Richard Gerges, 714 East Charleston Road, spoke in opposition to City financing of the fiber. Members of the public in support of the FTTH project were wealthy enough to afford it but others who would not benefit would still be required to pay. The project should be established as an assessment district so everyone within the district paid for the project. The City should make money on the project. Undergrounding of the Electric Utility was only handled in certain neighborhoods because of the cost, while the City refused to do so in other neighborhoods. Fiber should be connected to libraries and other public buildings so every citizen would have access. The City claimed to have insufficient funding to enforce traffic laws, but seemed willing to expend excess funds on something that would not benefit the entire community. David Harris, 455 Margarita Avenue, said increased Internet communication reduced travel on the roads through telecommuting, thus reducing traffic problems in the City. Having a high-speed test bed where citizens were technically oriented would allow new businesses to emerge, and create new tax revenues. The proposal for the trial involved initial payment for nearly one-third of the cost with the remainder paid gradually. In terms of equity, fiber to the individuals receiving the first benefit would pay the most and would become less expensive over time as it spread. The eventual cost would be more reasonable. Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, spoke in support of the FTTH trial as the first step in implementing a City-owned universal FTTH system. A letter submitted to the Council (on file in the City Clerk's Office) raised some process issues: 1) placing the Electric Utility Fund at risk; 2) updates to PAMC Chapter 2.11 to ensure fair and open decisions regarding fiber optics; and 3) City negotiations with Residential Communications Networks (RCN) while negotiating an extension of the franchise agreement with Cable Co-op. Documentation was also provided to the Council. Rick Ferguson, 1037 Harker Avenue, Community Center Neighborhood Association (CCNA) member, spoke in favor of the FTTH trial. Financial risk, which was one of the most important concerns of the Council and staff, could be handled in a straightforward fashion via the terms and conditions of a contract between each resident and the City for installation of the fiber. He envisioned a contract between the individual resident and the City for purposes of installing the infrastructure and suggested the City Attorney could decide how to draft the contract. There would be an additional contract for trial purposes between each resident and the ISP. That contract would have a price and would soon have competitive contracts with other ISPs. Contracts were documents that people frequently used to manage financial risk. He encouraged the Council to build that contract feature into the motion and into the policy recommendation. The outcome of the FTTH trial was an enormous Citywide interest which brought together the community and put residents in touch with each other. The cross-town view of the trial would preserve the new dimension of community rather than artificially sever it on the grounds of financial risk. Mayor Fazzino closed the public hearing. RECESS: 9:20 - 9:30 P.M. Council Member Ojakian asked about the cost to the City of the infrastructure and the components thereof. Assistant Director of Utilities Larry Starr said staff focused on the medium-sized trial area, the costs for which were listed in Attachment B of the staff report (CMR:162:99). Staff estimated the cost of construction at $342,900. As with all bid prices, however, a 10 percent contingency fund would be requested. Staff would request the Council approve $380,000 from the Electric Reserve. Attachment B of the staff report (CMR:162:99) indicated four scenarios to determine how the monthly payment affected the pay-back period, ranging from a $35 per month base, $1,200 initial payment at a pay back of 14 years, to $75 per month base, $1,200 initial payment at a pay back of 5 years. Council Member Ojakian said components were involved such as data switches in the infrastructure. He asked for a breakdown of some of the components for the study area of 70 households versus the larger group. Mr. Starr said the electronics for the project represented a small portion of the total infrastructure. Labor costs were 45 percent of the entire project, with electronics in the 15 to 20 percent range, including the switch and other electronics. Other components were engineering design and cable. The larger trial was two separate areas, for instance, two individual trials with no ties whatsoever to each other with separate electronics, and different fibers. If staff was directed to move forward with the FTTH in the Community Center area, with the assistance of PA- FiberNet and residents in the area, staff could pickup a few more customers in the area. Council Member Schneider asked about how many flyers the City initially sent out, and what was the response. Mr. Starr said a flyer was distributed to 26,000 electric customers. Approximately 1,000 responses were received in the first month, spread throughout the City. The Community Center area and Barron Park areas received the most responses. Council Member Schneider asked how many of the responses received favored FTTH. Mr. Starr said all the responses indicated a willingness to pay $1,200 initially and $35 per month, or more for the more expensive 100 Mb/s service. No negative responses were received. Council Member Huber asked what mechanism the City would use to assure repayment of the cost allocated to a particular piece of property. Mr. Starr said the City had nothing in place at the current time. Senior Assistant City Attorney Grant Kolling said to guarantee payment, an assessment district could be formed requiring participation by all, which had Proposition 218 implications. There was no assurance that someone who signed up would stay on forever. Council Member Huber clarified the City had no mechanism by deed or other form to assure monies would be recovered from whoever signed up for the service. Mr. Kolling said the City could ask the resident to provide a deed of trust to secure payment, but there was no guarantee. Council Member Huber feared long-term costs would not be recovered if individuals could sign up and left the country six months later. Mr. Kolling said Council Member Huber's concern was real. Council Member Mossar asked whether the difference between the City's situation with FTTH and what she recalled from the loans for solar systems was the City's ability to require a lien on the property. Mr. Kolling said Council Member Mossar was correct. Solar heating panels were a benefit to the customer. The FTTH was on the City's side of the meter. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff had actually selected the two areas. Mr. Starr replied no. Staff conducted cost estimates for both areas. The most accurate cost estimate was on the Community Center area and the larger estimates were simply a scale-up of some of the numbers. Council Member Mossar asked whether a trial could be conducted that was not in the two separate areas. Mr. Starr said staff thought more residents within the trial area would become interested in the trial once they realized how easy it was. Mention was made of conducting the trial in Barron Park because of the undergrounding possibilities. However, part of the Barron Park area was new and some homes were not built. The developer indicated a willingness to pay the $1,200, but there were no assurances of monthly fees. If the Community Center area was chosen, the City planned to underground across Middlefield and Embarcadero Roads; therefore, conduit could be placed in the surrounding areas and included easily in the trial. Concern was expressed with undergrounding in the Barron Park area. Previously installed conduits might not lend themselves to fiber optic cable with electric cable already inside. Director of Utilities Ed Mrizek said when the flyers were mailed out the prior summer, staff considered the level of participation necessary to make the project cost-effective. Participation was established at 30 percent, but the Community Center, the largest positive response, was at 18 percent. If expanded beyond the Community Center area, the participation level might only be 1 or 2 percent. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the $380,000 cost for a medium project included the $125,000 per year for personnel. Mr. Starr said staff wanted to show the Council what was required to conduct the FTTH trial. Currently, a Telecommunications Manager and electricians worked on the dark fiber project. Telecommunications Manager was a full-time position to market and contract for new customers with the dark fiber ring. With the addition of the FTTH project, staff needed some in-house design expertise. The design engineer could be utilized to help manage the FTTH project as well as begin design work as more customers were added to the dark fiber ring. Currently, a senior engineer was utilized for the job, but underground districts were suffering. The Telecommunications Engineer was not paid $125,000, but that was the cost to the City for the position. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about Rick Ferguson's suggestion to contract to secure payment. Mr. Kolling said when two parties agreed to a type of arrangement in which one performed services and the other paid money, it was a contract whether or not in writing. The question was how extensive the contract should be. The City Attorney's Office could attempt to provide a fail-safe contract, but anyone who wanted to break a contract could do so and legal remedies took money to resolve. Council Member Rosenbaum said an alternative was to ask for the entire amount initially. In terms of net present value, there was no difference between someone paying the entire cost initially and paying it off over a number of years. Mr. Kolling agreed. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked about a statement made on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:162:99) that, "staff reached the conclusion that the major benefit from doing the trial would be as a precursor to a citywide build out of FTTH by the City." Many of the comments heard from members of the public would bolster that statement. The City was asked by a segment of the community to actually build out the system. She was unsure the Council, in any of its prior discussions of the issue, had started down that path. When the fiber backbone was discussed, the Council had backed away from making such an investment of City funds. She asked whether there was any other reason for conducting the trial or whether conducting the trial was setting the City down the path of investing, as a City, in going citywide. Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison replied no. Staff would not have supported the trial if that were the case because staff continued to have concerns about the City's role in a build-out. In meeting with members of the community advocating FTTH, staff was convinced the information from the trial could be valuable in evaluating the public/private possibilities of an actual build-out in terms of the actual marketability of the actual cost of the technology itself. Staff would be unable to confirm or contradict its concerns until after the trial was conducted. The trial could provide pieces of information to the Council to enable it to make a final decision as to how The Council wanted to provide telecommunications services. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the proposed time line for proceeding with the FTTH trial showed staff returning to the Council after it conducted a market survey, presumably using more real numbers than the original survey. She questioned whether that was the point at which staff would expect a final decision by the Council. Ms. Harrison said Vice Mayor Wheeler was correct. Staff hoped to have more information about the City's possibilities for partnering at that time. Staff would bring the results of both the trial and the UTS-RFP prior to having the Council make a decision. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether staff would have the results of the July 1999 RFP when the market assessment report returned to the Council in September 1999. Vice Mayor Wheeler wanted to know when the Council's decision point was on moving forward with the FTTH trial, for instance, the current meeting or in September when the real interest was known. Ms. Harrison thought the trial would begin to be designed the following day if the Council directed staff to do so. Mr. Mrizek said staff would begin work on the trial if directed by the Council. However, since the costs were higher per month than first indicated, staff needed to return to the Community Center participants to ask whether they were willing to pay more. The information would be brought back to the Council in September as to whether or not the City had sufficient participants to cover the cost based on what the Council indicated, such as, 5-year payback, or 8-year payback. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified the Council would give staff direction but the actual implementation decision would be made in September. Mr. Mrizek said Vice Mayor Wheeler was correct. Ms. Harrison said the market assessment would be conducted in house. Concern had expressed about the additional consultant cost of the market assessment, but that was a misconception. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked Council Member Kniss about the actual P&S Committee motion, the intent of which suggested that the trial area would be one neighborhood. Council Member Kniss said it depended upon the size of the trial the Council directed. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the recommendation was for the medium-size trial. Council Member Kniss preferred the "modest" recommendation. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked what the P&S Committee's motion indicated with relation to the financial risk to the City. Council Member Kniss said the P&S Committee struggled with the same issues expressed during the current meeting, for instance, people who signed up and then left town. The P&S Committee discussed the legal ramifications and a reasonably fast payback, such as, five or eight years. Vice Mayor Wheeler wanted to make sure Council Member Kniss' understanding was the motion covered the concept of a contracted payback period and an unspecified vehicle to assure full payback from subscribers. Council Member Kniss said the vehicle was not something the Council as policy makers would design, but would come from staff. The Council's job was to set policy on the actual trial itself. Council Member Schneider asked how many members in the audience would be willing to take the financial risk over a 5 to 8-year period and be in the position of collecting the revenues the City might be able to enjoy, for instance, making the initial participants shareholders. Vice Mayor Wheeler thought the Council wanted Utilities staff to respond to discussions about cost-recovery and what costs the City was expecting to recover, for instance, whether it would include the ongoing operating costs of the system. Mr. Starr said staff planned to recover all of the costs: the initial construction costs, ongoing monthly charges to manage the system, yearly license fees of the fiber ring, and operations and maintenance costs incurred during the year to keep things going. Ms. Harrison said staff was not including in the cost estimates payback of staffing and additional consulting, or Research & Development (R&D) costs, with a venture of that kind in the private sector. Council Member Huber supported the concept of a trial based on the ability to then sell to someone other than the City, since he was not interested in running it as a City utility. He wanted to know exactly what the trial would show and how long the trial had to go before the City gathered what was needed in order to "sell it" to someone else. The City approved and paid for the fiber ring, and he recalled many people had expressed a willingness to use the ring, but for whatever reason, had not done so. At some point, the City said it would install the ring, but the people who said they would use it had not done so. Mr. Starr said Council Member Huber was correct. The City had not seen as many customers sign up for dark fiber as originally projected. To date, the $2 million had not been entirely repaid to the Electric Reserves. The annual ongoing maintenance costs were high and included funding the Telecommunications Manager and staff in Operations conducting construction and maintenance. Revenues increased to the point of paying the R&M costs. Staff would need to continue adding customers to recoup the $2 million. The period was extended from a 3-year to 5-year payback to a realistic 10-year payback, given what was seen with dark fiber licensing. Staff was also concerned that the City might be slightly high priced, so prices should be reviewed in order to possibly pick up more customers. Council Member Huber asked what the City would get for the trial and how long the trial would have to be run to attract someone to operate the system. Mr. Starr said the trial would provide the actual costs for installing fiber to a home, since staff's estimates were just a guess. The cost to run from one switch location to a number of homes in a residential area would also be known. The other information gained from the trial was managing the system, for instance, whether the City would be overwhelmed with calls from customers with problems or whether it ran with very little maintenance. Council Member Huber was interested in how much time would be necessary to gain sufficient information. Mr. Starr said staff planned to return to the Council in February 2001 with results of the trial at which time the Council could make the decision to either continue to collect revenue or sell the business. Staff would have completed the trial, gleaned from it all the information it needed and would have the option to sell. Council Member Huber asked what would happen if no one wanted to purchase the system and the City decided it did not want to go citywide. Mr. Starr said the decision would be one for the Council to make: 1) if the Council no longer wanted to be in the fiber business, it could write off the remaining monies owed and stop operations; 2) the Council could determine to remain in the business until it had recouped the monies owed, at which time it could stop operating the business; or 3) the Council could make the decision to continue operating the fiber business. Council Member Mossar had found it intriguing that the fiber ring was underutilized yet the City was considering the potential of adding more customers to the ring. She questioned how the City would continue repaying the dark fiber ring investment, how it would generate more customers, and how FTTH fit into the issue. Mr. Starr said the FTTH trial was a small customer. Only two fibers were necessary from the Community Center to Downtown, which represented a few thousand dollars per year. Larger customers paid tens of thousands of dollars per year in fiber leases of up to 12 fibers, which was the business the City wanted to promote. The Telecommunications Manager's job was to promote business. Staff thought the City's licensing costs were not right, since many companies still installed their own fiber. Staff thought companies would want to lease from the City rather than putting in their own fiber because of the cost differential. The entire City was built out, the FTTH might only utilize 30 switch sites. The City had 288 fibers to license. Council Member Mossar asked whether the business of fiber optics was an appropriate role for the City and could be compared to running lines to homes, at which point the City's responsibility was over. Mr. Starr said running fiber optics like a gas utility would be difficult. The City leased dark fiber to customers who then purchased the electronics to do whatever was required to go into business. The City's only responsibility was to make sure the fiber was not broken. FTTH was different because the electronics were in the middle, requiring the City to light up the fiber and contract for the service. The City would have to be more involved than with the gas. Council Member Mossar said the staff report (CMR:162:99) failed to comment on the benefits to the community through telecommuting, to which several members of the public had alluded. She asked whether staff had an opportunity to discuss the possible benefits to the community from high-speed telecommunications services. Ms. Harrison said the issue could be assessed during the FTTH trial. Discussions were held on an anecdotal basis, but staff had not gained any solid information regarding a benefit with regard to telecommuting. Staff might be able to gain such information from participants in the trial. Council Member Mossar attended a meeting of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) where funding innovative programs for reducing vehicle miles traveled in the Bay Area were discussed. The Bay Area was coming under greater Federal scrutiny with regard to air quality management, and an innovative communications program might be eligible for funding. If the City proceeded further with FTTH, such funding should be investigated. Many comments both in the UAC minutes, which had been very helpful in the analysis of the project, and in the current public comments, addressed the need for City participation to jump-start the project. She asked what was the UAC's opinion of the legitimate role of the City and what would happen if the City chose not to participate. Mr. Johnston said a number of opinions were expressed with regard to what would result from the trial. Council Member Huber's desire to start the process and then sell off the business to a private enterprise was not widespread among supporters of FTTH or the UAC, since many felt competitive businesses had a place in the City. PA-FiberNet had shown a chart stacking the five different responsibilities from customers, to services, to Internet access, to network operations, and then the fiber infrastructure, which showed the one naturally anti-competitive area was in the construction of the last mile. If anyone was going to own the "last mile", it should be the City. The fundamental idea was not to get the technology to the point of selling it off to a bidder. A number of potential sources of funding were not pursued but should be considered once the City moved beyond the initial trial and considered ways of expanding fiber to the rest of the City. The UAC asked staff to explore the use of the $2 million per year available in public benefit dollars. Conservative reading indicated the City was unable to use the funds; however, with more lobbying, the funds might be available. Confusion still existed about the need for the trail. Some Council Members had indicated that unless the exact outcome and use was known, support would not be given; however, the very reason for a trial was to reveal the unknowns. A balance between the risks and the proposal of staff to share the risk between the City and homeowners had to be found. Council Member Kniss asked how many of the members of the audience were able to telecommute from their homes, and more than half responded. With a more expedient network she assumed the public would be better able to telecommute. The ability to telecommute and leave home at different times of the day, relieved many transportation problems. Council Member Huber asked about the cost to fiber the entire City. Mr. Starr said staff had rough estimates for a citywide build-out. The community indicated $25 million, but staff thought the cost was closer to $30 million, which was a big undertaking resulting in the City having a new utility. Some costs would require additional staffing. The new business would require the ability to be in the business, in addition to installing all of the plant and facilities. Council Member Mossar asked what would happen if the Council decided not to spend $25 to $30 million for a separate utility, the FTTH trial was conducted, and the City never built out the network. Mr. Starr said the City could take one of the options outlined to Council Member Huber earlier. Council Member Mossar asked what staff thought would really happen. Mr. Starr said only Council could make the decision about whether or not to spend the money. If not, customers in the trial area would continue to be served because there would be strong support to keep it going. Council Member Mossar asked about the larger, unserved customers. Mr. Mrizek said staff discussed the issue somewhat with the UAC. If the trial was conducted, one part of the community would be served. Another neighborhood might request a similar construction but with only 10 percent participation rather than the 19 percent. The Council would have to make a decision as to whether or not to move forward with the next neighborhood. The trial would provide marketing and operational information, but the Council might be faced with such a scenario in the future. Council Member Mossar clarified Mr. Mrizek thought an incremental build-out was possible. Mr. Mrizek replied yes, an incremental build-out was possible as an option if the Council decided not to fully network the City in the future. Council Member Mossar said at that point, staff would have obtained more hard data from which the Council could make a decision. Mr. Mrizek said Council Member Mossar was correct. Council Member Mossar asked whether the UAC had any other visions. Mr. Johnston said the whole purpose of the trial was to determine whether or not the concept was provable. If provable, the City would have a success model. He found it difficult to believe the City would stop at that point. If the trial was successful, it would expand. The only question was how rapid the expansion should proceed. Some parts of Palo Alto might have low participation rates, making expansion not cost effective. That was a decision the Council had to make. The idea of ending after a successful trial defied logic. Council Member Ojakian asked about the UTS-RFP process since the UAC minutes indicated the draft proposal was 90 percent complete. Ms. Harrison said staff wanted to take the Scope of Services for the UTS- RFP through a rigorous review with the community which meant the UTS-RFP was not 90 percent complete. Council Member Ojakian was interested in seeing the time line condensed. Ms. Harrison thought working with the community would not require an enormous amount of time; however, the UTS-RFP had not incorporated discussions recently held with PA-FiberNet or the Council's current discussion, which were important. The UTS-RFP should incorporate the Council's vision for how fiber was incorporated into the final solution. The draft RFP was vague and had asked for any solution to high-speed telecommunications, which should be more specific. Council Member Ojakian asked whether staff observed success in other cities, in connecting to residences. In many communities, the delineation might not be as clear since cable was also being hooked up. Mr. Mrizek said Anaheim had contracted with one corporation to handle the fiber which was primarily installed in a commercial/industrial area. The corporation promised to extend to the residential class in the future, but the timing was unknown and was based on when it became profitable. Other agencies were in similar situations. He thought no residential areas in the entire United States had a fiber system similar to what the Council was considering. Council Member Ojakian said the reason was probably the financial risk. Mr. Mrizek said Council Member Ojakian was correct. Mayor Fazzino asked Mr. Johnston about the issue of technological obsolescence, and risks to the City. Mr. Johnston said the issue was one of fiber versus wireless or copper. Neither fiber nor copper would become obsolete. The length of time for payback could not be justified for some of the electronics as for the fiber itself. In terms of wireless technology, from what the UAC understood, nothing suggested the City would be able to get the same kind of bandwidth in a community through any kind of satellite or wireless technology as was possible through fiber. The UAC would probably agree with the comments that were made about the status of obsolescence. Mayor Fazzino said some concerns had been raised that the City might be buying too much bandwidth for the needs of much of the community. Mr. Johnston said the needs of the majority of the community at the current time versus the needs of the community in the future was the issue. Mayor Fazzino asked for the UAC's perspective on the issue of the public versus private role. Many members of the public expressed concern about the City's participation and what it portended in the City's role as opposed to private competition. The issue was raised that the City might be in the position of regulator, competitor, and provider of services. Based on the recommendation of the P&S Committee, there was an opportunity for private sector participation in the system, once the trial was over with a clearer idea about the needs of the community. Mr. Johnston agreed. For purposes of controlling the cost with a rather modest trial of 70 to 160 homes, a single ISP might need to be signed up to make the economics work with such a small group. The concept should not be confused with the idea that in the long-run with proven success and expansion, there would be the desire to limit to a single ISP or IAP. The intent would be to create competition. There was no conflict in terms of the City building the fundamental infrastructure and handling it as other utilities. He could understand why some businesses might prefer to own a monopoly and, although not currently economical, wanted to preserve the right to do so in the future. There was not a conflict. If fibers went to every home and people decided to get cable or telephone over the same fibers, he would be back to the Council stating her opposition to the City providing such service and would argue in favor of private enterprise. It was true that in the short-term, the City had competing technologies for providing essentially similar or competitive services, although not at the same speed. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to proceed with the Universal Telecommunications Service Request for Proposal and the Fiber to the Home trial on a parallel track. The alternative represented the recommendations of the Utilities Advisory Commission and the Policy and Services Committee. Council Member Kniss said the staff report (CMR:162:99) indicated various alternatives, but the P&S Committee was interested in moving with Alternative 3, to proceed with the UTS-RFP and the FTTH trial on a parallel track. Issues raised during the current meeting ranged from why to conduct a trial, what difference it would make, what it would show, and the timeframe. In early 1994, Palo Alto was the first city to have a website. At the time, the City was not sure what the Internet was or what a website would mean. For a City that owned its own utilities for 90 years and had its own website for four or five years, it was not an enormous leap to take the City to a trial of fiber. Mr. Johnston was articulate about what the fiber would or would not do for the City. There was an inherent expense to the trial. In prior minutes, the observation was made that there were times when it was important to just "do it" rather than employ a consultant and continue to discuss it. If the trial failed, it was not an enormous amount of money to invest in a technology that drove the Silicon Valley and the entire country. Some of the advantages included receiving consultant feedback and traffic impacts. Many people were able to work out of homes or change working hours and days, which made a difference in traffic and parking. The Council needed to provide direction regarding how to proceed. The best support seemed to come from a medium-sized area and the Community Center. The Barron Park area had a real interest and there might be ways to pursue that. Staff needed to return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) along with the RFP. The trial was an opportunity, for Palo Alto to be one of the first cities to take fiber to residences. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add: test "medium trial area"; Community Center area; return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance and an RFP; staff to return at the end of the trial with an evaluation of market assessment, legal issues, technical feasibility, cost of construction and operation staffing, contracting, and payback time (range of 5-8 years). Council Member Schneider said Council Member Kniss covered all of the issues except one. The proposal had seen an overwhelming amount of public support in the neighborhood in which it would serve. She thought the City would be overwhelmed by the number of people wanting to participate. Council Member Rosenbaum offered a somewhat different perspective. He attended the California Municipal Utility Association (CMUA) meeting a few weeks prior, before which time he had not objected to a one- neighborhood test with the City getting its money back. However, at the CMUA meeting, he attended a telecommunications session where he questioned four people involved in telecommunications, all of whom had a very strong public policy rationale for cities being involved in telecommunications similar to viewpoints expressed. He asked whether fiber to residences was planned or whether they knew of anyone who was doing so. The four had not planned to do so nor had they heard of anyone who planned to do so, the reason being economical. The city of Alameda was considering what to do and had put a measure on the ballot to determine whether the community was interested in proceeding with a city system, and the measure passed. The impetus was mainly for cable. No plans were made to put fiber to homes except in special cases. For most communities, a hybrid system with the provision that people who wanted to pay the extra could have their own fiber was probably the way it was likely to work. The City would get to that system if it proceeded with Alternative 1 and the UTS-RFP. The FTTH trial would be a diversion which, if structured properly, would not mean a great loss of money but was not the way the City should proceed. If Alternative 1 was adopted, FTTH could be tried. Internet terminals could be hooked up to the fiber in the libraries where hundreds of people could try out the high- speed system. Opposition was expressed with Alternative 3 and, if insufficient votes were received, he planned to offer Alternative 1. Council Member Huber supported the motion for the trial but had concerns about the City becoming a municipal utility for telecommunications. Mr. Johnston's statement about the necessity of the City to take that direction was an honest and correct one to make. It was easy to compare utilities, but the existing water and electricity utilities were monopolies or would be until deregulation. The telecommunications or data transfer was not something people had to have. Many people would be concerned about the potential, not the trial, of a downstream, multi-million dollar infrastructure to serve a relatively small number of people. The 18 or 19 percent response would need to increase. However, if levels were insignificant, the community would not support a utility to provide the service. The people who were truly interested should be diligent to get intense penetration, which was probably the only way to sell the item to the community as a whole and for Council Members when considering whether to proceed. The democratic process was slow and the City was not interested in making a profit. He had much faith in private industry and suspected in ten years it would become easier to communicate, probably without wires. The results would have to be very good if the City were to proceed any further than just the localized area. Council Member Schneider was concerned about adding more time to the process. Council Member Mossar said Transportation staff could examine various potential funding, all of which were prescribed by law as to use. Staff could indicate the funds available for the particular use and what the application process involved. Ms. Fleming said if the intent was to limit FTTH to one area, Council Member Mossar was correct and Transportation staff could look into the one area. Council Member Mossar supported the motion enthusiastically. The trial would be very good, from which something very exciting could result. Vice Mayor Wheeler was concerned about moving ahead with the trial. Although in support of FTTH, since there was information to be gleaned, the Council should not give the impression it was committing itself to a $30 million investment to wire the City. Council Member Kniss said implicit in the trial was the fact that it was just a trial. Ms. Fleming suggested including the wording in the motion based on a experiences when staff was left to interpret. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that Alternative 3 be more specific to a five- year payback period with reasonable assurance through contractual compliance of payback. Further, staff be directed to return with information on grant funding possibilities (vehicle miles traveled reduction). Further, that the City was not committing itself to a $30 million investment to wire the town, but was only a trial. Vice Mayor Wheeler had not wanted anyone in the public to leave with the impression that the City was ready to take the next step, even though there were enthusiastic individuals wanting the entire community wired by the City. The steps the Council took should be clear. Council Member Ojakian said focus was placed on the FTTH trial, which was where interest was expressed from the community and where the discussion had been. He would not want to see any further delays in the UTS-RFP process. A decision was made in February to proceed with the UTS-RFP but, because of the trial which would allow staff to develop the RFP, some people said the City should install fiber citywide. That was not where he or several of his colleagues intended to go. Focus should remain on getting the UTS-RFP out, part of which should emphasize a strong interest in connecting to residential homes. In the meantime, the City was conducting a trial that could provide information for whoever responded to the RFP. An attempt was being made to provide a service and get people connected to the Internet or data communications. The Council voted against joint powers involvement with Cable Co-op, so there was a track record of not wanting to get involved. The Council had to decide whether to act in a practical or visionary way. The Council was willing to take the visionary risk but would not want anyone to extrapolate it out beyond the trial. Mayor Fazzino supported the motion. Council Member Kniss made a good case for the proposal. The City's position was facilitating the creation of a communications infrastructure throughout the community, which was a proper role that would not interfere with the ability of PacBell or others from playing a significant, long-term role as a business partner with the City or providing competitive services to residents of the community. The most important aspect of the proposal with respect to public policy was that the City was in effect addressing the very important principle of universal service, which was one of the four or five principles of the initial telecommunications or data communications policy several years prior. The fiber optic ring was a decision on the Council's part, and he was disappointed with others that the City was not able to identify many business partners. At the same time, the concerns of the fiber ring at the outset had to do with universal service and the fact that most of the use of the ring related to businesses and other large customers. FTTH was a way for the City to begin to make sure service was provided throughout the community. The trial would provide the City with significant information about the degree of customer interest, behavior, usage. The City would not be overwhelmed by wireless over the next years, so there was no need to worry about technical obsolescence, which was one of his concerns at the outset of the process. He would have preferred a more flexible payback proposal of five to eight years, since he would not want the concept to fail on the basis of an inflexible payback system. On one hand, the City wanted to make sure individuals were committed and willing to put resources up front. At the same time, he encouraged a reasonable payback process. Five to eight years seemed more reasonable than five years. The City was not looking at a significant financial risk. There would always be someone who wanted to step forward and provide the service. After the trial, more information would be known about interest and the City's role. PA-FiberNet, the Community Center neighborhood, and the Barron Park neighborhood were applauded for the grassroots effort. What was particularly unique about the FTTH effort was that, in addition to wide community support, the quality of information was outstanding and put the Council in a better position to make the decision. He appreciated the fact that the interest group had focused on the intellectual aspect of the discussion, providing the Council with excellent data. The UAC was also thanked. The UAC played an important role in getting the City where it was. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Rosenbaum "no," Eakins absent. Mayor Fazzino announced that Item No. 18 would be continued to a date uncertain, and Item No. 20 would be continued to the April 12, 1999, City Council Meeting. 18. The Utilities Advisory Commission re Requested Guidance on the Utilities Advisory Commission's Role in Telecommunications Item continued to date uncertain. ORDINANCES 19. Approval of Cost-Sharing with the City of Menlo Park for the Second Phase of the San Francisquito Creek Bank Stabilization and Revegetation Study City Manager Fleming said staff was able to get Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) participation, and the Council should not be concerned about where the issue would rest when the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) was formed. A representative from Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) was present earlier in the meeting and wanted her support given to the recommendation. Council Member Ojakian asked whether both Menlo Park and SCVWD approved similar amounts already. Ms. Fleming said Menlo Park had put up the entire amount initially because the work had to begin on a good faith that Palo Alto would share in the costs. However, the SCVWD agreed to participate, so the City was paying the same as the SCVWD. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Grant approval for a subsequent cost-sharing agreement with the City of Menlo Park, which will provide a 25 percent contribution of the funding for Phase 2 of the San Francisquito Creek Bank Stabilization and Revegetation Study (Study). 2. Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $61,836 from the Storm Drainage Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve to provide the necessary funding for Phase 2 of the Study. Ordinance 4553 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1998-99 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $61,836 for the Second Phase of the San Francisquito Creek Bank Stabilization and Revegetation Study" 3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a cost-sharing agreement with the City of Menlo Park for Phase 2 of the Study. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Eakins absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 20. Council Members Dick Rosenbaum and Vic Ojakian and Mayor Gary Fazzino re Joint City-School District Project to Add Gymnasium Facilities at the Middle Schools Item continued to April 12, 1999, Council Meeting. 21. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. in memory of Helen Tao and Council Member Eakins' mother. ATTEST: /s/ Donna Rogers - City Clerk APPROVED: /s/ Gary Fazzino - Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. What's New Palo Alto Facts City Hall City Services City Departments Community and the Arts Community Links Contact Site Guide Disclaimer Last Updated: Tuesday, July 31, 2007. copyright 1998, 1999 all rights reserved From:Shiv Shanker Sharma To:Council, City; Sauls, Garrett Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 2:40:15 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from theshivsharma@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I am writing in regard to the proposal for an enormous apartment complex in Barron Park. I’m writing to express my discontent with the project and, alongside so many in Palo Alto, am expressing strong opposition to it. I agree with the concerns outlined in the Barron Park Association Board letter submitted to City Council. Some specific concerns that I wish to highlight include: - This project would be at one of the main entrances into Barron Park. This nearly 400 unit complex will cause major congestion and cause danger to the many children biking/walking to school along this path - The construction will take considerable time, and there are families and children in the neighborhood who will be very negatively impacted during the construction - This will create an influx of students on the local schools and create a resource scarcity - This will alter the nature of the Barron Park community and make it more crowded/congested/busy/loud Kindly consider my and others' concerns and reject this proposal immediately. There are many other reasons for why this project should not move forward and I’m happy to walk you through them one by one over a zoom or phone call. Others in our neighborhood also feel very passionately against this proposal and the handling of this matter will absolutely be considered when election time comes around. Sincerely, Shiv Sharma From:Ken Bencala To:Council, City Cc:sally.oneil@gmail.com; johnwadeking@gmail.com Subject:Resident Comment Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 2:14:54 PM Attachments:Resident Comment 09 09 22 Creekside Height and Profile.docx Resident Comment 09 09 22 Creekside Riparian Preservation and Protection.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from kenbnc@hotmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Attached please find 2 files with 'Reaction to the proposed development of the Creekside Inn property, 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306'. Ken Bencala Sally O'Neil Barron Park Residents September 9, 2022 To: The Mayor and City Council, City of Palo Alto From: Ken Bencala and Sally O’Neil, Barron Park Residents Re: Reaction to the proposed development of the Creekside Inn property, 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Development of the property must (1) preserve existing stream riparian corridor habitats and ecosystem services and 2) protect the Barron Park and Venture neighborhoods from flood and hazardous exposure in accord with modern design practices. (1) We hope any development of the site will preserve and enhance the existing stream riparian corridor. The stream transecting the property provides habitat and ecosystem services. The redevelopment of the site must not only preserve the existing riparian corridor but also be recognized as an opportunity to enhance the corridor in accord with current design practices. (2). We are concerned about the potential for (a) this development degrading the impervious surface area of site and (b) below-grade (e.g., parking garage) construction altering sub-surface water flow in the hydrological adjacent areas extending beyond the creek. Below-grade construction presents the possibility of in effect erecting a barrier altering subsurface flows and the possible need for future subsurface pumping to maintain the new structure. The development of the site should provide the opportunity to employ modern design to enhance flood protection and minimize hazardous exposures. We urge the Council to direct City Staff to identify a consultant with the reputation for environmentally sensitive practices to provide a review to the Council, Staff of proposals for development of the site. September 9, 2022 To: The Mayor and City Council, City of Palo Alto From: Ken Bencala and Sally O’Neil, Barron Park Residents Re: Reaction to the proposed development of the Creekside Inn property, 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 We recognize that there will be more residential development along El Camino Real. We believe this development needs to be (1) within existing City height zoning specifications and (2) designed with attention to the aesthetics of the entire site. (1). We are strongly opposed to granting any height variances for the project. (2). We are quite concerned regarding the “city-canyon” design of recent and ongoing development along El Camino Real in the Barron Park and Ventura neighborhoods. In simple visual terms, we dislike the current style of tall buildings looming over the sidewalks. We prefer a terraced, tiered, or otherwise varied profile along the street, which is more in keeping with Palo Alto’s look. We suggest low vegetation or patio space and single-story construction in the front of multi-story buildings. From:Ken Joye To:Council, City Subject:340 Portage development framework Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 1:26:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. After closely tracking the efforts of the NVCAP working group, I can appreciate that coming up with a plan which property owners will embrace is a challenge. One thing mentioned in the blog post was surprising to me: a pedestrian bridge across the creek. I have only read the blog post, so perhaps am missing a subtlety, but it would seem that a bridge is needed to cross a barrier. See for example the recently opened bridge over Hwy- 101 at Adobe Creek. Please make sure that what you approve makes good sense; this proposed bridge fails to do so. thank you for your service, Ken Joye Ventura neighborhood On Sep 8, 2022, at 5:43 PM, City of Palo Alto <news@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: The Future of former Fry’s Electronics Site at 340 Portage Blog Update On August 1, the City Council held a public study session and prescreening to report on a development framework for 340 Portage Avenue (combined parcel of 14.65-acre site also known as the Fry’s site; addresses include 3201–25 Ash; 200– 382 Portage; 335 Portage; 3250 Park; 3040 Park and 270 Lambert). A new blog shares details on the experience of developing this framework from the perspectives of the Council Ad Hoc members, a summary of the proposal, and details on what’s next. Read the blog here. From:Tanya To:Council, City Subject:Communication Regarding Apartment Complex Proposal in Barron Park Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 1:12:09 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from tagupta2014@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, In advance of the September 19 City Council meeting, I am sending a message in regard to the proposed apartment complex in Barron Park at the site of the current Creekside Inn. My husband and I purchased a home and moved to Barron Park last year. We specifically sought out the Barron Park neighborhood given that it is a quiet and peaceful close-knit community, with minimal congestion. We were very surprised and dismayed to learn of the massive apartment complex proposal. We have spoken extensively with many of our neighbors, who have also felt shocked and upset about this proposal. I attended the recent Barron Park Association Board Meeting, where this proposal was being discussed, and our neighbors in attendance were passionately in opposition of this proposal. I am in agreement with concerns outlined in the letter that the Barron Park Association Board has submitted to the City Council. Barron Park has two primary entrances, and this proposal will severely increase congestion and wait lines at one of the main entrances into the neighborhood. Matadero Avenue is a designated "Safe Route to School" for children who attend the nearby schools. I worry greatly about the safety of the many children who take this path if there were to be an increase in traffic at this location. The large complex would also pose a major privacy issue for homeowners and renters along Matadero and Chimalus. Such a proposal would also markedly change the character of this neighborhood. While City Council explores increasing housing in Palo Alto, it is also important to preserve some of the intangible qualities that make Palo Alto special and desirable including quiet/peaceful neighborhoods. Massive apartment complexes, such as the one proposed, in quiet residential neighborhoods would completely deteriorate many of the qualities that make Barron Park beloved. Finally, I hope this is not a strategy of the developer to begin with an outlandish proposal, which they anticipate would be rejected, and to then follow with another proposal that may still be inappropriate but less extensive as a means to try to get it approved. Such tactics and strategies are not appropriate and should be viewed very unfavorably. In summary, I am in strong opposition of the proposed apartment complex. This complex would unquestionably have a negative impact on the parks, nearby streets, traffic, and safety of cyclists/pedestrians. The location is not suitable for a project/development of this magnitude and it would entirely disrupt the character of this quiet community. Sincerely, Tanya Gupta From:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Clerk"s Office; Boyd, Holly; French, Amy Subject:Council Consent/Action/Informational Agenda Questions: Items 10, 13, 14, 16 (9/12/22) Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 1:11:58 PM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view the following links for the amended agenda and staff responses to questions from Councilmember Cormack and DuBois regarding Monday night’s Council Meeting: September 12 Amended Agenda Staff response to Items 10, 13, 14, 16 Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Silicon Valley Community Foundation To:Council, City Subject:SVCF Annual Meeting, in person! Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 1:00:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. 650.450.5400 @ info@siliconvalleycf.org Silicon Valley Community Foundation's2022 Annual Meeting Connect, Reflect, Act: Building Power and Seeking Justice in Our Region Tuesday, October 11, 2022 3:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. Reception at 3:00 p.m. | Program begins at 4:00 p.m. Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts 500 Castro St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Register Now Join us for SVCF’s signature event, where we bring together all sectors of our region to discuss pressing community issues. This year, our themes are racial justice, building community power and advancing economic equity – which we believe are key tenets of creating a region that is equitable, economically secure and vibrant for all. Panel Discussion Transforming Silicon Valley into an Equitable Region Poncho Guevara Executive Director Sacred Heart Community Service Shireen Malekafzali Chief Equity Officer County of San Mateo Roxana Shirkhoda Head of Social Impact Zoom Dr. Jennifer Taylor-Mendoza President College of San Mateo Gina Dalma Executive Vice President, Community Action, Policy and Strategy SVCF (Moderator) Local community leaders will discuss Silicon Valley’s greatest challenges and how their respective sectors are working, both separately and collectively, to build and shift power to our communities and create a region where everyone can thrive. Special Guest Chris Larsen, Executive Chairman and Co-Founder, Ripple Can Cryptocurrency Contribute to Social Impact and Change? Chris Larsen Executive Chairman and Co-Founder Ripple Nicole Taylor President and CEO Silicon Valley Community Foundation In conversation with SVCF President and CEO Nicole Taylor, Chris Larsen will share his personal philosophy around philanthropy and discuss cryptocurrency’s potential to help communities build financial resilience, tackle social challenges and achieve equity. Masks will be required for the indoor portion of the event. Attendance numbers will be limited to help us ensure a comfortable and safe environment within the auditorium, so please register soon! Register Now Address 2440 West El Camino Real Suite 300 Mountain View, CA 94040 About Silicon Valley Community Foundation is a community catalyst for change. Copyright © 2022 Silicon Valley Community Foundation View in browser | Unsubscribe From:joe stafford To:Council, City Cc:Tomforcouncil@gmail.com Subject:Proposed development of the property at 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 12:15:14 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from joehstafford@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Ladies & Gentlemen; I am a 45 year resident living at the corner of Matadero and Josina in Palo Alto. The proposed development referenced above is “not feasible” to quote the attached September 7 letter to the City Council from the board of the Barron Park Association (BPA). In fact, the proposal conforms to the “New York Realtor-Trump school” which advises: “If you want to negotiate to end with your opponent’s “nearly unacceptable” position - Start with “Outrageous”. I commend the effort of the BPA Board for a thorough review of the numerous, serious failings of the Oxford Capital Group’s proposal. However, from the standpoint of a resident who would be directly affected, I view the proposal as simply Outrageous. One which should be declined without further discussion. Respectfully Jonas Stafford 655 Josina Ave Palo Alto, Ca 650 493 3289 From:Lisa Landers To:Council, City Subject:creekside project concerns Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 12:09:12 PM Attachments:creekside letter v1.4.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from lisa.landers@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, Attached are my concerns for the proposed creekside project. Thank you for your supporting Palo Alto residents! Lisa Landers Barron Park Resident 1 September 9, 2022 Dear Garrett and City Council, We have seen several positive, well-planned projects along El Camino Real and the adjacent area within the last few years. Redevelopment at Barron Park’s Creekside site has the potential to be a great asset for the area and our neighborhood, but the current proposal shows no consideration for the surrounding neighborhood and safety of our Barron Park community. 1. The proposed project with massive structures built to the edge of El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue makes no attempt in either architecture or in landscaping to fit in with the character of Barron Park. For decades, the Barron Park community has dedicated their efforts to protect the natural creek habitat, promote greenery, create native gardens, house a donkey pasture and establish neighborhood parks and parklets. The current Creekside Inn structure achieves a balance of nature and function with a 5-story building that is properly set back from the property line and surrounded by greenery. The proposed project completely fails in both characteristics. Any project on this site must incorporate heavy greenery and trees along El Camino and Matadero Avenue as well as within the site. A larger structure needs to be set back further from the street to avoid towering over the site and surroundings. The current proposal treats the creek flowing through the property as an unfortunate obstacle. This is a stark contrast to the current site plan that incorporates the natural creek & greenery as a unique asset that enhances the existing development. 2. Barron Park has many narrow streets feeding off El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. The streets cannot absorb increased traffic that will certainly come from this proposed project. Many nearby streets have no sidewalks, no lane dividers and, with cars parked on both sides, have essentially become single-lane roads. Walking, biking and driving are already difficult and dangerous on these small streets. Increased traffic will greatly exacerbate traffic issues and safety problems. The proposal plans exit and entry primarily on Matadero Avenue with only one egress on El Camino Real. This will push traffic from the proposed development to detour through the already saturated neighborhood routes. Traffic flow from the proposed project must exit and enter exclusively on El Camino, not Matadero Avenue. A new traffic lane, taken from the footprint of the site, must be added to El Camino and a new lane must be added to Matadero Avenue so cars can merge, enter and exit safely. A protected bike lane should also be added along Matadero Avenue. 2 3. Barron Park is not a walkable commercial area. Our neighborhood has no public facilities (libraries, community centers, swimming pools, etc …) and few functional retail shops, doctor’s offices, or grocery stores along this stretch of El Camino. Our neighborhood is constantly labeled a commercial/retail/walkable/transit-oriented center as a primary reason for why it should be the target for this type of massive development. But those characteristics are being greatly diminished by developers using them for their benefit. Developers demand the up-zoning that comes with being in a retail corridor but fight to minimize retail in their own developments as it cuts into their project profits. Developers demand up-zoning that comes with a ‘walkable area’ label but do not want to set back their building from the streets so people can have space to walk. Neighbors are bearing the costs of the overdevelopment of a “walkable commercial center”, but there is no effort on the city’s part for improving our neighborhood to meet those labels. Since Barron Park lacks public amenities and community facilities, project developers should incorporate a Barron Park Community Center in this project – a legitimate, active community center not a closet-sized room where residents are forced to rent space for $30/hour as with Palo Alto’s recent Alma Plaza Project. 4. The area cannot absorb overflow parking resulting from the overly optimistic parking requirement assumptions outlined in the development proposal. Cars are a necessary part of life in this area and parking for the development needs to be based on this fact. Public transit in Barron Park is limited to El Camino bus routes and is woefully inadequate and inefficient. Availability of alternate forms of transportation does not eliminate the need for cars or parking. A person can bike to work, take a bus to the mall and still keep a car for weekend travel, occasional emergencies or rainy days. If a car exists at all in a person’s life, used daily or otherwise, it needs a parking space on the project site and not left on neighborhood streets. High rents increase the likelihood that even the studio apartments will be occupied by at least two working and driving individuals. The development needs to provide residents with two free parking spaces per unit. This neighborhood does not have the capacity to absorb overflow from optimistic underestimation of car ownership and parking needs. The Barron Park neighborhood has already been negatively affected by the City’s underestimate of needed parking at our neighborhood residential complexes. The stretch of Los Robles near Buena Vista has essentially become an overflow parking lot with a large section of the street perpetually parked full of cars that the City’s Planning Department assured everyone Buena Vista’s residents would not have. While this Creekside site has potential to host a positive community asset, this massively over scale proposal is a poorly planned, thoughtless wreck. The plans are a mess and the City needs to address these issues before moving forward with redevelopment at this site. Lisa Landers, Barron Park Resident From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Wong, Tim; Shikada, Ed Subject:Sept 12th prescreening Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 11:08:16 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and council members, The council's PHZ policy is now succeeding in bringing forth housing proposals. Thanks. And the recent positive response to the San Antonio project prescreen is another positive step. I hope council gives positive feedback to the two proposals before you tonight. They are both in good locations for access to shopping, services, jobs and transit and can encourage modest but important reductions in the need for car use. Speaking professionally, I know that costs for building housing are rising for both labor and materials. I know that waivers of some development standards are essential for project feasibility. That is the rationale for the PHZ. It is important to me and, I hope, to council, that thee discussions lead to actual project applications, after which more discussion and analysis can follow. Stephen Levy Director Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy and Palo Alto resident. From:Charlie Weidanz To:Council, City Subject:Supervisor Simitian Sidewalk Office Hours - Palo Alto Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 11:00:17 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please join Supervisor Simitian for his Sidewalk Office Hours: Sunday, September 11, 2022 9:30 – 11 a.m. California Ave. Palo Alto Farmers’ Market New Sidewalk Office Hours Location Sunday, October 9, 2022 9:30 – 11 a.m. California Ave. Palo Alto Farmers’ Market New Sidewalk Office Hours Location Click here for the entire fall schedule This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe click here. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com. From:Myrna Rochester To:Council, City; Sauls, Garrett Subject:Development proposal for the Creekside Inn property Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 8:30:23 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mbrbpa@sonic.net. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To: Palo Alto City Council From: Myrna and Leon Rochester, 871 Chimalus Dr., P.A. Re: Development proposal for the Creekside Inn property Dear City Council: As longtime residents of Barron Park and active in the Barron Park Association, we have put a lot of thought into the issues and concerns outlined in the letter sent to you from the BPA Board earlier this week. New housing is imperative. An apartment building on El Camino Real is logical. But we cannot imagine a development of the scope proposed squeezed onto the Creekside property. The constraints imposed on the residents of the new complex – the absence of amenities, common areas and open space; inadequate parking; paucity of retail services – is unfair to them. The crowding with respect to traffic is unfair to the rest of Barron Park. Finally, what concerns us most is the inevitable traffic congestion that will happen at the narrow outlet at Matadero Avenue and El Camino Real. That corner has the only traffic signal out of and into the Barron Park neighborhood (north of Los Robles/East Meadow). At busy times of day, the lines to leave and enter are already excessive. Several hundred more cars (nearly 400 units are proposed) leaving and entering a two-level underground structure on Matadero would create unimaginable tie-ups, mornings and evenings. The intersection will be more dangerous, and probably impassable, for bike riders (especially students and workers entering from El Camino) and for pedestrians. Surrounding and connecting neighborhood streets will bear the brunt of the increased vehicle traffic. The scope of this building project, if it is to be considered, needs to be radically reduced and revised. Thank you for your attention. ___________________________________ Myrna Rochester BPA Newsletter Editor 871 Chimalus Drive (650) 493-6638 Palo Alto, CA 94306 mbrbpa@sonic.net From:Charlie Weidanz To:Council, City Subject:Stanford Blood Center has an immediate need for All Blood Types Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 8:00:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Stanford Blood Center has an immediate need for All Blood Types, especially Type O+. As a special thanks for keeping patients a priority, anyone who donates (September 3 – 10) at any center or mobile drive will receive enough points for our Donor Loyalty Store to redeem a $10 gift card of your choice! Choose between Chipotle, Jamba Juice, Lowe’s and Peet’s Coffee. Blood donors are essential to the health and safety of our community. You never know when you or someone you know could need blood. It’s the blood that has already been donated that saves lives at a moment’s notice. In just one hour, you could donate enough blood to help multiple patients at a time they need it most. Please note that walk-in availability may be limited, so we encourage donors to make an appointment by visiting stanfordbloodcenter.org, the SBC mobile app or by calling us at 888-723-7831. This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe click here. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com. From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; boardmembers; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; beachrides; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; Doug Vagim; dallen1212@gmail.com; dennisbalakian; eappel@stanford.edu; fred beyerlein; Scott Wilkinson; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; david pomaville; Dan Richard; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; sanchezphilip21@gmail.com; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net; Daniel Zack Subject:Fwd: The Big EV Lie. Excellent. Highly recommended Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 1:47:15 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:39 AM Subject: Fwd: The Big EV Lie. Excellent. Highly recommended To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:29 AM Subject: Fwd: The Big EV Lie. Excellent. Highly recommended To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 2:21 AM Subject: The Big EV Lie. Excellent. Highly recommended To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Thursday, September 8, 2022 To all- A Brit making very good sense re global warming and how electric vehicles will NOT solve this problem. He has the numbers re where greenhouse gases are coming from, and I strongly suspect that people like the Governor of California and the Sect. of Energy and Pres. Biden have these numbers as well. They cannot say they didn't know any of this!! At present, EVs are being charged up with dirty electricity, generated using coal and natural gas, mainly. The batteries are a dirty product to produce too in terms of greenhouse gases and resources. How will that solve climate change? It willl not. NOT. Our Governor bans the sale of ICE vehicles starting in 2035 and we don't have the electric supply in California now to keep the lights on!!! Today was another flex alert day designated by the Independent System Operator in California, urging us to cut power use, esp. from 4 to 9 PM or we will have rolling blackouts!!!. So, in the face of that dire situation, due to a 10 day heat wave that is setting records all over California and the west, we outlaw the sale of all ICE vehicles in 2035. Could be that this heat wave was a fluke and no more can be expected as the climate warms. Gov Newsom should ask for 10 big nuclear plants up and down the California coast and just fire and sue anybody who objects. Urge the voters to kick them out of office. Tell people to stop beating on their daughters to produce grandchildren too. Listen to the numbers. Most of the GHG comes from industry and agriculture. Guess we can cut way back on food production. It is not from transport. He says maybe 14% is!!!!!!!!! That includes ALL transport, cars, trucks, rail, ships, planes. The whole thing re EVs being a solution to CC is a giant SCAM laid on by lying politicians. China and India are two huge problems wrt GHG emissions. China is burning coal like mad, BUT THEY ARE MAKING PROGRESS WITH SOLAR. That leaves India especially that we will have to work with, in addition to China. This video is NOT some tree-hugger rant. This is logic and numbers. We need to get our politicians to see this and absorb it. Thieving politicians. Any cheap lie to make money and get elected/ This guy from the UK makes sense. 28 minutes.: THE BIG EV LIE. Why They Won't Save the Planet & All About Dirty Electricity | TheCarGuys.tv - YouTube We need nuclear in abundance and we need to start right away. Also, Liquid metal reactors using thorium. See on YouTube "thorium reactors" One person, Kirk Sorensen, has been the the great guru with probably 30 vids on the subject. Just look on YouTube for "Liquid metal, thorium reactors". Some are now apparently in operation. It is controversial. Steven Chu at Stanford does not like it. Merely former Sect. of Energy. The US put a lot of money into studying it at Oak Ridge in the 50's and 60's. The US has around 103 nuclear plants. We should double that. Start right away. 7.8 billion people. And, know what? Most young women of child bearing age get several calls per day: Their mothers! "WHERE are my grandchildren? You are NOT going to just live with that bum. I want my grandchildren". SO, hubby gets fed up with this circus and walks out. Who then supports them? Her mother? NO! Every city on earth should put up big billboards and run TV ads saying "Leave your daughter alone. We do not need more people on this planet!" Run ads for Planned Parenthood showing the locations and phone numbers. Give free rides to PP. And SCOTUS guts Roe and some of them want to outlaw contraception. wow. That is a back- handed way of murdering millions of people as sea levels and temperatures rise. Watch, yet again, "The Earth under Water" on YouTube. Here it is: Notice where one scientist says what if we cut GHG emissions by 20% and then the world's population increases by 20%? We are right back where we started. Earth Under Water - Documentary - YouTube 6 Ft. of sea level rise this century. 16 feet more next century. An ice free planet will raise sea levels 230 feet. If we could just get fusion to work, it would be a God-send. Instead, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to put the first woman and the first person of color on the moon. These bastard politicians are a fucking disaster. The political system is a disaster. Look who gets elected. Lying, corrupt, scum that will tell any lie to get elected. Some are pretty smart, but a lot of them are just morons. They get elected because they have a pointed nose in some cases. We have a disaster facing us and we need smart people to take unprecedented action to address it. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; boardmembers; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; beachrides; fred beyerlein; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; Doug Vagim; dallen1212@gmail.com; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; eappel@stanford.edu; Scott Wilkinson; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; merazroofinginc@att.net; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; david pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net; Leodies Buchanan Subject:Fwd: Dr. John Campbell Thurs. Sept. 8, 2022 A Sad Day Date:Friday, September 9, 2022 12:43:09 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:32 PM Subject: Dr. John Campbell Thurs. Sept. 8, 2022 A Sad Day To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Thursday, September 8, 2022 To all- Dr. John Campbell in Carlyle, England on Thursday, September 8, 2022: The bulk of this talk is re excess deaths they are seeing above what we would expect for this time of year and above and beyond Covid deaths. It is happening in all age groups and from many illnesses. In the UK, US, Australia, et.al. Interesting and it has to be studied and unraveled, he says. As usual, he explains the issue well: A sad day - YouTube This is a mystery, he says. He does not mention any guesses that are being ventured for it either. The stress we have all been under for 2 1/2 years? They'd have seen it before in high stress times as, for example, during WWII among civilians, if that was the cause. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Alex Woo To:Council, City Subject:Mitchell Park Dog Park Extension Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 7:47:20 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from wooalex@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members; I would like you to reconsider the expansion of the Mitchell Park Dog Park and instead fund one in North Palo Alto. Rather than concentrate the Dog Walkers and Owners in one park, they should be geographically dispersed so people can walk their dogs to the dog park. Another downside of adding more dogs to Mitchell Park is that some dog owners and walkers take their leased and unleashed dogs to the JLS Middle School playing fields next to the Dog Park to do their business. No amount of signage is going to change this and adding more dog visits will just increase the problem. Sincerely, Alex Woo From:Satish Katpally To:Council, City; Sauls, Garrett Cc:Marina Illich Ph.D. NVW Subject:Concerns about the proposed development of the Creekside Inn, Cibo Restaurant and Driftwood Deli and Market property, 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 7:18:38 PM Attachments:BPA_Letter_to_City_Council_9_07_22.docx.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from satish.katpally@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, As a resident of Barron Park, we (my wife and I) are opposed to this proposed development. We agree with the concerns raised by the Barron Park Association in the attached letter. In particular, we are very concerned about: increasing congestion/traffic at one of the main entrances to Barron Park, increasing traffic on a route that is a designated "Safe Route to School" for children going to the local schools when we already don't have sidewalks on Matadero, the massive size of the development with 382 units, change in the character of the neighborhood which is quiet/peaceful, and loss of the beloved Creekside Inn. We urge you to reject this proposal. Sincerely, Satish Katpally Marina Illich Barron Park residents 1 September 7, 2022 To:The Mayor and City Council, City of Palo Alto From:Board of Directors of the Barron Park Association and concerned residents Re:Reaction to the proposed development of the Creekside Inn, Cibo Restaurant and Driftwood Deli and Market property, 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 *** The Barron Park community supports and looks forward to the addition of new housing, especially for “workforce” residents, throughout the City, as suitable sites are designated. However, the present Oxford Capital Group proposal to redevelop the Creekside Inn complex is not feasible in many ways. As proposed, it is massively out of scale and, if implemented, would present a host of density-related, environmental and traffic problems to this area. We have compiled our reactions to the developer ’s proposal from statements and contributions by attendees at neighborhood meetings sponsored by the BPA Board of Directors during the month of August 2022. We provide them below in outline form. 1.Natural Matadero Creek, mature trees, wildlife corridor, water usage, groundwater a.With a two-level underground garage excavated immediately adjacent to it, how will the City ensure that the developer will preserve and maintain the health and vitality of Matadero Creek and its wildlife, both in the short and the long term? Will this include maintenance and restoration of the existing natural riparian habitat? b.This 3.6-acre property currently benefits from many mature trees that ensure privacy, shading and stabilization of the creek banks. These trees must be protected per City ordinance. c.Will the developer be required to retain the green belt between the property and the Rivian site, and its other privacy screening? 2 d.Because of possible toxic plumes from CPI and other pre-existing industries in the Stanford Research Park, groundwater pollution will have to be monitored on a continuous basis and mitigations applied. 2.Environmental Impact Report (EIR) In the course of establishing the EIR, the City must demand that the consultant hired complete a Management Transportation Analysis (MTA) and a Sewer Capacity Analysis. Other reports — Arborist Report, Wildlife Report, Historical Report (if the structure is over 50 years old), Phase 2 Report, and Soils/Geotech Report — will also be required for this EIR. 3.Small retail business protection a.Current businesses on this site employ approximately 50 people. All these workers will lose their jobs if this project goes forward. b.Only one of two retail businesses has been offered a site in the new development, as a smaller Driftwood Deli and Market. Its square footage would be reduced from its current 4,500 sq. ft., with no outdoor seating. c.The developer has offered no plan for this thriving business to survive the years of construction, so its offer is hollow. Driftwood Deli and Market and Cibo Restaurant would not recover even if offered a location at the developed site. The time lag is too great. This is not protection of ground floor retail in a Commercial Neighborhood/Commercial Service (CN/CS) zone. d.The City will lose the 14% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for the 136-room Creekside Inn. 4.Location of the project a.Only two vehicle entrances to the entire property are proposed. This will massively increase congestion and wait lines, both on El Camino Real and on Matadero Avenue. Traffic will increase on neighborhood streets (Whitsell, Josina, Kendall, Barron . . .) as drivers seek alternate routes to avoid the signal at Matadero. 3 b.Matadero and Margarita Avenues are designated Bike Boulevards as well as “Safe Routes to Schools” for students at Barron Park Elementary School, Fletcher Middle School and Gunn High School. c.Bikers and walkers to and from the VA and the Stanford Research Park, as well as Stanford employees and students, use these streets to access bike and pedestrian paths to destinations west of Bol Park. Several hundred additional vehicles entering and exiting the proposed two-level underground garage from and onto 17-foot wide Matadero Avenue (with no sidewalks) would seriously exacerbate the situation. d.Even without the proposed additional traffic, the signal at El Camino and Matadero currently often takes two to three cycles to cross during higher traffic times. This intersection needs to be modernized in any event, by improving the median and the signal timing. 5.Unit sizes The total number of proposed units is 382: i.e., 44 studios; 243 one-bedroom units; 86 two-bedroom units; and 9 three-bedroom units. This is an unbalanced configuration if the development is to support families. 6.Vehicle parking a.Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) would need to be instituted for Barron Park streets, to include, but not be limited to: Matadero Ave., Chimalus Dr., Tippawingo St., Josina Ave., Whitsell Ave., Kendall Ave., Barron Ave. and, east of El Camino in Ventura, Margarita Ave. and adjacent streets. b.Along with the RPP, a Transportation Management Program, with an agreed upon monitoring schedule, would be required. Due to developer ’s unbundled parking plan, tenants will park a second car on the streets to avoid paying for a second parking space in addition to their rent. c.The total number of proposed units is 382: 287 studio or one-bedroom units and 95 two- or three-bedroom units. For both market rate and affordable housing, the City mandates one parking space per studio or one-bedroom unit (287 spaces) and 4 two parking spaces per two-bedroom or larger unit (190 spaces) for a total of 477. The proposal calls for 503 spaces. Setting aside 24 spaces for retail leaves 479 spaces for residents. This is 2 more than the City mandates for the apartment residents. Where will employee, disabled, EV and guest parking be located? 7.Residential privacy a.This property is zoned CN/CS. The two proposed buildings are 64 feet high, including mechanical equipment. The building cannot reach 50 feet in height until it is at a 150-foot distance from R1 Residential, that is, from existing fences shared with the present Creekside Inn. b.Per Garrett Sauls, at the August 16 neighborhood meeting: For Planned Home Zoning (PHZ), buildings at the height of the proposed project must be 150 feet from R1 homes. c.There will be major privacy issues for all homeowners and renters along Matadero Ave. and Chimalus Dr. Apartments in the proposed complex, from the second to the sixth floors, would see into the backyards and interiors of nearby homes and apartments. d.Any windows, balconies and rooftop terraces facing neighbors’ homes, whether R1 or apartment buildings, must be evaluated for privacy and eliminated if invasive. e.Tree privacy screening for neighbors must be a priority. 8.Open space a.All the areas where plans show surface parking would need to be reevaluated for “usable open space” building design. b.The proposal offers no usable ground-level open space and no area for children to play, safe from El Camino traffic. The proposed “rooftop terraces” cannot be counted toward the open space requirement. c.No amenities (gym, clubhouse, picnic area, bike parking, playground, dog park) have been proposed for the residents of this apartment complex. 5 9.Mechanical equipment The installation of solar panels would be essential. These should be sited to protect the privacy of nearby residents. While we understand the City of Palo Alto is under immense pressure to provide housing, the City should NOT agree to ANY reduction of Impact Fees as requested by the applicant. The negative impacts on the Barron Park and Ventura neighborhoods — on parks, streets, traffic, vehicle parking, Safe Routes to School, as well as to pedestrians and the environment — are exactly what Impact Fees are meant to mitigate. If built as proposed, this project will eliminate two local businesses that the surrounding neighborhood relies on, as well as a 136-room hotel that supports business travelers and other visitors to Palo Alto and Stanford and provides revenue to the City and state. The profound impact on the area’s water usage, waste management, parking, environment (with potential toxic damage to Matadero Creek), and privacy will disrupt lives, bring unnecessary stressors to the neighborhood and increase traffic tenfold. Respectfully submitted, The Board of the Barron Park Association and concerned residents of the community Palo Alto, California From:Christine Stafford To:Council, City Subject:Corner of Matadero Ave and El Camino Real Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 5:58:25 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from beanball@me.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ As a lifetime resident of Barron Park, I object to the City of Palo Alto considering allowing such a huge invasive project in out small community. The proposed project will completely change the Barron Park community. The narrow street, Matadero, will be impacted to the point of residents not being able to use it. It is the Main Street crossing ElCamino leading to Barron Park elementary school. And is already backed up during the day because of the poorly scheduled traffic light. Not only will we be loosing a beautiful hotel but also an amazing deli, Driftwood market, and a local restaurant. If this project wasn’t trying to skirt all the rules Palo Alto has on its books and greedily trying to take advantage of a small community it might not be so bad. But Palo Alto has to hold its ground on taking care of its communities. Christine Stafford 655 Josina Ave Palo Alto, 94306 From:Aram James To:Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Palo Alto Free Press Subject:Fwd: flyer Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 5:53:08 PM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. ------- O S'HERIFF CANDIj!Eax •::• .. • ••••••,... Clara County Sheriff Forum: F.77. 22ND '':'�•.�• 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM ,00 301?! GS FOR VIRTIIAL CANDIDATE FORUM FOR TIIE RACE OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF. Spanish and Vietnamese interpretation will be provided ;.•:� LINK BELOW TO JON THE WEBINAR: Bees https://t n rurl,coml faybz d Passcode: 303345 Yf•' If you have questions for any of the candidates, please submit them through the registration links. CAIR Infect vacs€r MEW 14 ASIAN LAY' ALLIANCE P:r•,I, Arn d. :i C::m: uail.v is +alai LC Northern California E,tr-na darn Voile,' CI`: pI. r Yrermmeeas From:Dean J. Rubinson To:Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Stone, Greer; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; Pat Burt; pat.burt@cityofpalo.org; DuBois, Tom; Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; French, Amy; Gerhardt, Jodie; Foley, Emily; James F. Ellis; Melinda Ellis Evers Subject:Letter from Town & Country Village regarding 70 Encina Development Proposal Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:29:10 PM Attachments:image673799.png image386166.png 2022-09-08 Palo Alto City Council Letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council Members, and City Staff: Please see the attached letter related to the 70 Encina Development, which is scheduled for a PHZ Pre-screening on Monday 9/12. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Dean ​ Dean J. Rubinson Partner, Director of Development he/him/his 111 Sutter Street, Suite 800 ​San Francisco, CA 94104 o: 415.391.9800 m: 415.373.7706 dean@ellispartners.com www.ellispartners.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you. From:Kari H To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Creekside Inn development Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:11:56 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from karihodgson@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I strongly disagree with the City for considering this development. Obviously, none of you live close to that area or you too would understand the burden this development places on those who own houses in barron park. I guess since the 2 homes I own in Palo Alto are in Greenmeadow I too should ignore why this proposal hurts so many of our community members. Please do not agree to these ridiculous terms. The parking nightmare alone you are condemning these people should weigh heavily on your conscience. Imagine everyday coming home to all the spill over cars, who have no garage space, parked bumper to bumper on your street. Please do not do this to our neighbors. Thanks, Kari Hodgson From:Kumre, Moe To:Rashmi Bachrach Cc:Council, City; Virginia Bachrach Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Weed Abatement Notice for 4169/4179 Oak Hill Ave, Palo Alto Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 2:18:48 PM Attachments:image001.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from moe.kumre@cep.sccgov.org.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. In 2021 the city of Palo Alto did not hold the assessment hearing and all charges had to be rolled to this year. The charges for both properties are due to work performed on the properties in 2021. Moe Kumre Weed Abatement manager County of Santa Clara Consumer and Environmental Protection Agency office: (408)282-3123 email: moe.kumre@cep.sccgov.org From: Rashmi Bachrach <rashmi.bachrach@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:34 AM To: Kumre, Moe <Moe.Kumre@cep.sccgov.org> Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Virginia Bachrach <virginia.bachrach@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Weed Abatement Notice for 4169/4179 Oak Hill Ave, Palo Alto Hi, Can you please clarify this? I'm confused as my mother has hired help to cut the weeds on her property this year, and when I was there last, the weeds had been cut. Do you have dated photo evidence of a violation? Thanks, Rashmi Bachrach cc. Virgina Bachrach From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Steve Levy Subject:CA Economic Update Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 1:13:26 PM Attachments:Numbers-Sep2022-California-Economic-Update-July-2022.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, I am starting California economy updates. Here is the one for July data. August jobs data will be out on the 16th and I will update then after the Fed meeting on Sept 20-21 The highlights: • Strong job gains In July pushed the state close to (97.3%) of regaining all the payroll jobs lost during the pandemic. • The state unemployment rate declined to 3.9%, an all-time low. One negative trend is that California’s labor force is still 200,000+ below pre-pandemic levels. • The number of residential building permits also surged in June and the state is on pace for the largest permit level since 2006, though still below California’s new 6th cycle RHNA housing targets. • Air travel levels are also rising though still below pre-pandemic levels at many major state airports. • All of these gains are occurring in each of the state’s major economic regions. • August 2022 brings continuing challenges and uncertainty to the global, national and state economy with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, large increases in interest rates amidst continuing high inflation, and the ongoing Bay Area challenges of housing, transportation and competitiveness. On the brighter side, COVID cases have started to decline, commodity and gas prices have declined, Ukraine can begin to export grain and California families may have a more normal school year. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 1 September 2022 California Economic Update and Outlook—July 2022 The highlights: • Strong job gains In July pushed the state close to (97.3%) of regaining all the payroll jobs lost during the pandemic. • The state unemployment rate declined to 3.9%, an all-time low. One negative trend is that California’s labor force is still 200,000+ below pre- pandemic levels. • The number of residential building permits also surged in June and the state is on pace for the largest permit level since 2006, though still below California’s new 6th cycle RHNA housing targets. • Air travel levels are also rising though still below pre-pandemic levels at many major state airports. • All of these gains are occurring in each of the state’s major economic regions. • August 2022 brings continuing challenges and uncertainty to the global, national and state economy with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, large increases in interest rates amidst continuing high inflation, and the ongoing Bay Area challenges of housing, transportation and competitiveness. On the brighter side, COVID cases have started to decline, commodity and gas prices have declined, Ukraine can begin to export grain and California families may have a more normal school year. California Job Trends By July 2022 the state had recovered 97.3% of the jobs lost between February and April 2020. Five major industry sectors—Construction, Transportation and Warehousing, Information, Business and Professional Services and Education and Health Services—exceeded pre-pandemic job levels in July 2022. Retail Trade jobs in July were close to pre-pandemic levels. Government job levels were barely above the April 2020 pandemic low but increasing in each recent month. Leisure and Hospitality has now recovered 84.3% or pandemic job losses and has been the leading job growth sector over the past 12 months. Wholesale Trade, Financial Activities and Other Services had relatively low recovery rates while Manufacturing has recovered just over 85.5% of the pandemic job losses. 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 2 California Jobs by Major Industry Sector Feb 2020 April 2020 July 2021 July 2022 Apr 2020 – July 2022 Job Change % Of Feb-Apr Loss Mining and Logging 22,500 20,400 18,700 19,200 -1,200 -57.1% Construction 910,200 742,800 878,300 923,400 180,600 107.9% Manufacturing 1,329,700 1,206,200 1,275,200 1,311,800 105,600 85.5% Wholesale Trade 686,100 608,900 649,000 664,500 55,600 72.0% Retail Trade 1,646,900 1,335,800 1,608,900 1,645,600 309,800 99.6% Transp. & Wareh. 731,800 680,800 782,500 847,200 166,400 326.3% Information 591,500 508,900 559,800 606,100 97,200 117.7% Financial Activities 851,600 799,200 828,000 834,300 35,100 67.0% Prof& Bus Serv. 2,773,600 2,465,600 2,708,200 2,846,900 381,300 123.8% Educ & Health Serv. 2,874,100 2,576,200 2,831,200 2,927,800 351,600 118.0% Leisure & Hospitality 2,060,600 1,070,400 1,732,800 1,905,400 835,000 84.3% Other Services 593,400 394,400 516,100 552,500 158,100 79.4% Government 2,619,900 2,523,400 2,471,600 2,531,100 7,700 8.0% Total Non-Farm 17,691,900 14,933,000 16,878,100 17,618,100 2,685,100 97.3% Source: EDD data are seasonally adjusted But the story changes if you look at job growth during the past 12 months. Here Leisure and Hospitality leads all sectors by a wide margin with a 10.0% year- over-year job gain as the sector has finally begun to recover. The next fastest growth was in transportation and warehousing led by port activity and gains in air travel, Information led by gains in tech and a recovery in motion picture production and Other Services led by Auto Repair and Personal Care Services. Construction and Professional and Business Services had 12-month job growth of 5.1% exceeding the state average growth rate. Financial Activities at 0.8% had the lowest major sector growth rate. Jobs by Major Industry Sector Growth in Past 12 Months July 2021 – 2022 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 3 Mining and Logging 2.7% Construction 5.1% Manufacturing 2.9% Wholesale Trade 2.4% Retail Trade 2.3% Transp. & Wareh. 8.3% Information 8.3% Financial Activities 0.8% Prof& Bus Serv. 5.1% Educ & Health Serv. 3.4% Leisure & Hospitality 10.0% Other Services 7.1% Government 2.4% Total Non-Farm 4.4% Source: EDD data are seasonally adjusted Regional Job Trends The Sacramento region has surpassed the pre-pandemic job level by 14.4% in July 2022. All of the other regions except the Bay Area had recovered 97%+ of their lost jobs, close to the national recovery rate. The composition of each region is listed at the end of this update. 97.1% 88.0% 98.8% 114.4% 97.2% 97.3% 100.3% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 140.0% Southern California Bay Area San Diego Sacramento Region San Joaquin Valley California U.S. % of Jobs Recovered by July 2022 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 4 But recent growth rates show the Bay Area catching up based on strong job growth in the past 12 months. The Bay Area led all state regions with a 5.2% job growth between July of 2021 and 2022. San Diego was next with a 4.5% job growth followed by Southern California at 4.2% similar to the national growth rate. Labor Force and Unemployment The state’s unemployment rate in July 2022 at 3.9% was the lowest in the state’s history and the number of unemployed residents (758,700) was below the 802,500 in February 2020 prior to the COVID pandemic. But the state’s labor force was still below pre-pandemic levels as some residents could not find work or were unable to look for work related to the pandemic and child care issues. As a result, there were almost 200,000 fewer Californians at work (employed residents) still in July 2022. California Labor Force and Unemployment Feb 2020 April 2020 July 2021 July 2022 Labor Force 19,536,400 18,651,200 19,016,300 19,326,800 Employed Residents 18,733,800 15,685,900 17,609,600 18,568,200 Unemployment 802,500 2,965,200 1,406,700 758,700 Unemployment Rate 4.1% 15.9% 7.4% 3.9% Source: EDD, seasonally adjusted 4.2% 5.2% 4.5% 3.8% 3.3% 4.4% 4.2% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% Southern California Bay Area San Diego Sacramento Region San Joaquin Valley California U.S. Job Growth July 2021-2022 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 5 Residential Housing Permits Led by strong permit levels in June, the state recorded 71,236 residential building permits in the first six months of 2022. If that pace keeps up for the rest of the year, the state would have the most permits since 2006 when there were 164,200 permits. There were gains in both single-family and multiple-family permots with both exceededin 2019 pre-pandemic levels. 52,903 45,226 61,684 71,236 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 Residential Building Permits in California First Six Months of the Year 27,641 24,868 34,653 35,894 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 Single-Family Permits in Caliofornia First Six Months of the Year 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 6 Air Travel and Regional Housing Data These were covered in separate Numbers in the News sent to you and online at www.ccsce.com. Regional Structure Southern California Counties Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Bay Area Counties Alameda Contra Costa Marín Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Solano Sonoma Sacramento Region Counties El Dorado 25,262 20,358 27,031 35,342 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 Mulit-Family Permits in California First Six Months of the Year 385 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • phone (650) 321-8550 • www.ccsce.com 7 Placer Sacramento Sutter Yolo Yuba San Joaquin Valley Counties Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Tulare From:Charlie Weidanz To:Council, City Subject:Supervisor Simitian Sidewalk Office Hours - Palo Alto Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 11:07:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please join Supervisor Simitian for his Sidewalk Office Hours: Sunday, September 11, 2022 9:30 – 11 a.m. California Ave. Palo Alto Farmers’ Market New Sidewalk Office Hours Location Sunday, October 9, 2022 9:30 – 11 a.m. California Ave. Palo Alto Farmers’ Market New Sidewalk Office Hours Location Click here for the entire fall schedule This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe click here. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com. From:Rashmi Bachrach To:moe.kumre@cep.sccgov.org Cc:Council, City; Virginia Bachrach Subject:Weed Abatement Notice for 4169/4179 Oak Hill Ave, Palo Alto Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:34:52 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rashmi.bachrach@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Can you please clarify this? I'm confused as my mother has hired help to cut the weeds on her property this year, and when I was there last, the weeds had been cut. Do you have dated photo evidence of a violation? Thanks, Rashmi Bachrach cc. Virgina Bachrach From:Donna Colburn To:Council, City Subject:RE: Q3 Agricultural Services - 2022 Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:17:37 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email fromdonna.colburn@theglobalcontacts.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi there, Would be interested in our newly updated email list of Organic Growers, Agricultural Production Crops, Agricultural Production Livestock And Animal Specialties, Agricultural Services, Food Stores, Farm and Garden Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers, Landscape And Horticultural Services etc, Herb Growing professionals across the USA..? We provide information like-Name, Email, Title, Phone Number and Company Details Let me know your thoughts Regards, Donna ColburnSr. Marketing Executive To remove from this mailing: reply with subject line as "Simply LEAVE US." From:FEC United To:Council, City Subject:FEC United Commerce Newsletter Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 9:06:51 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from fec@msgfocus.fecunited.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.   FEC United Commerce Pillar Newsletter September 8, 2022   "Thus says the Lord GOD: Disaster after disaster! Behold, it comes. An end has come; the end has come; it has awakened against you. Behold, it comes." "They cast their silver into the streets, and their gold is like an unclean thing. Their silver and gold are not able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD. They cannot satisfy their hunger or fill their stomachs with it. For it was the stumbling block of their iniquity." Ezra 7:5-6, 19 Quotes About A Hundred Years Ago A book about the Weimar Republic's hyperinflation which was one factor in the rise of the Third Reich, was published in 1973, fifty years after the hyperinflation, and just as America was starting to feel the pain of the "Great Inflation" of the 1970s. The book is When Money Dies: The Nightmare of Deficit Spending, Devaluation, and Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany. Now, another fifty years later, the two-digit dates match today's, and some quotes are hauntingly similar to today's news. "It was a difficulty noticed and noted by Mr Lloyd George writing in 1932, who said that words such as 'disaster', 'ruin', and 'catastrophe' had ceased to rouse any sense of genuine apprehension any more, into such common usage had they fallen. Disaster itself was devalued: in contemporary documents the word was used year after year to describe situations incalculably more serious than the time before." (p. xiii) "Certainly, 1922 and 1923 brought catastrophe to the German, Austrian and Hungarian bourgeoisie, as well as hunger, disease, destitution and sometimes death to an even wider public. Yet any people might have ridden out those years had they represented one frightful storm in an otherwise calm passage. What most severely damaged the morale of those nations was that they were merely the climax of unreality to years of unimagined strain of every kind." (p. 2) "It was natural that a people in the grip of raging inflation should look about for someone to blame. They picked upon other classes, other races, other political parties, other nations." (p. 69) In 1921, "For any whose incomes were failing to keep abreast of, or somewhere close to, increases such as these, the tempest was blowing. ... All children of every class, according to a study in Frankfurt am Main in February 1922, were two years physically and mentally backward for their ages. It remained difficult for them to recover those lost years because milk was obtainable only for the sick during the winter, and the price of bread was rising." (p. 72) "The younger and the active had found work, but the older were destitute. The professional classes, the doctors and the lawyers, as in Germany and Austria were suffering from a shortage of patients and clients, but could adjust their charges to some extent.... Professional men on fixed salaries had been 'reduced to absolute penury'. Clerks, who formed a highly important class in the capital, had entirely inadequate salaries.... However, for those with families to feed 'the 60 per cent rise in prices for this class does not bear dwelling upon'." (p. 106-107) "In the countryside the landowners and farmers were less affected than anyone, producing most of their own essentials and putting up commodity prices as regularly as the shopkeepers. Landless peasants were not doing so well, and the large number of casual labourers whose wanderings had been limited by the new confines of Hungary formed a particularly destitute class." (p. 107) "A liter of milk, which had cost 7 marks in April 1922 and 16 in August, by mid-September cost 26 marks." (p. 111) Key Takeaways 1. Germany of a century ago brings to mind the saying "History rarely repeats, but it often rhymes." 2. The worst kept getting even worse for several years. 3. The young, the active, and the self-sufficient can probably help themselves, but be prepared to help even formerly wealthy retirees whose income is fixed. Business and Economic News Denver South Metro Chapter Meeting Huge announcement about the People's Chamber of Commerce from Danny Bristow , special message from Joe Oltmann (via Video) about the next phase of FEC United. 6 PM Doors open, 6:30-7:30 FEC 2.0 and Pillar Local Goals and Initiative, 7:30-8:30 Chick-fil-A Snacks/Beverages, Fellowship, and Pillar Breakouts. What does economic collapse mean? How have you prepared your business for the combination of higher energy prices and lower disposable incomes? Alcoa partially shuts down a smelter in Norway because of high cost of energy. Sarcastic commentary says that's okay, you don't need aluminum and you will be happy. Farmers in Holland protest, and suddenly the Dutch minister of agriculture decides he is not the right man for the job. A railroad strike is threatened for the same day CMEgroup grain contracts expire and physical delivery begins. Building the Parallel Economy Free the media - make it truly open source. You have the right to free speech just as far as you actually exercise your right. "there is no one you can trust to control such a system and so we must develop systems that are controlled by no one." List of American-made brands - though keep in mind it's not always a brand's fault if they have to use some imported supplies; even Mike Lindell has had to go outside the US for some things. I Want to Help FEC United! Get Involved! The Commerce Pillar needs your help! Your involvement is vital to support businesses staying open and freely providing products, services, and employment. Support the businesses courageous enough to stand for freedom - stand with them, maybe literally! Contact the Commerce Pillar for more information, or sign up for FEC United emails.   Mailing Address: PO Box 891, Parker, CO 80134 Want to change how you receive these emails? You can an change your email address or unsubscribe from this list. Unsubscribe at https://papp.pidoxa.com/unsub Sent by FEC United PO Box 891 , Parker CO 80134. Copyright 2022 by FEC United or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. From:gee2mag@aol.com To:Council, City Subject:Creekside Development Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 8:42:43 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from gee2mag@aol.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. It is extremelo inappropriate to slap such a giant monstrosity into our neighborhood. We are not a BIG CITY here. A small hotel, a restaurant and a grocery store provide the right services in the right proportion. Do not accept this plsn. Grace Lenhart. View this email in your browser From:LWV Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:Join Our Neighborhood Gatherings This Fall! Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 8:24:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. LWVPA Neighborhood Gatherings Join us in September and October! League members are opening their homes for informal gatherings in September and October. Join us to reconnect with one another and meet new friends. Each event will include refreshments and informal conversation and the opportunity to get the latest news from the League in a small gathering by neighborhood. Sign up HERE to connect with old and new friends! LWVPaloAlto.org Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn Email Email Copyright © 2022 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. From:Charlie Weidanz To:Council, City Subject:Stanford Blood Center has an immediate need for All Blood Types Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 8:00:14 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Stanford Blood Center has an immediate need for All Blood Types, especially Type O+. As a special thanks for keeping patients a priority, anyone who donates (September 3 – 10) at any center or mobile drive will receive enough points for our Donor Loyalty Store to redeem a $10 gift card of your choice! Choose between Chipotle, Jamba Juice, Lowe’s and Peet’s Coffee. Blood donors are essential to the health and safety of our community. You never know when you or someone you know could need blood. It’s the blood that has already been donated that saves lives at a moment’s notice. In just one hour, you could donate enough blood to help multiple patients at a time they need it most. Please note that walk-in availability may be limited, so we encourage donors to make an appointment by visiting stanfordbloodcenter.org, the SBC mobile app or by calling us at 888-723-7831. This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe click here. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com. From:Bill Kelly To:Sauls, Garrett; Council, City Cc:Lisa Kelly Subject:Proposed project at the Creekside Inn Date:Thursday, September 8, 2022 7:31:33 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from bill@kellys.org. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council and Planning Commission, We are very concerned about the scale of the project proposed for the Creekside Inn. As a 30 year resident of Chimalus Drive, we have deep concerns over the height of the project as it will impact the privacy of our neighbors on Chimalus, on the overall size of the project as it will severely impact our egress from Barron Park, finally we’re very concerned about bike safety on Madadero avenue. The sightlines for the upper stories of this project would overlook our backyards. This seems an overly intrusive for the city to approve this project. Could a tree buffer between the project and Chimalus be devised? Or some other remediation of the view? Currently, visitors exiting the Creekside Inn in their vehicles often don’t understand that they are entering a street, and they pull out without looking. Several years ago, this street was declared a bike superhighway for children transiting to Gunn and Barron Park School. This was done, despite making no changes to the narrow road. Vehicles on Matadero road often travel at speeds 15-20 miles over the speed limit, even with speed bumps. When the speed bumps were installed, they were effective, however, a few weeks after they were installed, the bumps were lowered, and we have seen modern cars like Tesla’s take the new bumps at 40 miles per hour without impact. Adding possibly hundreds of cars to the morning commute would at the Matadero interchange would make this egress unusable for existing residence and dangerous to school children on bikes. We are committed to increasing housing in Palo Alto, and if a project could adhere to current zoning requirements that would be beneficial for Palo Alto, but this project is way out of scale. Bill & Lisa Kelly 632 Chimalus Dr. Palo Alto CA 94306 Institute for the Study of Societal Issues View this email in your browser From:Allan Seid To:DENNIS LEE Subject:Fwd: Call for Proposals: Grants in Asian American Research 2022 Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 9:04:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From: AARC <aarc@berkeley.edu> Date: Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 9:06 AM Subject: Call for Proposals: Grants in Asian American Research 2022 From:Allan Seid University of California, Berkeley, Faculty and Graduate Students Application deadline: October 17, 2022, 5:00pm (PT) The Asian American Research Center (AARC) invites proposals from current UCB faculty and graduate students working on scholarly, community engagement, and/or creative projects that focus on Asian American populations. We seek projects that center Asian American perspectives, agency, and epistemologies. We are especially interested in funding projects that engage communities as partners and/or involve Asian American populations. Call for Proposals: Grants in Asian American Research Topics/Themes The AARC accepts proposals from a wide range of topics and disciplinary approaches. For 2022-23, AARC will give preference to proposals on the theme of Activating Asian America, which encompasses education, media, racial profiling, and cross-racial alliances. Grant Funding The grant can be used to complete an entire project, to provide seed money to start a larger project, or to accomplish smaller tasks of a larger project. Due to the competitive selection process, the final amount awarded may be less than the amount requested. All funds must be spent by November 30, 2023. Maximum amount of each faculty award is $10,000. Faculty can request funds for GSR funding, research travel, and/or other research-related expenses. Maximum amount of each graduate student award is $5,000. Graduate students can request funds for living expense stipends (as taxable and financial aid reportable income) and/or for reimbursement for research travel and/or other research-related expenses. Restrictions Applicants may submit only one proposal in any one funding cycle. Competitive candidates who do not receive funding for this cycle are encouraged to reapply in future cycles. Grant monies cannot be used for the purchase of computer equipment, books, and/or any other materials for personal use. Purchases of equipment and other materials for the project must be pre-approved and will be considered the property of the University of California, Berkeley. Eligibility and Requirements All research involving human subjects must be approved by the Office for the Protection of Human Subjects (OPHS) by the start of the funding period to ensure the protection of participants’ rights and welfare in the research process. All UC Berkeley faculty members are eligible. UC Berkeley staff members with PI status are also eligible to apply for the faculty grant. All UC Berkeley graduate students are eligible. Please acknowledge funding from the Asian American Research Center, UC Berkeley, in any websites, publications, presentations, or other products that result. Outcomes A final report must be submitted within a month after the conclusion of the grant term and must include a brief summary of the project for publication on our website and in other communications (newsletter, social media). Grantees may be invited to present their work, whether completed or in-progress, at an AARC event. Application Process Faculty The faculty application form is available here. You will be asked to provide: An abstract of up to 250 words Budget and budget justification/rationale (as pdf, with filename: lastname_firstname_budget.pdf) Statement of project (as pdf; 750 words max, with filename: lastname_firstname_statement.pdf) Please include last name, first name at the top of the page. Please identify specific outcomes that the funding will make possible and include a timeline for the project. If there are any co-PI’s or other collaborators, please include that information in the statement. CV (of PIs) (as pdf; 3 pages max, with filename: lastname_firstname_CV.pdf) Graduate Students The graduate student application is available here. You will be asked to provide: An abstract of up to 250 words Budget and budget justification/rationale (as pdf, with filename: lastname_firstname_budget.pdf) Statement of project (as pdf; 750 words max, with filename: lastname_firstname_statement.pdf) Please include last name, first name at the top of the page. Please identify specific outcomes that the funding will make possible and include a timeline for the project. If there are any co-PI’s or other collaborators, please include that information in the statement. CV (of PIs) (as pdf; 3 pages max, with filename: lastname_firstname_CV.pdf) Letter of support from a faculty member (as pdf, with filename: lastname_firstname_letter.pdf). The letter should address the following points: How does this proposed project help advance the student's masters or doctoral research? Is the student making good academic progress? See last year's funded projects here Deadline: Monday, October 17, 2022 by 5pm (Pacific Time) Award notifications: November 30, 2022 (anticipated) Questions? Contact aarc@berkeley.edu or (510) 642-0813. Share Tweet Forward Share AARC Events Twitter Facebook YouTube Copyright © 2021 Institute for the Study of Societal Issues, UC Berkeley, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have subscribed to the Institute for the Study of Societal Issues mailing list. Our mailing address is: Institute for the Study of Societal Issues, UC Berkeley 2420 Bowditch Street Berkeley, CA 94720 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list Support Our Work This email was sent to allanseid734@gmail.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Institute for the Study of Societal Issues, UC Berkeley · 2420 Bowditch Street · Berkeley, CA 94720 · USA From:Mircea To:Council, City Cc:Gerhardt, Jodie; Sauls, Garrett Subject:3400 El Camino Real -- Sept 19th 2022 City Council Work Study session-Public Comments Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:37:27 PM Attachments:BPA_Letter_to_City_Council_9_07_22.docx.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from mircea27v@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable City Council Members, My name is Mircea Voskerician and I am the property owner residing at 572 Chimalus Dr. Palo Alto which is sharing property line (rear side) with Creekside Inn. I am also a real estate developer and supporting housing developments, affordable housing but nothing this Extreme. I am in full agreement with all items addressed in the BPA letter. A couple of things that the city council should discuss for this site: 1. We cannot have a 5 story 50 ft tall building 45 ft from the R1 residential property line as proposed - Show stopper 2. To ensure a "transition" from a 5 story building to 1/2 story single family homes (R1 residential), building B in the rear should be replaced by 3-level townhomes or row homes (Height: 35 ft max) 3. To ensure that future residents have a place to relax/open space the development should grant the city a 1 AC park buffering R1 residential and get credits towards multi family park in lieu fees or other concessions. 4. To ensure privacy towards R1 residential is protected, under the new development, no parking can be allowed "against" the current property line, that entire rear side strip running from the green belt/CPI to Matadero should be dedicated open space/playground and a curtain of dense mature trees (Height: 30 ft as planted) must be planted against the property line as COA's 5. Building must be "massed" on ECR and CPI sides not against R1 residential, all parking must be underground including commercial, residential and guest-residential parking must be properly accounted and calculated so our neighborhood streets are not flooded with cars This project, if developed, must be a win-win-win, developer/city/Barron Park, currently as designed it is a win-win-lose for Barron Park and residents of Barron Park must be heard. Hopefully the city and developer will listen well and address all neighborhood concerns, so city council approval will not have to be reversed by Barron Park residents like Maybell development, while run by the same project manager (Ted O'Hanlon). Regards, Mircea Voskerician 572 Chimalus Dr. Palo Alto 1 September 7, 2022 To:The Mayor and City Council, City of Palo Alto From:Board of Directors of the Barron Park Association and concerned residents Re:Reaction to the proposed development of the Creekside Inn, Cibo Restaurant and Driftwood Deli and Market property, 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 *** The Barron Park community supports and looks forward to the addition of new housing, especially for “workforce” residents, throughout the City, as suitable sites are designated. However, the present Oxford Capital Group proposal to redevelop the Creekside Inn complex is not feasible in many ways. As proposed, it is massively out of scale and, if implemented, would present a host of density-related, environmental and traffic problems to this area. We have compiled our reactions to the developer ’s proposal from statements and contributions by attendees at neighborhood meetings sponsored by the BPA Board of Directors during the month of August 2022. We provide them below in outline form. 1.Natural Matadero Creek, mature trees, wildlife corridor, water usage, groundwater a.With a two-level underground garage excavated immediately adjacent to it, how will the City ensure that the developer will preserve and maintain the health and vitality of Matadero Creek and its wildlife, both in the short and the long term? Will this include maintenance and restoration of the existing natural riparian habitat? b.This 3.6-acre property currently benefits from many mature trees that ensure privacy, shading and stabilization of the creek banks. These trees must be protected per City ordinance. c.Will the developer be required to retain the green belt between the property and the Rivian site, and its other privacy screening? 2 d.Because of possible toxic plumes from CPI and other pre-existing industries in the Stanford Research Park, groundwater pollution will have to be monitored on a continuous basis and mitigations applied. 2.Environmental Impact Report (EIR) In the course of establishing the EIR, the City must demand that the consultant hired complete a Management Transportation Analysis (MTA) and a Sewer Capacity Analysis. Other reports — Arborist Report, Wildlife Report, Historical Report (if the structure is over 50 years old), Phase 2 Report, and Soils/Geotech Report — will also be required for this EIR. 3.Small retail business protection a.Current businesses on this site employ approximately 50 people. All these workers will lose their jobs if this project goes forward. b.Only one of two retail businesses has been offered a site in the new development, as a smaller Driftwood Deli and Market. Its square footage would be reduced from its current 4,500 sq. ft., with no outdoor seating. c.The developer has offered no plan for this thriving business to survive the years of construction, so its offer is hollow. Driftwood Deli and Market and Cibo Restaurant would not recover even if offered a location at the developed site. The time lag is too great. This is not protection of ground floor retail in a Commercial Neighborhood/Commercial Service (CN/CS) zone. d.The City will lose the 14% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for the 136-room Creekside Inn. 4.Location of the project a.Only two vehicle entrances to the entire property are proposed. This will massively increase congestion and wait lines, both on El Camino Real and on Matadero Avenue. Traffic will increase on neighborhood streets (Whitsell, Josina, Kendall, Barron . . .) as drivers seek alternate routes to avoid the signal at Matadero. 3 b.Matadero and Margarita Avenues are designated Bike Boulevards as well as “Safe Routes to Schools” for students at Barron Park Elementary School, Fletcher Middle School and Gunn High School. c.Bikers and walkers to and from the VA and the Stanford Research Park, as well as Stanford employees and students, use these streets to access bike and pedestrian paths to destinations west of Bol Park. Several hundred additional vehicles entering and exiting the proposed two-level underground garage from and onto 17-foot wide Matadero Avenue (with no sidewalks) would seriously exacerbate the situation. d.Even without the proposed additional traffic, the signal at El Camino and Matadero currently often takes two to three cycles to cross during higher traffic times. This intersection needs to be modernized in any event, by improving the median and the signal timing. 5.Unit sizes The total number of proposed units is 382: i.e., 44 studios; 243 one-bedroom units; 86 two-bedroom units; and 9 three-bedroom units. This is an unbalanced configuration if the development is to support families. 6.Vehicle parking a.Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) would need to be instituted for Barron Park streets, to include, but not be limited to: Matadero Ave., Chimalus Dr., Tippawingo St., Josina Ave., Whitsell Ave., Kendall Ave., Barron Ave. and, east of El Camino in Ventura, Margarita Ave. and adjacent streets. b.Along with the RPP, a Transportation Management Program, with an agreed upon monitoring schedule, would be required. Due to developer ’s unbundled parking plan, tenants will park a second car on the streets to avoid paying for a second parking space in addition to their rent. c.The total number of proposed units is 382: 287 studio or one-bedroom units and 95 two- or three-bedroom units. For both market rate and affordable housing, the City mandates one parking space per studio or one-bedroom unit (287 spaces) and 4 two parking spaces per two-bedroom or larger unit (190 spaces) for a total of 477. The proposal calls for 503 spaces. Setting aside 24 spaces for retail leaves 479 spaces for residents. This is 2 more than the City mandates for the apartment residents. Where will employee, disabled, EV and guest parking be located? 7.Residential privacy a.This property is zoned CN/CS. The two proposed buildings are 64 feet high, including mechanical equipment. The building cannot reach 50 feet in height until it is at a 150-foot distance from R1 Residential, that is, from existing fences shared with the present Creekside Inn. b.Per Garrett Sauls, at the August 16 neighborhood meeting: For Planned Home Zoning (PHZ), buildings at the height of the proposed project must be 150 feet from R1 homes. c.There will be major privacy issues for all homeowners and renters along Matadero Ave. and Chimalus Dr. Apartments in the proposed complex, from the second to the sixth floors, would see into the backyards and interiors of nearby homes and apartments. d.Any windows, balconies and rooftop terraces facing neighbors’ homes, whether R1 or apartment buildings, must be evaluated for privacy and eliminated if invasive. e.Tree privacy screening for neighbors must be a priority. 8.Open space a.All the areas where plans show surface parking would need to be reevaluated for “usable open space” building design. b.The proposal offers no usable ground-level open space and no area for children to play, safe from El Camino traffic. The proposed “rooftop terraces” cannot be counted toward the open space requirement. c.No amenities (gym, clubhouse, picnic area, bike parking, playground, dog park) have been proposed for the residents of this apartment complex. 5 9.Mechanical equipment The installation of solar panels would be essential. These should be sited to protect the privacy of nearby residents. While we understand the City of Palo Alto is under immense pressure to provide housing, the City should NOT agree to ANY reduction of Impact Fees as requested by the applicant. The negative impacts on the Barron Park and Ventura neighborhoods — on parks, streets, traffic, vehicle parking, Safe Routes to School, as well as to pedestrians and the environment — are exactly what Impact Fees are meant to mitigate. If built as proposed, this project will eliminate two local businesses that the surrounding neighborhood relies on, as well as a 136-room hotel that supports business travelers and other visitors to Palo Alto and Stanford and provides revenue to the City and state. The profound impact on the area’s water usage, waste management, parking, environment (with potential toxic damage to Matadero Creek), and privacy will disrupt lives, bring unnecessary stressors to the neighborhood and increase traffic tenfold. Respectfully submitted, The Board of the Barron Park Association and concerned residents of the community Palo Alto, California From:Dave Cragg To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Creekside Inn Development Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 6:25:51 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from craggd@aol.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Counsel Representatives. As a 27 year resident of Barron Park and Palo Alto native I agree with The Barron Park Association objections to the Proposed Creekside Inn Development. This type of development would overwhelm the site, cause excessive congestion on one of the few egress & entry routes into Barron Park and would be over sized for the neighborhood. There is already significant housing being developed on El Camino in our neighborhood and we also have the only trailer park in Palo Alto for low cost living already in our community. I urge you to reject this development proposal. Sincerely, David W. Cragg 803 Timlott Lane Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Planning Subject:FW: Reminder: HEU: In one hour - 6:00 PM - SEPTEMBER 7, 2022: - County of Santa Clara Housing Element Update: INVITATION FOR COMMUNITY WORKSHOP Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 5:09:04 PM Attachments:image001.png HousingElement_Meeting_Stakeholder3_Presentation.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. County of Santa Clara Housing Element Update Dear Community Member, Thank you for your continued engagement in the County of Santa Clara’s 2023 – 2031 Housing Element Update. Join us to get an update on our project status! You are invited to attend our next Community Workshop and provide input on site selection for housing development and the strategies and policies goals to address the need for housing at the local level. The Project Team will provide a brief informational presentation followed by ample time for discussion. Date: Today, September 7, 2022 Time: 6:00pm – 7:30pm Join Online Join by Phone: +1 699 900 6833 | Meeting ID: 961 9566 5945 This meeting follows two Community Workshops held in July that sought input on housing opportunities and challenges to be addressed through Housing Element Update strategies and policies. If you missed it, visit our project website to view meeting recordings and summaries. The summary of the last Stakeholder Workshop is attached that summarizes the policy goals and the comments Stakeholders made. Please review it prior to attending the meeting . The Draft Housing Element Update will be available for review and comment in October. +++ What is a Housing Element? The Housing Element is a mandatory element, or chapter, of the General Plan that primarily addresses the housing needs of unincorporated Santa Clara County. Housing Element law requires local governments to adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs, including their share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. To effectively plan for developing and preserving an adequate supply of housing, local jurisdictions must first understand the housing needs in their communities. Visit our project website for more information. Sign up for project updates here. We look forward to collaborating with you in formulating the County’s housing policies for the next 8 years. Sincerely, The Department of Planning & Development Housing Team Email: planning2@pln.sccgov.org County of Santa Clara Housing Element Update 2023 –2031 August 29, 2022 Stakeholder Workshop #3 Refined Housing Element Strategies Presenters Yosef Yip, Facilitator Bharat Singh, County of Santa Clara, Principal Planner10:00 a.m. Welcome House Keeping Mute your microphone when not speaking Use the “raise hand” feature during breakout discussions 2 Welcome Objective: Seek input on 2023-2031 Housing Element Update refined strategies Agenda Presentation & Discussion •Housing Element Update refresher •Existing Housing Strategies •Updated/New Strategies and Policies •Discussion questions: What should the focus be under the goals? What is missing that we should consider? 3 Timeline Information Gathering Draft Policies 4 Draft Housing Element Release for 30-Day Public Comment Public Release Engagement to Date 130 online surveys completed (ranked top housing issues) Stakeholder Workshop #1 | July 6 •29 attendees •Discussed housing opportunities and challenges Community Workshop #1 (Rural Focus) | July 19 •32 attendees •Discussed housing opportunities and challenges in Unincorporated Santa Clara Community Workshop #2 (Urban Focus) | July 21 •30 attendees •Discussed housing opportunities and challenges in Urban Service Areas Stakeholder Workshop (Development Focus) | Aug 2 •29 attendees •Discussed challenges and streamlining opportunities in the development process Stakeholder Workshop #2 | Aug 17 •Over 30 attendees •Discussed updates needed to existing Housing Element Updates to address current housing challenges Housing Element Basics What is a Housing Element? •Mandatory chapter of the General Plan •Addresses the housing needs of the unincorporated areas 7 •Required Components ✓Review of Previous Element/Existing Housing Needs ✓Housing Needs Assessment ✓Inventory and Analysis of Adequate Sites ✓Analysis of Potential Governmental and Non-governmental Constraints ✓Quantified Objectives ✓Housing Policies and Programs Existing Strategies & Challenges Housing Element Update Strategies 9 Existing Strategies 1.Production of Housing 2.Housing affordability 3.Access to Housing 4.Homelessness 5.Climate change Identified Challenges 1.Plan for a balanced countywide housing supply 2.Promote cooperation and collaboration on residential development 3.Provide financial assistance for extremely low-income housing 4.Remove unnecessary barriers to housing 5.Ensure support for fair laws and practices 6.Provide for Special Needs Housing 7.Reduce homelessness consistent with housing first principles 8.Maintain and expand the supply of farm worker housing 9.Conserve the existing housing stock Policy Goals Housing Production 11 Strategies •Plan for a balanced countywide housing supply •Promote cooperation and collaboration on residential development Proposed Policy Goals •Plan for housing development within USAs not planned for annexation during a RHNA cycle. •Ensure housing projects contain an equitable mix of housing type & household income levels. * •Plan new housing near transit & prioritize building active transportation infrastructure in existing neighborhoods. Consider how development will occur within USAs given General Plan and LAFCO policies Collaborate with VTA re: active transportation (esp. future plans in unincorporated areas) Streamline housing approval process Ensure the financial feasibility of desired development Include more non- gov org in collaboration Create specific policies and programs to ensure robust affordable housing development for low-incomes on Stanford lands, esp near transit. These policies/program can be in the form of land dedication, zoning overlays, rezoning, specific % of affordable housing dedications, and/or funding structures to make development viable What should the focus be under these goals? What is missing that we should consider? *AFFH: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing goal (HUD) Housing Affordability 12 Strategies •Plan for a balanced countywide housing supply •Provide financial assistance for extremely low-income housing Key Existing Policies •HG 6: Local funds to target households under 30% of county AMI & special needs populations. •HG 7:Prioritize ELI households in housing assistance programs Ag workers’ housing streamlining and approvals Prioritize ELI housing Prioritize tenant protection in collab with OSH Reduced regulation on affordable housing (i.e.higher height, higher FAR) ELI: Add program services, like case management services/hub Proposed Policy Goals •Prioritize suitable county-owned surplus lands for affordable housing development. •Streamline of affordable housing permit process in areas with high amenities and resources * What should the focus be under these goals? What is missing that we should consider? *AFFH: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing goal (HUD) Access to Housing 13 Strategies •Remove unnecessary barriers to housing •Maintain and expand the supply of farm worker housing Proposed Policy Goals •Streamline regulations to encourage the development of ADU & SB9 Units. •Review Parking standards for housing near transit •Streamline & prioritize housing development that includes low-income units. •Provide permanent farmworker housing by prioritizing and incentivizing it outside of USAs. Consider subsidy programs to encourage lower- income ADU developments Provide farmworker housing that accommodates families and single occupants RE: Farm worker housing. Collab. with Water District policies/ ordinances In addition to ADUs, consider streamline permitting for EVs, solar etc. What should the focus be under these goals? What is missing that we should consider? *AFFH: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing goal (HUD) Fairness in Housing (AFFH) 14 Strategy •Ensure support for fair laws and practices Proposed Policy Goals •Support cities in improving opportunities within HUD identified Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) * •Increase access to opportunity for residents of historically disinvested low-income communities.* –Example: Burbank and Alum Rock/East Foothills. •Promote racial/ethnic integration and reduce displacement by increasing the supply of affordable housing in high opportunity areas, areas with ongoing and risk of displacement* Offer fair housing and housing law workshops that have concentrated areas of poverty. Bring awareness, education and where to seek resources Rent registry Policy to support formally incarcerated and undocumented immigrants What should the focus be under these goals? What is missing that we should consider? *AFFH: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing goal (HUD) Homelessness 15 Strategy •Reduce homelessness consistent with housing first principles Key Existing Policies •HG 16: Prioritize provision of transitional & permanent supportive housing •HG 17: Needs of the chronic homeless to be met with transitional & permanent supportive housing •HG 18 : Fund organizations & programs on quick intervention to reduce chronic homelessness Consider Case Management approach. Support chronic homeless housing participants Support housing for reentry clients Integrate policies from the Community Plan to End Homelessness Proposed Policy Goals •Promote racial equity in homeless services and permanent housing supportive services. * •Diversity sensitivity training for service providers. What should the focus be under these goals? What is missing that we should consider? *AFFH: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing goal (HUD) Climate Change 16 Strategy •Plan for Climate Change impacts on Existing and Future Housing Stock Promote energy efficiency in new and existing residential buildings in order to reduce energy costs, provide quality and resiliency housing, improve building comfort, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions Address climate justice, prioritize low- income and BIPOC communities for upgrades, risk reduction, adaptions etc. Incorporate AC or other measures in new housing to help adapt to extreme heat Provide community services/trainings and workshops to communities that focus on climate vulnerabilities and where to seek services and resources Create local energy and green building standards for new residential construction, renovations, and existing buildings Proposed Policy Goals •Promote energy efficiency in new and existing residential buildings •Limit development of new housing in high climate risk areas (wildfire, floods etc.) •Facilitate programs & assistance to upgrade existing housing stock against extreme weather events. •Educate property owners in high-risk areas in methods to reduce their risk of an event. What should the focus be under these goals? What is missing that we should consider? Summary of Policy Focus 17 •Ensure housing is planned for in USAs for each RHNA cycle •Ensure all projects have equitable mix of housing type & household income levels •Increase access to opportunity for residents of historically disinvested low-income communities •Reduce Displacement & Homelessness •Promote racial equity in homeless services and permanent housing supportive services •Encourage the production of permanent farmworker housing •Protect existing and future housing stock against climate change Questions & Comments Next Steps Information Gathering Draft Policies Your feedback will inform the draft policy development Community Workshop #3 –September 7 (Strategies & Policies) UPCOMING MEETINGS Draft Housing Element Release for 30-Day Public Comment 19 Public Release Stay Involved sccgov.org/housing-element 20 THANK YOU!Contact us Planning2@pln.sccgov.org From:John King To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Sauls, Garrett; Nose, Kiely; City Mgr; Lait, Jonathan; McRee, Sarah; BPA-Board Subject:Barron Park Association letter re: Creekside Inn Development Pre-Screening Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 4:34:40 PM Attachments:BPA_Letter_to_City_Council_9_07_22.docx.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from johnwadeking@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council: Please find attached a letter from the Board of Directors of the Barron Park Association in collaboration with numerous concerned residents of Barron Park regarding the Development Proposal of the Creekside Inn property which is scheduled for a Pre-Screening by the City Council during the September 19th City Council Meeting. The Barron Park Board met through Zoom on August 21st with numerous neighbors for our regular board meeting and were joined by Garrett Sauls from the City Planning Department for a presentation and question and answer session regarding the proposal to develop the Creekside Inn property. This meeting was recorded and posted at https://bpapaloalto.org/2022/08/21/creekside-inn-project/ should you be interested in viewing it. The Barron Park Board in collaboration with a number of concerned residents of Barron Park has approved the attached letter for your consideration prior to the September 19th meeting. Thank you for your review of these concerns. Respectfully Submitted, John W. King President of the Barron Park Association johnwadeking@gmail.com 650-483-2710 cc: Ed Shikada, City Manager Kiely Nose, Interim Assistant City Manager Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning Sarah McRee, Planning Department Senior Management Analyst Garrett Sauls, Planning Department Staff Barron Park Association Board 1 September 7, 2022 To:The Mayor and City Council, City of Palo Alto From:Board of Directors of the Barron Park Association and concerned residents Re:Reaction to the proposed development of the Creekside Inn, Cibo Restaurant and Driftwood Deli and Market property, 3400 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 *** The Barron Park community supports and looks forward to the addition of new housing, especially for “workforce” residents, throughout the City, as suitable sites are designated. However, the present Oxford Capital Group proposal to redevelop the Creekside Inn complex is not feasible in many ways. As proposed, it is massively out of scale and, if implemented, would present a host of density-related, environmental and traffic problems to this area. We have compiled our reactions to the developer ’s proposal from statements and contributions by attendees at neighborhood meetings sponsored by the BPA Board of Directors during the month of August 2022. We provide them below in outline form. 1.Natural Matadero Creek, mature trees, wildlife corridor, water usage, groundwater a.With a two-level underground garage excavated immediately adjacent to it, how will the City ensure that the developer will preserve and maintain the health and vitality of Matadero Creek and its wildlife, both in the short and the long term? Will this include maintenance and restoration of the existing natural riparian habitat? b.This 3.6-acre property currently benefits from many mature trees that ensure privacy, shading and stabilization of the creek banks. These trees must be protected per City ordinance. c.Will the developer be required to retain the green belt between the property and the Rivian site, and its other privacy screening? 2 d.Because of possible toxic plumes from CPI and other pre-existing industries in the Stanford Research Park, groundwater pollution will have to be monitored on a continuous basis and mitigations applied. 2.Environmental Impact Report (EIR) In the course of establishing the EIR, the City must demand that the consultant hired complete a Management Transportation Analysis (MTA) and a Sewer Capacity Analysis. Other reports — Arborist Report, Wildlife Report, Historical Report (if the structure is over 50 years old), Phase 2 Report, and Soils/Geotech Report — will also be required for this EIR. 3.Small retail business protection a.Current businesses on this site employ approximately 50 people. All these workers will lose their jobs if this project goes forward. b.Only one of two retail businesses has been offered a site in the new development, as a smaller Driftwood Deli and Market. Its square footage would be reduced from its current 4,500 sq. ft., with no outdoor seating. c.The developer has offered no plan for this thriving business to survive the years of construction, so its offer is hollow. Driftwood Deli and Market and Cibo Restaurant would not recover even if offered a location at the developed site. The time lag is too great. This is not protection of ground floor retail in a Commercial Neighborhood/Commercial Service (CN/CS) zone. d.The City will lose the 14% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for the 136-room Creekside Inn. 4.Location of the project a.Only two vehicle entrances to the entire property are proposed. This will massively increase congestion and wait lines, both on El Camino Real and on Matadero Avenue. Traffic will increase on neighborhood streets (Whitsell, Josina, Kendall, Barron . . .) as drivers seek alternate routes to avoid the signal at Matadero. 3 b.Matadero and Margarita Avenues are designated Bike Boulevards as well as “Safe Routes to Schools” for students at Barron Park Elementary School, Fletcher Middle School and Gunn High School. c.Bikers and walkers to and from the VA and the Stanford Research Park, as well as Stanford employees and students, use these streets to access bike and pedestrian paths to destinations west of Bol Park. Several hundred additional vehicles entering and exiting the proposed two-level underground garage from and onto 17-foot wide Matadero Avenue (with no sidewalks) would seriously exacerbate the situation. d.Even without the proposed additional traffic, the signal at El Camino and Matadero currently often takes two to three cycles to cross during higher traffic times. This intersection needs to be modernized in any event, by improving the median and the signal timing. 5.Unit sizes The total number of proposed units is 382: i.e., 44 studios; 243 one-bedroom units; 86 two-bedroom units; and 9 three-bedroom units. This is an unbalanced configuration if the development is to support families. 6.Vehicle parking a.Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) would need to be instituted for Barron Park streets, to include, but not be limited to: Matadero Ave., Chimalus Dr., Tippawingo St., Josina Ave., Whitsell Ave., Kendall Ave., Barron Ave. and, east of El Camino in Ventura, Margarita Ave. and adjacent streets. b.Along with the RPP, a Transportation Management Program, with an agreed upon monitoring schedule, would be required. Due to developer ’s unbundled parking plan, tenants will park a second car on the streets to avoid paying for a second parking space in addition to their rent. c.The total number of proposed units is 382: 287 studio or one-bedroom units and 95 two- or three-bedroom units. For both market rate and affordable housing, the City mandates one parking space per studio or one-bedroom unit (287 spaces) and 4 two parking spaces per two-bedroom or larger unit (190 spaces) for a total of 477. The proposal calls for 503 spaces. Setting aside 24 spaces for retail leaves 479 spaces for residents. This is 2 more than the City mandates for the apartment residents. Where will employee, disabled, EV and guest parking be located? 7.Residential privacy a.This property is zoned CN/CS. The two proposed buildings are 64 feet high, including mechanical equipment. The building cannot reach 50 feet in height until it is at a 150-foot distance from R1 Residential, that is, from existing fences shared with the present Creekside Inn. b.Per Garrett Sauls, at the August 16 neighborhood meeting: For Planned Home Zoning (PHZ), buildings at the height of the proposed project must be 150 feet from R1 homes. c.There will be major privacy issues for all homeowners and renters along Matadero Ave. and Chimalus Dr. Apartments in the proposed complex, from the second to the sixth floors, would see into the backyards and interiors of nearby homes and apartments. d.Any windows, balconies and rooftop terraces facing neighbors’ homes, whether R1 or apartment buildings, must be evaluated for privacy and eliminated if invasive. e.Tree privacy screening for neighbors must be a priority. 8.Open space a.All the areas where plans show surface parking would need to be reevaluated for “usable open space” building design. b.The proposal offers no usable ground-level open space and no area for children to play, safe from El Camino traffic. The proposed “rooftop terraces” cannot be counted toward the open space requirement. c.No amenities (gym, clubhouse, picnic area, bike parking, playground, dog park) have been proposed for the residents of this apartment complex. 5 9.Mechanical equipment The installation of solar panels would be essential. These should be sited to protect the privacy of nearby residents. While we understand the City of Palo Alto is under immense pressure to provide housing, the City should NOT agree to ANY reduction of Impact Fees as requested by the applicant. The negative impacts on the Barron Park and Ventura neighborhoods — on parks, streets, traffic, vehicle parking, Safe Routes to School, as well as to pedestrians and the environment — are exactly what Impact Fees are meant to mitigate. If built as proposed, this project will eliminate two local businesses that the surrounding neighborhood relies on, as well as a 136-room hotel that supports business travelers and other visitors to Palo Alto and Stanford and provides revenue to the City and state. The profound impact on the area’s water usage, waste management, parking, environment (with potential toxic damage to Matadero Creek), and privacy will disrupt lives, bring unnecessary stressors to the neighborhood and increase traffic tenfold. Respectfully submitted, The Board of the Barron Park Association and concerned residents of the community Palo Alto, California From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; boardmembers; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; beachrides; fred beyerlein; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; Doug Vagim; dallen1212@gmail.com; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; eappel@stanford.edu; Scott Wilkinson; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; Leodies Buchanan; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; merazroofinginc@att.net; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Dr. John Campbell on FDA Emerg. approval of BA.5 vaccines Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 4:22:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 3:47 PM Subject: Dr. John Campbell on FDA Emerg. approval of BA.5 vaccines To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Wednesday, September 7, 2022 To all- Dr. John Campbell today discusses the FDA's emergency use authorization of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for the BA. 4 and 5 Covid variants. Or at least the Pfizer vaccine for them. Both variants have the same spike protein.The Moderna vaccine, approved. does not address the BA.4 and 5 variants. NO human trials of these have been done yet but such trials are now going to begin. The approval comes from the results showing antibodies being produced by the vaccines in eight mice. Not even ten mice. Eight. FDA, BA 5 vaccine - YouTube Given natural immunity from exposure to the virus, and given immunity from previous vaccinations, Dr. Campbell wonders if money is behind this new FDA approval. He knows that money is the root of all evil, and suspects that it is the root of this emergency FDA approval. At least he cites some experts who feel that way. The bulk of FDA funding comes from the very industry it regulates, causing a possible conflict of interest in the agency. He details this. Play ball with the industry or they make noises about getting people out of the agency, he says. BTW, the Moderna vaccine addresses the original Wuhan virus only. (LH- then why the dire need for more human trials of it?). The Pfizer vaccine addresses both it and the BA.4 and 5 variants. I'll try to get the Pfizer vaccine if Kaiser offers it. If they don't I may go elsewhere to get the Pfizer vaccine. Maybe wait a while even for that to let the human trials get going. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. FDA, BA 5 vaccine - YouTube From:John Guislin To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Fwd: [CPNA] News Alert: Rolling blackout shuts down power for 1,700 customers Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 1:32:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. You need to provide a clear and accurate explanation of what this "miscommunication" involved. And it must be broadcast to reach the largest number of residents possible. If left unexplained (and uncorrected), this will further erode public confidence in our city government. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Date: Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [CPNA] News Alert: Rolling blackout shuts down power for 1,700 customers To: Jonathan <jseder@gmail.com> Cc: Crescent Park PA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com> According to the SJ Mercury News, the shutdown was the result of a miscommunication and thus unnecessary, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/09/07/bay-area-cities-lost-power-due-to- miscommunication-say-state-regulators/ "PALO ALTO — Despite sweltering temperatures testing the capacity of the state’s electrical grid, electric regulators said California avoided rolling blackouts Tuesday just in time for cooler weather. So why did several thousand people in Alameda, Healdsburg and Palo Alto lose power? Those Northern California cities and others may have inadvertently initiated rolling blackouts in error following a miscommunication with the California Independent System Operator Tuesday after it declared a rare stage 3 emergency. The three cities are part of the Northern California Power Agency, a consortium of locally owned electric utilities based in Roseville, which ordered the blackouts....." On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 12:48 PM Jonathan <jseder@gmail.com> wrote: Palo Alto Utilities has a Outage page where you can sign up for emergency alerts. They also actively report outages and service restoration on a Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/PAUtilities There are two types of planned power outages: Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) aim to reduce the risk that electrical transmission lines will trigger wildfires in high winds or other exceptional weather conditions. In addition to customers in the foothills, this can affect all of Palo Alto if PGE turns off a major transmission line. Rotating Block Outages (RBO) temporarily shed load when the power grid approaches capacity. Every PG&E customer is assigned to a specific "Rotating Outage Block." These are turned off in an ordered sequence, so customers know when their number might come up. As far as I can tell, no such advance notice is available to Palo Alto Utilities customers. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent- park-pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/308c3754-f51a-4184-8aef-741716a795den%40googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent- park-pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park- pa/CAMie-LL1M-V-o%3DEnfvNhsFVJjm- 5G%2BOtvCfhMDqWmnWwCTFGcA%40mail.gmail.com. From:Aram James To:Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Jeff Rosen; Binder, Andrew; Wagner, April; Sean Allen; Jethroe Moore; Human Relations Commission; Winter Dellenbach; chuck jagoda; Jay Boyarsky; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Josh Becker; Rebecca Eisenberg; Perron, Zachary; Greer Stone; Cindy Chavez; Foley, Michael; Michael Gennaco Subject:Sheriff"s deputy accused of killing man and woman in Dublin Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 12:46:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://youtu.be/gFvcl4vh7TU Sent from my iPhone From:Charlie Weidanz To:Council, City Subject:Stanford Blood Center has an immediate need for All Blood Types Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 11:45:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Stanford Blood Center has an immediate need for All Blood Types, especially Type O+. As a special thanks for keeping patients a priority, anyone who donates (September 3 – 10) at any center or mobile drive will receive enough points for our Donor Loyalty Store to redeem a $10 gift card of your choice! Choose between Chipotle, Jamba Juice, Lowe’s and Peet’s Coffee. Blood donors are essential to the health and safety of our community. You never know when you or someone you know could need blood. It’s the blood that has already been donated that saves lives at a moment’s notice. In just one hour, you could donate enough blood to help multiple patients at a time they need it most. Please note that walk-in availability may be limited, so we encourage donors to make an appointment by visiting stanfordbloodcenter.org, the SBC mobile app or by calling us at 888-723-7831. This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe click here. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com. From:Aram James To:Tannock, Julie; Wagner, April; Figueroa, Eric; Perron, Zachary; Enberg, Nicholas; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Rosen; Winter Dellenbach; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Joe Simitian; Jay Boyarsky; Sean Allen; Josh Becker; Greer Stone; Human Relations Commission Subject:Re: Cincinnati police officer fired after being caught using racial slur on duty - YouTube Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 10:17:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 7, 2022, at 6:57 AM, Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com> wrote: > >  > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_rQbElGxroU > > > Sent from my iPhone From:Ling To:Bing Wei Cc:Sarah Burgess; Jennifer Buenrostro; Bob Wenzlau; Carleton Ruth; Gaines, Chantal; Marion Mandell; Mary Ashley; "Betty Gerard" via Board of Directors; Council, City; kerstin.reimstad@hotmail.com Subject:Re: Passing of Barbara Evans Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 10:07:49 AM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. So sorry to hear the sad news. Yes, please do let us know if there's anything we can do to help. My condolences to Joe and his family! Ling On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 10:08 AM Bing Wei <bbwei99@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Bob, Thanks sharing the sad news. Please pass on our deepest condolences to Joe and Barbara’s families! Let us know what we can do to help - including helping/attending her memorial services. Best, Bing Bing Wei Mobile: 1-650-842-0209 On Sep 5, 2022, at 21:08, Sarah Burgess <sarah.burgess@neighborsabroad.org> wrote: I agree, Jennifer. I can only be in the meeting until 9, hope we can discuss before then. Barbara went out of her way to help me when I joined Neighbors Abroad, I hope that we can recognize all that she and Joe have contributed over the years Sarah On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 8:52 PM Jennifer Buenrostro <jenniferb@neighborsabroad.org> wrote: Bob, Thank you for this. I am so sorry for the very sad news and I have informed Betty as I know she was a friend of Barbara and Joe. I would like to honor her life in some way, I look forward to speaking tomorrow morning about how to do that. Regards, Jennifer Jennifer Buenrostro Senior Sales Associate Alain Pinel Realtors 578 University Avenue Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 650-224-9539-cell 650-323-1111-office Jbuenrostro@apr.com BRE #01733750 On Sep 5, 2022, at 3:30 PM, Bob Wenzlau <bwenzlau@neighborsabroad.org> wrote:  Board members and friends of Neighbors Abroad, It is with sadness that I share that Barbara Evans passed away on Friday. I received a call from Joe, asking me to let our Neighbors Abroad community know. Barbara was a strong leader of Neighbors Abroad, and led the organization across many years, often in times where interest waned. Barbara and Joe were a team as co-presidents, and they loved Neighbors Abroad, and also our strength today. There are too many gatherings at their home for me to count, and too many calls to the City assuring the interests of Neighbors Abroad within our City. A perfect example of Barbara at work is captured in Weekly from 2013 as the organization capped 50 years. I adore this picture of her. We all send our love to Joe, and know that his sons are with him now. We will celebrate her life, but now is the moment to take in her passing. My condolences to Joe and his family. Bob -- Bob Wenzlau President Neighbors Abroad of Palo Alto 650-248-4467 Facebook | Web | Twitter | Join -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Board of Directors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to board+unsubscribe@neighborsabroad.org. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Board of Directors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to board+unsubscribe@neighborsabroad.org. From:Planning Subject:Reminder: HEU: TODAY 6:00 PM - SEPTEMBER 7, 2022: - County of Santa Clara Housing Element Update: INVITATION FOR COMMUNITY WORKSHOP Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 9:30:08 AM Attachments:image001.png HousingElement_Meeting_Stakeholder3_Presentation.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. County of Santa Clara Housing Element Update Dear Community Member, Thank you for your continued engagement in the County of Santa Clara’s 2023 – 2031 Housing Element Update. Join us to get an update on our project status! You are invited to attend our next Community Workshop and provide input on site selection for housing development and the strategies and policies goals to address the need for housing at the local level. The Project Team will provide a brief informational presentation followed by ample time for discussion. Date: Today, September 7, 2022 Time: 6:00pm – 7:30pm Join Online Join by Phone: +1 699 900 6833 | Meeting ID: 961 9566 5945 This meeting follows two Community Workshops held in July that sought input on housing opportunities and challenges to be addressed through Housing Element Update strategies and policies. If you missed it, visit our project website to view meeting recordings and summaries. The summary of the last Stakeholder Workshop is attached that summarizes the policy goals and the comments Stakeholders made. Please review it prior to attending the meeting . The Draft Housing Element Update will be available for review and comment in October. +++ What is a Housing Element? The Housing Element is a mandatory element, or chapter, of the General Plan that primarily addresses the housing needs of unincorporated Santa Clara County. Housing Element law requires local governments to adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs, including their share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. To effectively plan for developing and preserving an adequate supply of housing, local jurisdictions must first understand the housing needs in their communities. Visit our project website for more information. Sign up for project updates here. We look forward to collaborating with you in formulating the County’s housing policies for the next 8 years. Sincerely, The Department of Planning & Development Housing Team Email: planning2@pln.sccgov.org County of Santa Clara Housing Element Update 2023 –2031 August 29, 2022 Stakeholder Workshop #3 Refined Housing Element Strategies Presenters Yosef Yip, Facilitator Bharat Singh, County of Santa Clara, Principal Planner10:00 a.m. Welcome House Keeping Mute your microphone when not speaking Use the “raise hand” feature during breakout discussions 2 Welcome Objective: Seek input on 2023-2031 Housing Element Update refined strategies Agenda Presentation & Discussion •Housing Element Update refresher •Existing Housing Strategies •Updated/New Strategies and Policies •Discussion questions: What should the focus be under the goals? What is missing that we should consider? 3 Timeline Information Gathering Draft Policies 4 Draft Housing Element Release for 30-Day Public Comment Public Release Engagement to Date 130 online surveys completed (ranked top housing issues) Stakeholder Workshop #1 | July 6 •29 attendees •Discussed housing opportunities and challenges Community Workshop #1 (Rural Focus) | July 19 •32 attendees •Discussed housing opportunities and challenges in Unincorporated Santa Clara Community Workshop #2 (Urban Focus) | July 21 •30 attendees •Discussed housing opportunities and challenges in Urban Service Areas Stakeholder Workshop (Development Focus) | Aug 2 •29 attendees •Discussed challenges and streamlining opportunities in the development process Stakeholder Workshop #2 | Aug 17 •Over 30 attendees •Discussed updates needed to existing Housing Element Updates to address current housing challenges Housing Element Basics What is a Housing Element? •Mandatory chapter of the General Plan •Addresses the housing needs of the unincorporated areas 7 •Required Components ✓Review of Previous Element/Existing Housing Needs ✓Housing Needs Assessment ✓Inventory and Analysis of Adequate Sites ✓Analysis of Potential Governmental and Non-governmental Constraints ✓Quantified Objectives ✓Housing Policies and Programs Existing Strategies & Challenges Housing Element Update Strategies 9 Existing Strategies 1.Production of Housing 2.Housing affordability 3.Access to Housing 4.Homelessness 5.Climate change Identified Challenges 1.Plan for a balanced countywide housing supply 2.Promote cooperation and collaboration on residential development 3.Provide financial assistance for extremely low-income housing 4.Remove unnecessary barriers to housing 5.Ensure support for fair laws and practices 6.Provide for Special Needs Housing 7.Reduce homelessness consistent with housing first principles 8.Maintain and expand the supply of farm worker housing 9.Conserve the existing housing stock Policy Goals Housing Production 11 Strategies •Plan for a balanced countywide housing supply •Promote cooperation and collaboration on residential development Proposed Policy Goals •Plan for housing development within USAs not planned for annexation during a RHNA cycle. •Ensure housing projects contain an equitable mix of housing type & household income levels. * •Plan new housing near transit & prioritize building active transportation infrastructure in existing neighborhoods. Consider how development will occur within USAs given General Plan and LAFCO policies Collaborate with VTA re: active transportation (esp. future plans in unincorporated areas) Streamline housing approval process Ensure the financial feasibility of desired development Include more non- gov org in collaboration Create specific policies and programs to ensure robust affordable housing development for low-incomes on Stanford lands, esp near transit. These policies/program can be in the form of land dedication, zoning overlays, rezoning, specific % of affordable housing dedications, and/or funding structures to make development viable What should the focus be under these goals? What is missing that we should consider? *AFFH: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing goal (HUD) Housing Affordability 12 Strategies •Plan for a balanced countywide housing supply •Provide financial assistance for extremely low-income housing Key Existing Policies •HG 6: Local funds to target households under 30% of county AMI & special needs populations. •HG 7:Prioritize ELI households in housing assistance programs Ag workers’ housing streamlining and approvals Prioritize ELI housing Prioritize tenant protection in collab with OSH Reduced regulation on affordable housing (i.e.higher height, higher FAR) ELI: Add program services, like case management services/hub Proposed Policy Goals •Prioritize suitable county-owned surplus lands for affordable housing development. •Streamline of affordable housing permit process in areas with high amenities and resources * What should the focus be under these goals? What is missing that we should consider? *AFFH: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing goal (HUD) Access to Housing 13 Strategies •Remove unnecessary barriers to housing •Maintain and expand the supply of farm worker housing Proposed Policy Goals •Streamline regulations to encourage the development of ADU & SB9 Units. •Review Parking standards for housing near transit •Streamline & prioritize housing development that includes low-income units. •Provide permanent farmworker housing by prioritizing and incentivizing it outside of USAs. Consider subsidy programs to encourage lower- income ADU developments Provide farmworker housing that accommodates families and single occupants RE: Farm worker housing. Collab. with Water District policies/ ordinances In addition to ADUs, consider streamline permitting for EVs, solar etc. What should the focus be under these goals? What is missing that we should consider? *AFFH: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing goal (HUD) Fairness in Housing (AFFH) 14 Strategy •Ensure support for fair laws and practices Proposed Policy Goals •Support cities in improving opportunities within HUD identified Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) * •Increase access to opportunity for residents of historically disinvested low-income communities.* –Example: Burbank and Alum Rock/East Foothills. •Promote racial/ethnic integration and reduce displacement by increasing the supply of affordable housing in high opportunity areas, areas with ongoing and risk of displacement* Offer fair housing and housing law workshops that have concentrated areas of poverty. Bring awareness, education and where to seek resources Rent registry Policy to support formally incarcerated and undocumented immigrants What should the focus be under these goals? What is missing that we should consider? *AFFH: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing goal (HUD) Homelessness 15 Strategy •Reduce homelessness consistent with housing first principles Key Existing Policies •HG 16: Prioritize provision of transitional & permanent supportive housing •HG 17: Needs of the chronic homeless to be met with transitional & permanent supportive housing •HG 18 : Fund organizations & programs on quick intervention to reduce chronic homelessness Consider Case Management approach. Support chronic homeless housing participants Support housing for reentry clients Integrate policies from the Community Plan to End Homelessness Proposed Policy Goals •Promote racial equity in homeless services and permanent housing supportive services. * •Diversity sensitivity training for service providers. What should the focus be under these goals? What is missing that we should consider? *AFFH: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing goal (HUD) Climate Change 16 Strategy •Plan for Climate Change impacts on Existing and Future Housing Stock Promote energy efficiency in new and existing residential buildings in order to reduce energy costs, provide quality and resiliency housing, improve building comfort, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions Address climate justice, prioritize low- income and BIPOC communities for upgrades, risk reduction, adaptions etc. Incorporate AC or other measures in new housing to help adapt to extreme heat Provide community services/trainings and workshops to communities that focus on climate vulnerabilities and where to seek services and resources Create local energy and green building standards for new residential construction, renovations, and existing buildings Proposed Policy Goals •Promote energy efficiency in new and existing residential buildings •Limit development of new housing in high climate risk areas (wildfire, floods etc.) •Facilitate programs & assistance to upgrade existing housing stock against extreme weather events. •Educate property owners in high-risk areas in methods to reduce their risk of an event. What should the focus be under these goals? What is missing that we should consider? Summary of Policy Focus 17 •Ensure housing is planned for in USAs for each RHNA cycle •Ensure all projects have equitable mix of housing type & household income levels •Increase access to opportunity for residents of historically disinvested low-income communities •Reduce Displacement & Homelessness •Promote racial equity in homeless services and permanent housing supportive services •Encourage the production of permanent farmworker housing •Protect existing and future housing stock against climate change Questions & Comments Next Steps Information Gathering Draft Policies Your feedback will inform the draft policy development Community Workshop #3 –September 7 (Strategies & Policies) UPCOMING MEETINGS Draft Housing Element Release for 30-Day Public Comment 19 Public Release Stay Involved sccgov.org/housing-element 20 THANK YOU!Contact us Planning2@pln.sccgov.org From:PartyFixx.co/Live To:Council, City Subject:Atlanta Falcons vs. New Orleans Saints Tickets + Browse 2,428 Local Events, Concerts, Comedy Shows & More Happening in Atlanta Date:Wednesday, September 7, 2022 5:26:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. "SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL" * * * C L I C K T H E I M A G E B E L O W T O V I E W E V E N T S * * * M LOOKING TO ADVERTISE YOUR EVENTS, PRODUCTS, & SERVICES TO OUR NATIONAL DATABASE? EMAIL: INFO@PARTYFIXX.CO FOR MORE INFO This Email Was Sent To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO BE REMOVED/UNSUBSCRIBE https://ecampaigner.net/sendy/unsubscribe/REw2W9U763iuIJbY7VoxiX6ErqJ9WoKvxljE23wbD7Tck/cRjR3mrfGdypk8qLEc5Pjg/kYbCo8nQFN5W763w7yZDjd2g From:Aram James To:Tannock, Julie; Figueroa, Eric; Enberg, Nicholas; Figueroa, Eric; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Sean Allen; Jethroe Moore; Planning Commission; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Wagner, April; Josh Becker; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; Jay Boyarsky; Greer Stone; Foley, Michael; Michael Gennaco; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Rosen; Winter Dellenbach Subject:Criminal Cops FINALLY Facing Consequences Date:Tuesday, September 6, 2022 6:26:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://youtu.be/SV2E-E3M7oM Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Sean Allen; Binder, Andrew; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Rosen; Winter Dellenbach; Jethroe Moore; Greer Stone; chuck jagoda; Jay Boyarsky; Josh Becker; Figueroa, Eric; Reifschneider, James; Wagner, April; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com Subject:Two Female Cops Get Fired After Doing This Date:Tuesday, September 6, 2022 3:52:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://youtu.be/l4FQTglHwZ0 Sent from my iPhone From:Roberta Ahlquist To:Palo Alto Free Press Cc:Council, City; Joe Simitian; Human Relations Commission; Jocelyn Dong; Dave Price; James Aram Subject:Re: Renters, early have of the PA population, need rent control in PA Date:Tuesday, September 6, 2022 3:27:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks! I'll do this. R On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 3:20 PM Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: Roberta, As I recall owner tenant must sign a one year contract that ordnance is stipulated or if parties agree to a 6 month term.... I can't comment due to a signed NDA but you should check out Palo Alto city ordnances in regard to an early eviction notice or an increase in rent outside the agreement. Aram James can confirm the about.... Mark Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 6, 2022, at 3:54 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote: > >  >> >> We desperately need rent control in Palo Alto. Do a survery of renters and it will affirm this. The Senior Low-income Housing Committee that meets at >> Avenidas, hears horrific stories of tenants without any recourse. Some have had $300 rent increases, on 1 bedroom apts. >> >> EPA, Mt View, Redwood City, San Jose, just to name a few cities, have rent controls. Why is PA Renters Assn dragging their feet around this issue? Why has the PA Council been so silent, or for a few, reactive to this need?I would like to hear a cogent response. >> Sincerely, >> Roberta Ahlquist From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Roberta Ahlquist Cc:Council, City; Joe Simitian; Human Relations Commission; Jocelyn Dong; Dave Price; James Aram Subject:Re: Renters, early have of the PA population, need rent control in PA Date:Tuesday, September 6, 2022 3:20:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Roberta, As I recall owner tenant must sign a one year contract that ordnance is stipulated or if parties agree to a 6 month term.... I can't comment due to a signed NDA but you should check out Palo Alto city ordnances in regard to an early eviction notice or an increase in rent outside the agreement. Aram James can confirm the about.... Mark Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 6, 2022, at 3:54 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote: > >  >> >> We desperately need rent control in Palo Alto. Do a survery of renters and it will affirm this. The Senior Low- income Housing Committee that meets at >> Avenidas, hears horrific stories of tenants without any recourse. Some have had $300 rent increases, on 1 bedroom apts. >> >> EPA, Mt View, Redwood City, San Jose, just to name a few cities, have rent controls. Why is PA Renters Assn dragging their feet around this issue? Why has the PA Council been so silent, or for a few, reactive to this need?I would like to hear a cogent response. >> Sincerely, >> Roberta Ahlquist View this email in your browser From:LWV Palo Alto To:Council, City Subject:How to Maintain the Public’s Rights and Its Safety - Learn from an Expert Panel on the Challenges of Policing and Ensuring Fair Treatment Date:Tuesday, September 6, 2022 3:17:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. How to Maintain the Public’s Rights and Its Safety - Learn from an Expert Panel on the Challenges of Policing and Ensuring Fair Treatment LWV Santa Clara County Civil Discourse Committee Saturday, September 10, 2022 2:30 pm - 4:00 pm Panelists: Manuel Herrera, President, Board of Trustees, East Side Union High School District Phan Ngo, Chief, Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety Shivaun Nurre, Independent Police Auditor, City of San Jose Ashley Raveche, LWVC volunteer Policy Director for Criminal Justice The panel will discuss: Scope of law enforcement responsibility Accountability & transparency challenges Unique US armed environment ‘Protect & Serve’ vs tendency towards militarization What are community responsibilities? What is a better way going forward? Audience discussion will include examples of community success in balancing fair treatment and safe neighborhoods. Questions on this topic? Send an email to civil- discourse@lwvsantaclaracounty.org. Please share with others who may be interested. LWVPaloAlto.org Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn Email Email Copyright © 2022 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Register Now Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. From:Roberta Ahlquist To:Council, City; Joe Simitian; Human Relations Commission; Jocelyn Dong; Dave Price Subject:Renters, early have of the PA population, need rent control in PA Date:Tuesday, September 6, 2022 2:54:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. We desperately need rent control in Palo Alto. Do a survery of renters and it will affirm this. The Senior Low-income Housing Committee that meets at Avenidas, hears horrific stories of tenants without any recourse. Some have had $300 rent increases, on 1 bedroom apts. EPA, Mt View, Redwood City, San Jose, just to name a few cities, have rent controls. Why is PA Renters Assn dragging their feet around this issue? Why has the PA Council been so silent, or for a few, reactive to this need?I would like to hear a cogent response. Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist