HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-12-19 City Council Emails701-32
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: 12/19/2022
Document dates: 12/12/2022 – 12/19/2022
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction
in a given week.
From:John McDowell
To:Council, City
Subject:FTTP: Please support Option 2 to bring residential fiber to unserved areas of Palo Alto
Date:Monday, December 19, 2022 12:35:57 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from john@mcdowell.com. Learn why this isimportant
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Council,
I am writing to voice my agreement with former UAC Commissioner Don Jackson's belowletter in support of Option 2 for FTTP.
I currently live in a part of Professorville with underground utilities. AT&T does not serve us
with fiber, so there is no competition with Comcast for good internet service. Option 3 is anon-option that just gives up on actual residential fiber options.
I like Don's proposal to allow residents to escalate commitment by prepaying for 2 years of
FTTP service up front-- refundable only if the city doesn't reasonably deliver. This can alsoshow that our neighborhood is willing to pay for a fiber option!
Palo Alto is in.a great position to step in and address this need. Please support option 2 to
bring residential fiber to Professorville and the downtown areas.
Thank you,John McDowell
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Don Jackson <don.jackson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 11:29 AM
A copy of my email (to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org) is
appended below.
Don
===========
Honorable Council Members,
I am writing in support of proceeding with FTTP, either
Options 1 or 2.
UAC and Staff have recommended Option-2, although I vastly
prefer Option-1,
my perception is that there probably isn’t enough community
support for Option-1,
therefore Option-2 is likely the best we can do at present,
so I strongly support proceeding with that plan.
If council fails to choose Options 2 or 1, then I would very
reluctantly support Option-3,
but ONLY because it is obvious we should proceed with the
upgrade/expansion of our existing dark-fiber backbone.
As I previously commented to the UAC:
Option 3 is to effectively abandon the FTTP effort and
proceed only to update/upgrade the existing dark-fiber
network.
The stated claim to subsequently collaborate with private
ISPs to encourage them to invest in fiber to locations they
have previously declined to support is a delusion, at best.
The City’s previous “collaboration” with Google Fiber
years ago resulted only in Google’s withdrawal from Palo
Alto,
in favor of more cooperative jurisdictions.
Another well-known example of the City’s inhospitably to
businesses (even those that directly support our climate
goals!)
is that many rooftop solar contractors refuse to work in
Palo Alto, due to the City’s unique and onerous
permitting,
inspection, and electrical-interconnection standards and
requirements.
The City has repeatedly failed (for over a decade!) to
streamline permitting and construction processes, why is
FTTP going to be any different?
Let’s be honest about this option: we are giving up on
FTTP, and will just continue (and upgrade) our
existing dark-fiber utility.
Again, Option-3 is not “bad”, but it isn’t FTTP.
To reiterate concerns/comments I have made previously
regarding the buildout/phasing and implementation of Options
1 and 2:
I agree that it is best to prioritize the buildout to avoid
competition with existing ATT-Fiber service areas,
and within those areas priortizing neighborhoods with highest
demand.
However, I seriously question the contention that targeting
“lower cost” (e.g. aerially-served customers) is best,
any aerially-served neighborhood will ALSO be the lowest
cost for any ATT-Fiber expansion,
so the current lack of ATT-Fiber competiton/service in those
neighborhoods may quickly change.
I contend that neighborhoods with underground-service and
high demonstrated demand will be the best and strongest
customer base for a CPAU FTTP service.
If there is any concern about the strength/steadfastness of
customer demand indicated by the fiber survey “$50 deposit”
program,
and a stronger measure of demand is deemed important,
I suggest a higher standard to measure true commitment, for
example,
prospective customers in a neighborhood could pre-pay for 1-2
years of Internet service,
refundable only if CPAU doesn’t begin service to that
neighborhood within 2 years (for example).
Respectfully,
Don Jackson
Former UAC Commissioner (6/2019-5/2021)
From:Don Jackson
To:Council, City
Cc:UAC
Subject:Public Comment re "Fiber to the Premises", agenda item #20, council meeting of 2022-12-19
Date:Monday, December 19, 2022 10:47:01 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable Council Members,
I am writing in support of proceeding with FTTP, either
Options 1 or 2.
UAC and Staff have recommended Option-2, although I vastly
prefer Option-1,
my perception is that there probably isn’t enough community
support for Option-1,
therefore Option-2 is likely the best we can do at present,
so I strongly support proceeding with that plan.
If council fails to choose Options 2 or 1, then I would very
reluctantly support Option-3,
but ONLY because it is obvious we should proceed with the
upgrade/expansion of our existing dark-fiber backbone.
As I previously commented to the UAC:
Option 3 is to effectively abandon the FTTP effort and
proceed only to update/upgrade the existing dark-fiber
network.
The stated claim to subsequently collaborate with private
ISPs to encourage them to invest in fiber to locations they
have previously declined to support is a delusion, at best.
The City’s previous “collaboration” with Google Fiber
years ago resulted only in Google’s withdrawal from Palo
Alto,
in favor of more cooperative jurisdictions.
Another well-known example of the City’s inhospitably to
businesses (even those that directly support our climate
goals!)
is that many rooftop solar contractors refuse to work in
Palo Alto, due to the City’s unique and onerous
permitting,
inspection, and electrical-interconnection standards and
requirements.
The City has repeatedly failed (for over a decade!) to
streamline permitting and construction processes, why is
FTTP going to be any different?
Let’s be honest about this option: we are giving up on
FTTP, and will just continue (and upgrade) our
existing dark-fiber utility.
Again, Option-3 is not “bad”, but it isn’t FTTP.
To reiterate concerns/comments I have made previously
regarding the buildout/phasing and implementation of Options
1 and 2:
I agree that it is best to prioritize the buildout to avoid
competition with existing ATT-Fiber service areas,
and within those areas priortizing neighborhoods with highest
demand.
However, I seriously question the contention that targeting
“lower cost” (e.g. aerially-served customers) is best,
any aerially-served neighborhood will ALSO be the lowest
cost for any ATT-Fiber expansion,
so the current lack of ATT-Fiber competiton/service in those
neighborhoods may quickly change.
I contend that neighborhoods with underground-service and
high demonstrated demand will be the best and strongest
customer base for a CPAU FTTP service.
If there is any concern about the strength/steadfastness of
customer demand indicated by the fiber survey “$50 deposit”
program,
and a stronger measure of demand is deemed important,
I suggest a higher standard to measure true commitment, for
example,
prospective customers in a neighborhood could pre-pay for 1-2
years of Internet service,
refundable only if CPAU doesn’t begin service to that
neighborhood within 2 years (for example).
Respectfully,
Don Jackson
Former UAC Commissioner (6/2019-5/2021)
From:Aram James
To:Lydia Kou; Greg Tanaka; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Pat Burt; Greer Stone; Vicki Veenker; Ed Lauing; Binder, Andrew;Jeff Rosen; Sean Allen; Council, City; Jethroe Moore; Winter Dellenbach; Rebecca Eisenberg; Shikada, Ed; JoshBecker; Jay Boyarsky; ladoris cordell; chuck jagoda; Human Relations Commission; Wagner, April; Reifschneider,James; Shana Segal; Cecilia Taylor; Tony Dixon; Enberg, Nicholas; Perron, Zachary; Cindy Chavez
Subject:Re: We need to stand up against antisemitism
Date:Monday, December 19, 2022 10:45:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.Aram – Colorado AG Phil Weiser here.
As a proud Jew, I have not hesitated to discuss my faith or family history
in public life. I am well aware of and pained by the rising levels of
antisemitism and hate of all kinds that we are now witnessing in our
nation. And I refuse to be silent. I discussed this threat recently at a
commemoration of the Babi Yar massacre that occurred during the
Holocaust.
For my family, the Holocaust is personal. My grandparents and my mom
survived the Holocaust, and their stories of resilience are a source of
inspiration to me. Indeed, my mom is one of the youngest Holocaust
survivors alive. She was born in the Buchenwald concentration camp, and
she and my grandmother were liberated a week later by the U.S. Army.
They made the long journey to the United States because of our nation’s
commitment to freedom and opportunity for all.
As a nation, we must stand up for our motto – from many, we are one (e
pluribus unum) – and we must all speak out against hate and
discrimination of all kinds. The same type of hate that America’s Jewish
communities are experiencing right now surfaced when a violent attack
was perpetrated against the LGBTQIA+ community in Colorado Springs.
And that same hate reared its ugly head in an attack against African
Americans in Buffalo last spring. As the Anti-Defamation League
emphasizes, hate against one group is hate against everyone.
I’m grateful for Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff standing up and
speaking out against antisemitism on a national – and international –
level. We need more people speaking out against the hatred we’re facing,
and I join him in this fight. We must refuse to be afraid, and we must call
out hate when we see it.
As Jews around the world approach the lighting of the Hanukkah
menorah, we can focus on what each of us can do to bring light into
darkness. That includes the work we do to overcome rising hate with
love, heeding the words of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. My
grandmother lived that value – she remained positive, and she never gave
up hope.
Together, we can all do our part to heal our world, recognizing, as it is
said in scripture, that while “we are not required to complete the work,
we are not free to desist from doing our part.”
Thanks,
Phil
Phil Weiser
Attorney General, Colorado
Democratic AGs truly are “The People’s Lawyers” and DAGA is the only partycommittee devoted to electing more of them. Since 2016, we’ve won two-thirds ofour targeted races, and with more than 30 AG seats up for grabs in 2022, we needyour support – will you chip in today?
CHIP IN
If you’d like to receive less email from DAGA, fill out the form at this link andwe’ll only send you the most important updates from the team. Click here to getless email.
Paid for by the Democratic Attorneys General
Association
Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stopreceiving emails from Democratic Attorneys General Association, please click here.
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Steve Levy
Subject:Bay Area Economic Update
Date:Sunday, December 18, 2022 12:25:02 PM
Attachments:Dec 16, 2022 Economic Update.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Bay Area Economic Update—December 16— Positive but Slowing Job Growth, Several More
Layoffs Announced, Short-Term Slowdown but NOT the dot.com bust or 2008 Foreclosure
Crisis
The highlights:
The Bay Area added 7,400 jobs in November. The household survey, on the other
hand, showed rising unemployment rates and a drop in the region’s workforce.
Both the region and state showed conflicting trends between the jobs survey (up) and
the household survey with rising unemployment and a decline in the labor force.
Housing permits for the first ten months of the year surpassed both 2021 and 2019
levels though still well below the region’s new RHNA targets.
Bay Area GDP surged in 2021 with gains throughout the region with growth faster
than all states and the nation.
The challenges of high inflation and interest rates remain as well the Bay Area
challenges of housing, transportation and supporting competitiveness.
Wishing everyone a happy and safe holiday season and New Year.
Steve
1
Bay Area Economic Update—December 16— Positive but Slowing
Job Growth, Several More Layoffs Announced, Short-Term
Slowdown but NOT the dot.com bust or 2008 Foreclosure Crisis
The highlights:
• The Bay Area added 7,400 jobs in November. The household survey, on
the other hand, showed rising unemployment rates and a drop in the
region’s workforce.
• Both the region and state showed conflicting trends between the jobs
survey (up) and the household survey with rising unemployment and a
decline in the labor force.
• Housing permits for the first ten months of the year surpassed both 2021
and 2019 levels though still well below the region’s new RHNA targets.
• Bay Area GDP surged in 2021 with gains throughout the region with
growth faster than all states and the nation.
• The challenges of high inflation and interest rates remain as well the Bay
Area challenges of housing, transportation and supporting
competitiveness.
Even with the Recent Slowdown the Bay Area and State Posted Above
Average Job Growth During the Past 12 Months
All regions in the state except the San Joaquin Valley outpaced the nation in job
growth during the past 12 months led by the Southern California and the Bay
Area followed by the Sacramento region.
The chart below gets wide media attention and focuses on our region’s below-
average job recovery rate. It is accurate and shows the better U.S. and California
data. But look at the chart above to see the Bay Area catching up.
4.5%
4.2%
3.3%
3.5%
2.7%
4.0%
3.3%
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 November 2021-2022
2
Payroll Job Growth Shows the San Jose Metro Area Leads the Region
Though growth has slowed in recent months, the Bay Area added 165,000 jobs
in the past year (+4.2%) led by a gain of 62,300 in the San Francisco metro area
though SF has recovered just 92.4.3% of the jobs lost between February and
April 2020. The San Jose metro area added 53,200 jobs and by October 2022
had recovered 104.7% of the payroll jobs lost between February and April 2020.
The Oakland metro area added 39,000 jobs during the past year. Other metro
areas have been slower to recover lost jobs.
Metro Area Payroll Job Trends (Thousands)
Metro Area Feb 20 Apr 20 Oct 22 Nov 22
%
Recovered
Oakland 1,201.9 1,003.6 1,184.2 1,185.3 91.6%
San Francisco 1,204.7 1,017.9 1,187.5 1,190.5 92.4%
San Jose 1,172.5 1,011.4 1,178.1 1,180.1 104.7%
Santa Rosa 211.1 171.9 204.1 206.0 87.0%
Napa 75.3 57.3 70.9 71.4 78.3%
Vallejo 143.3 121.5 137.7 137.2 72.0%
San Rafael 117.2 91.8 106.1 105.5 53.9%
Bay Area 4,126.0 3,475.4 4,068.6 4,076.0 92.3%
Unemployment Trends
Unemployment rates ticked up in November in all metro areas but remain low by
historical standards. The November 2022 rate of 2.8% for the region is just above
103.2%
92.3%
102.1%
116.3%
96.7%
102.2%
104.9%
0.0%30.0%60.0%90.0%120.0%150.0%
Southern California
Bay Area
San Diego
Sacramento Region
San Joaquin Valley
California
U.S.
% of Jobs Recovered by November 2022
3
the February 2020 pre-pandemic rate of 2.7%. And the number of unemployed
residents grew in November in all metro areas reaching 115,100 up 8,000 since
October.
Unemployment Rates
Metro Area Feb 20 Apr 20 Oct 22 Nov 22
Oakland 3.0% 14.6% 3.0% 3.2%
San Francisco 2.2% 12.5% 2.1% 2.2%
San Jose 2.6% 12.4% 2.2% 2.4%
Santa Rosa 2.8% 15.4% 2.6% 2.9%
Napa 3.2% 17.8% 2.7% 3.2%
Vallejo 3.9% 15.7% 3.9% 4.3%
San Rafael 2.4% 12.1% 2.3% 2.5%
Bay Area 2.7% 13.7% 2.6% 2.8%
Source: EDD
Bay Area and State Labor Force are Still Below Pre-Pandemic Levels So
Where Will Workforce Growth Come From.
The state has almost 300,000 fewer workers than in the month before the
pandemic started and the Bay Area has almost 70,000 fewer residents in the
workforce.
Though job growth has continued, it is not clear where new workers will come
from with low unemployment already and low population growth It is possible that
more workers can come from remote locations so the Bay Area and state can
see job growth without more residents working. Job openings remain high and
sectors like air travel are constrained by lack of enough workers. Increasing the
level of immigration would be a large help to the region and state.
California
Labor Force and Unemployment
Feb 20 April 20 Oct 22 Nov 22
Labor Force 19,536,400 18,651,200 19,275,400 19,254,400
Employed Residents 18,733,800 15,685,900 18,503,100 18,460,400
Unemployment 802,500 2,965,200 772,300 794,100
Unemployment Rate 4.1% 15.9% 4.0% 4.1%
Source: EDD, seasonally adjusted
4
Metro Area Labor Force (Thousands)
Metro Area Feb 20 Apr 20 Oct 22 Nov 22
Oakland 1,402.2 1,332.2 1,384.4 1,379.8
San Francisco 1,043.3 978.0 1,033.3 1,028.3
San Jose 1,087.7 1,039.8 1,092.9 1,088.3
Santa Rosa 256.0 241.0 249.1 247.6
Napa 72.5 66.3 70.0 67.7
Vallejo 207.5 200.4 201.5 200.1
San Rafael 137.9 123.5 129.4 128.4
Bay Area 4,207.1 3,981.2 4,160.6 4,140.2
Source: EDD
A Welcome Uptick in Housing Permits
Permits levels in the first ten months of 2022 exceeded 2019 and 2021 levels
though East Bay permit levels were below earlier levels.
The other counties showed large year over year gains. In addition, now there are
almost daily reports of new housing projects being proposed and approved
though it is often a long step until these units are completed and on the market.
Bay Area cities are updating their Housing Elements currently and learning about
the requirements to meet their RHNA goals. It is possible that the RHNA and
update process is encouraging cities to loosen development standards and to
approve more projects.
While the current growth in permits is a positive sign, these levels are still below
the RHNA targets for the region. More needs to be done.
Bay Area Housing Building Permits
Thru October
Year Permits
Alameda 2019 4973 Contra Costa 2019 2028
2021 5061 2021 3461
2022 3945 2022 1998
Marin 2019 203 Napa 2019 176
2021 208 2021 361
2022 279 2022 714
5
San
Francisco 2019 3046 San Mateo 2019 1325
2021 2204 2021 1162
2022 3771 2022 2629
Santa Clara 2019 4421 Solano 2019 1005
2021 4068 2021 1163
2022 7525 2022 1252
Sonoma 2019 2265 Bay Area 2019 19196
2021 1655 2021 19709
2022 2132 2022 24135
Source: CHF and CIRB
Strong GDP Gains in 2021
Real GDP rose by 10.9% in the region between 2020 and 2021 according to
estimates released by BEA on December 8th this year.
Real GDP increased most in the San Jose metro area (+13.3%) followed by the
SF-Oakland metro area that includes Marin County (+10.1%). The Napa and
Santa Rose metro areas outpaced the nation while the Vallejo metro area had
the region’s slowest GDP growth in 2021.
The Bay Area not only outpaced the nation in GDP growth, the region’s growth
topped that of all states.
13.3%
10.9%
10.1%
7.8%
6.4%
6.2%
5.9%
2.1%
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%
San Jose
Bay Area
SF-Oakland
California
Santa Rosa
Napa
United States
Vallejo
Real GDP Growth in 2021
6
5.9%
6.6%
6.6%
6.7%
6.8%
7.4%
7.8%
8.4%
8.9%
9.0%
9.2%
10.9%
0.0%3.0%6.0%9.0%12.0%15.0%
U.S.
Idaho
Massachusetts
Washington
Utah
Michigan
California
Florida
Nevada
Tennessee
New Hampshire
Bay Area
Real GDP Growth 2020-2021
Top Ten States
From:Aram James
To:Lydia Kou; Greg Tanaka; Julie Lythcott-Haims; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Ed Lauing; Lait, Jonathan; Burt,Patrick; Greer Stone; Assemblymember.Berman@assembly.ca.gov; Josh Becker; Joe Simitian; Council, City
Subject:From The Mercury News e-edition - The real cause of homelessness crisis
Date:Sunday, December 18, 2022 8:42:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
I saw this The Mercury News e-edition article on the The Mercury News e-edition app and thought you’d be
interested.
The real cause of homelessness crisis
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=62599046-2d0f-4ec4-a2e9-
59fc91d260be&appcode=SAN252&eguid=e5ec858a-5d78-4753-81ed-aaff6305e32d&pnum=21#
For more great content like this subscribe to the The Mercury News e-edition app here:
Sent from my iPhone
From:Aram James
To:Lydia Kou; Greg Tanaka; Julie Lythcott-Haims; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Ed Lauing; Burt, Patrick; Greer Stone;Shana Segal; Council, City
Subject:From The Mercury News e-edition - How California can give unhoused students a helping hand
Date:Sunday, December 18, 2022 8:34:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
I saw this The Mercury News e-edition article on the The Mercury News e-edition app and thought you’d be
interested.
How California can give unhoused students a helping hand
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=24852785-2a7a-4822-83c4-
a0e6e39aad4d&appcode=SAN252&eguid=e5ec858a-5d78-4753-81ed-aaff6305e32d&pnum=16#
For more great content like this subscribe to the The Mercury News e-edition app here:
Sent from my iPhone
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Fw: November 2, 20222 UAC Meeting, Agenda Item #VII.6: Fiber Projects
Date:Saturday, December 17, 2022 5:50:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Herb BorockP. O. Box 632Palo Alto, CA 94302
December 17, 2022
Palo Alto City Council250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301
DECEMBER 19, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, ITEM #21FIBER-TO-THE-PREMISES
Dear City Council:
During his State of the City speech in February 2013, thenMayor Greg Scharff said, "In 2013, I believe that Palo Altoneeds to develop and initiate a plan to cost-effectively bringFiber to the Premises (FTTP) ... offering at least 1-gigabitInternet connection speeds in both directions."
Now, nearly ten years later, Utilities Advisory CommissionerGreg Scharff made the motion that was adopted unanimously bythe UAC to adopt a plan that may never bring FTTP to the entirecity.
Reproduced below is my prior letter to you about the project dodate.
In addition, the UAC Fiber Committee has been meeting secretlywith staff when the committee qualifies as a standing committeethat must have public meetings, and a key member of thatcommittee, Commissioner Johnston has a conflict of interestbecause he owns over $10,000 of stock in AT&T and the proposedproject will have an affect on AT&T of more than $1,000,0000,and the public generally does not have the same amount ofstock.
[Similarly, Council Member Cormack has a conflict of interestdue to her stock investment of more than $10,000 in Comcast.]
It is not possible to make an informed decision on approving anFTTP project as long as other Uility Department projects arebundled together with the FTTP project to hide the subsidiesfrom the Dark Fiber Fund to the Smart Meter and SCADA projects.
Those projects transactions with the Dark Fiber Fund should betreated the same way that the Palo Alto Unified School Districtfiber project was treated with the Dark Fiber Fund.
You can't make a decision until staff discloses on a timelybasis the results of the survey of businesses for FTTP and thetopology of the optronics assumed in the cost estimates.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
From: herb
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 12:01 AM
To: herb_borock@hotmail.com <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Subject: November 2, 20222 UAC Meeting, Agenda Item #VII.6: Fiber Projects
Herb BorockP. O. Box 632Palo Alto, CA 94302
November 2, 2022
Utilities Advisory CommissionCity of Palo Alto250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301
NOVEMBER 2, 2022 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING, AGENDAITEM #VII.6FIBER BACKBONE AND FIBERTO-THE-PREMISES
Dear Utilities Advisory Commission:
I support the construction of an active )point-to-point)Ethernet protocol fiber optic network that provides 1 gigabitper second (Gbps) symmetrical (bidirectional) bandwidth whereeach subscriber is connected to the network by fiber.
The staff report for this agenda item proposes building a fibernetwork that would take at least five years to complete.
The information staff has provided to date does not include thedetails required for the Commission and Council to criticallyevaluate staff's proposal, while some Commissioners and CouncilMembers believe their role is advocacy rather than requestingand reviewing the information needed to make an informed andreasoned decision about staff's proposal.
Since staff's proposed project would take at least five yearsto build, I suggest that your recommendation include prioritysequence for neighborhoods to be connected to the fiber networkthat would motivate you to decide whether a fiber project thattakes five years to build is worthwhile when some neighborhoodswould have to wait five years to receive the benefits of thefiber project, and where some neighborhoods would never getfiber if the project fails before the five years occur.
I urge you to recommend to the City Council the followingreverse order of neighborhood sequencing for the fiber project:
1. The last neighborhoods to receive fiber would be theneighborhoods where the current Council Members live.2. The next-to-last neighborhoods to receive fiber would theneighborhoods where the three Council Members elected nextweek live if they don't live in the neighborhoods of thecurrent Council Members.3. The neighborhoods of the members of the Utilities AdvisoryCommission who don't live in any of those Council Membersneighborhoods would receive fiber before the CouncilMembers neighborhoods and after everyone else'sneighborhoods.
Do you believe your neighborhood would ever receive the City'sfiber project if that schedule was adopted as part of thestaff's proposal?
Cost Estimates and Funding Allocation
The cost estimates on Packet Page 110 say the fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) project would cost $102.3 million and that ifthe FTTP project and Backbone project were built jointly therewould be a savings of $10.9 million, while the existing FiberFund would provide $34.0 million, and the total new fundingrequired would be $98.0 million.
The spreadsheets in the 9/19/2022 staff report to the CityCouncil and UAC of FTTP (ID # 13956) at Packet Pages 82, 87,and 92 of the September 19, 2022 City Council Agenda Packetshow that the FTTP project would receive $25 million from theFiber Fund and would borrow $86.4 million, or more than themaximum shown in cost estimates.
Subtracting those amounts from the total cost of the FTTPproject yields less than $1.0 million of cost savings frombuilding the two projects separately, while over $10.0 millionof savings are credited to the Backbone project.
Before making a recommendation, you need to see the costaccounting of both projects together to evaluate whether thereis proper cost allocation to the two projects.
For example, there would be construction savings if the twoprojects have fiber strung along the same path, but since thesame labor is required for a loose-tube fiber of as many as864-count loose fiber cable as for a single fiber, the costsavings should be divided equally between the two projects. (Twelve 12-fiber cables can be bundled together for a total of144 fibers, and up to six 144-count fiber bundles can be placedaround a empty core to get 864 fibers.)
Depreciation
The useful lives used to calculate annual depreciation do notcorrespond to those used by the City of Palo Alto.
I submitted a Public Records Act request that was answered byformer Director of Administrative Servies Lalo Perez thatshowed the following depreciation schedules:
Dark fiber is amortized over 30 years.
Equipment is expensed if it is $5,000 or less.
Equipment costing more than $5,000 is amortized over 5 years.
Dark Fiber Lease Revenue
The spreadsheets show growing amounts of revenue from theexisting Dark Fiber business, despite recent quarterly reportsthat showed decreased due to lost customers from consolidationand competitors.
The revenue projections for
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Fw: September 14, 2022 P&TC Meeting, Item #3: 1237 San Antonio Road [22PLN-00113]
Date:Saturday, December 17, 2022 5:31:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
From: herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2022 1:29 AM
To: herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: September 14, 2022 P&TC Meeting, Item #3: 1237 San Antonio Road [22PLN-00113]
Herb BorockP. O. Box 632Palo Alto, CA 94302
December 17, 2022
Palo Alto City Council250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301
DECEMBER 19, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #191237 SAN ANTONIO ROAD [22PLN-00113]
Dear City Council:
I continue to believe that this proposed action is not neededas described in my September 14, 2022 letter to the Planningand Transportation Commission that is reproduced below.
The staff report for this agenda item relies on the BaylandsConservation Plan for the current Land Use Designation for thesubject parcel, but as I pointed out in my previous letter thelater adopted Comprehensive Plan shows a different designation.
The exception provided by state law means that no change isneeded.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
From: herb
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 8:26 PM
To: Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: melissa.mcdonough@cityofpaloalto.org <melissa.mcdonough@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: September 14, 2022 P&TC Meeting, Item #3: 1237 San Antonio Road [22PLN-00113]
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632Palo Alto, CA 94302
September 14, 2022
Palo Alto Planning & Transportation CommissionCity of Palo Alto250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301
SEPTMBER 14, 2022 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONMEETINGAGENDA ITEM #3: 1237 SAN ANTONIO ROAD [22PLN-00113]
Dear Planning and Transportation Commisssion:
The citywide land use map (Map L-6) in the online version ofthe published adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows the entiresubject site with the land use designation Public ConservationLand.
The proposed resolution shows the San Antonio Road frontage ofthe subject site with the land use designation MajorInstitution/Special Facility that was applied to that portionof the site when it was used for the Los Altos Treatment Plant.
The land use map in the Comprehensive Plan indicates that theformer land use designation was changed to Public ConservationLand either prior to or at the time of the adoption of theComprehensive Plan.
The map in the proposed resolution should reflect that actualcurrent land use designation based on a review of thelegislative history rather than just looking at some otherreference map available to staff.
No change is needed for the area designated in the proposedresolution, because moving Greenwaste functions to the part ofthe site is part of the Homekey project and,therefore, considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.[Health and Safety Code Section 50675.1.3(i).]
Health and Safety Code Section 50675.1.3.(i) Any project that uses funds received for any ofthe purposes specified in subdivision (a) shall be deemed consistent and in conformity withany applicable local plan, standard, or requirement, and any applicable coastal plan, local orotherwise, and allowed as a permitted use, within the zone in which the structure is located,and shall not be subject to a conditional use permit, discretionary permit, or any otherdiscretionary reviews or approvals.
If you still believe the proposed change is warranted, itshould be limited to the term of the Greenwaste use thatterminates on June 30, 2026.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
cc: Melissa McDonough
From:herb
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:December 19, 2022 Council Meeting, Item #21
Date:Saturday, December 17, 2022 5:21:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Herb BorockP. O. Box 632Palo Alto, CA 94302
December 17, 2022
Palo Alto City Council250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301
DECEMBER 19, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #21COUNCIL PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS HANDBOOK
Dear City Council:
I believe you should continue this entire item until next yearso that the three newly elected Council Members can decide onthis subject instead of the three Council Members who will beattending their last meeting.
I don't believe you should delete 6.2 on Packet Page 440. Thecurrent values of many people in Palo Alto are to ignoreexperience, but in politics as in other places experiencematters, especially in a city where the City Manager habituallysends you information on matters the public is entitled to seewhile the City Manager tells you to keep the informationsecret.
In parliamentary practice the practice of raising a question ofpersonal privilege about what somebody else said is restrictedto what a member of the body said at the same meeting. Therefore you should make the following changes as indicated.
On Packet Pages 379 and 440 item (4) add the indicatedlanguage: "... where the Council Member's integrity, characteror motives are questioned by another Council Member at themeeting or when the welfare ..."
In the table on Packet Pages 380 and 431 under "Raise aquestions of privilege" add the indicated language: "welfare orcases where a member's personal integrity, character, ormotives are questioned by another member at the meeting."
The Ralph M. Brown Act protects the rights of the public tocriticize public officials. Including language in yourprocedures and protocols that gives the criticized official thelast word creates a chilling effect on speech and should notremain unless amended as shown above.
Thank you for you consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
From:Jeff HoelTo:Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC
Subject:COMMENTS: 12-19-22 staff report about FTTPDate:Saturday, December 17, 2022 12:47:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Council members,
On 12-19-22, you will consider an item about FTTP:
"The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and Staff Recommend the City Council Approve Option 2 for Building Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) Under a Phased Approach"https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2022/20221219/20221219pccsm-amended.pdf
Below the "######" line, please see a copy of the staff report, to which I have added my comments (paragraphs in red beginning with "###"). I have also highlighted (in yellow)
things I wanted comment about.
I'd also like to make some general comments.
1. Of the three options presented in the staff report, I prefer "Option 1," building out FTTP citywide in the next five years.
2. I don't think staff has supported its claim that the City needs to build a new fiber backbone, separate from the citywide FTTP network. It's estimated cost is $25.6 million. (Butby not building it, we wouldn't realize $10.9 million in savings by building both the backbone and FTTP networks together. So maybe the net savings by not building the new fiberbackbone would be only $14.7 million.) Staff used to say we needed a new fiber backbone to do smart meters, but then all the fiber infrastructure to support smart meters wasconstructed using the existing dark fiber network. Staff says the new fiber backbone is needed for FTTP, but staff proposes to use only three huts for FTTP. What would it cost toconnect three huts to a central office using the existing dark fiber network? Has staff considered putting extra fiber strands into the FTTP network to support all of the City's darkfiber needs?
3. Staff hasn't specified the architecture it intends to use for the citywide FTTP network. PON might be less expensive in the short run. (How much less expensive?) But activeEthernet (AE) might be more futureproof. The architecture choice may affect how many huts are needed. Is AE feasible with just three huts? If the City chooses PON, how manypremises might share a PON net?
4. How does staff make sure that the fiber infrastructure will accommodate future growth in housing?
5. Can we have an update on the possibility of federal funding? I think Magellan was supposed to be monitoring this potential opportunity. (I'm not optimistic, given that mostfederal funding these days is for "unserved" and "underserved" areas, and the feds think "underserved" means less than 25/3 Mbps.)
6. The City should deploy citywide municipal FTTP to assure that residents and businesses have sufficient communications services for generations to come. Competitionamong private sector entities has not been -- and will not be -- adequate to assure this. Palo Alto likes to brag about its "full suite" of municipal utilities: electric, gas, water,wastewater, and dark fiber.https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/UtilitiesThese days, FTTP communications deserves to be considered a utility, too, which means that a "full suite" should include it.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------Jeff Hoel731 Colorado AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94303-------------------
###################################################################################################################################
COMMENTS:
--- page 1 --- --- packet page 268 ---
City of Palo Alto (ID # 14800)City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: 12/19/2022Report Type: Action Items
Title: The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and Staff Recommend the City Council Approve Option 2 for Building Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) Under a Phased ApproachFrom: City ManagerLead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and staff recommend City Council approve option 2 for building Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) under a phased approach:
Option 1. Build fiber backbone and FTTP within five years with $98M Revenue Bond. Construction costs of $127.9 million to build the fiber backbone and FTTP distributionnetwork based on the business models developed, plus $15 million to provide City-owned internet service provider (ISP) services totaling $142.9 million for the entire project.Fiber fund balance at $34 million, leaving a funding gap of $98 million, which may be covered with a revenue bond.
► Option 2. Build fiber backbone and FTTP under a phased approach without Revenue Bond. Allocate $34M from the Fiber fund and $13M from the Electric fund to build the fiberbackbone and build phase one of the FTTP distribution network under a phased approach.
Option 3. Build fiber backbone, pause City-owned ISP plans, and collaborate with private ISPs. Build the fiber backbone to increase reliability and capacity for dark fiber licensingand support some “smart city” initiatives. Collaborate with ISP providers to improve broadband in Palo Alto. Pause FTTP efforts and potentially redistribute some fiber surplus tosupport other City initiatives such as grid modernization or electrification.
--- page 2 --- --- packet page 269 ---
Executive Summary
This report is a culmination of research and findings for building fiber backbone and citywide FTTP, including follow-up information from the joint session held on September 19,2022 (Staff Report #13956).
### 09-19-22 staff report:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/2022/09-14-2022-id-13956.pdf
This meeting will provide Council an opportunity to review the findings and information accumulated so far, weigh the options for moving forward with FTTP, consider staff andUAC’s recommendation, and provide staff with feedback on how to proceed. This report contains follow-up information requested from the joint session and options to build FTTP:
1. Comparisons to other California municipalities providing fiber service
### Staff's 11-02-22 report to UAC limited the comparisons to other California municipalities (see packet page 116 here).https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/11-02-2022/11-02-2022-uac-agenda-and-packet.pdf
But the current report (12-19-22) includes six municipalities in other states.
2. Use of Micro-trenching to reduce construction costs and accelerate FTTP buildout
3. Use of Fiber Fund surplus for FTTP and other City services
### "Surplus" is the wrong word. Merriam-Webster's first definition of "surplus" is: "the amount that remains when use or need is satisfied."https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surplusThe amount in the Fiber Fund is LESS than what is needed to deploy citywide municipal FTTP.
4. Options to build FTTP and enhance broadband in Palo Alto
The UAC unanimously (6-0, Bowie absent) recommended Option 2 – build fiber backbone and FTTP under a phased approach with existing funds ($34 million from Fiber and $13million from Electric). The UAC did not recommend bond financing phase one of FTTP deployment due to uncertainty of customer take rate and high interest borrowing rates.UAC also suggested staff provide periodic updates (i.e. construction, installation, financials) to UAC and Council during phase one to determine whether the City shouldaccelerate the FTTP buildout.
Background
On November 2, 2022
### 11-02-22 staff report:https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/11-02-2022/11-02-2022-uac-agenda-and-packet.pdf
staff reviewed with UAC the accumulated research and findings for building the fiber backbone and several options for building FTTP shortly following the joint session held withCouncil and UAC on September 19, 2022.
### 09-19-22 staff report:https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2022/20220919/20220919pccsm-amended-linked.pdf
Plans to build the fiber backbone were reviewed and the feasibility of expanding the City’s current licensing of dark fiber to end users by building out the network with a citywide
FTTP distribution network were evaluated during the joint study session. Building out the network to connect to homes and businesses is commonly known as building out the“last mile” in a network. During the meeting with UAC, options for building the last mile to provide citywide FTTP were discussed in further detail.
There have been multiple discussions over the decade regarding the tradeoffs for offering municipal-owned FTTP to the community as a service, investments needed to build the“last mile,” benefits and risks of becoming a new internet service provider (ISP), and various financial models and organizational structure.
### On 12-04-02, UAC considered a FTTH Business Case and recommended proceeding to do a FTTH Business Plan. So, really, discussions have spanned at least twodecades.
The City’s broadband consultant, Magellan, presented information demonstrating how building the last mile in the City’s fiber network infrastructure supports the City’s initiatives,provides the community with more choice among broadband providers, and becomes a valuable telecommunication investment for the future.
However, it was acknowledged that while the City operates its own utilities and the fiber network has a successful dark fiber business model, the competitive landscape for FTTPwould be very different from managing other City-owned utilities and dark fiber licensing. The City would not only have to build a reliable FTTP distribution network capable ofdelivering ultrahigh-speed Internet options, but also capture market share, provide responsive customer service and support, implement and install FTTP, and respond tocompetitors’ efforts. In response to some concerns about take rate viability, Magellan presented maps based on survey
--- page 3 --- --- packet page 270 ---
results that could be used to infer which areas of the community had higher demand for a City-owned ISP, less competition from existing incumbents, or even where internetspeed may be slower.
### These maps were displayed on-screen, and can be seen on the meeting video (e.g., at 3:23:33)https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-1122022/But an interactive version is not available online.
This report includes some additional maps based on UAC’s feedback.
### The REVISED staff report includes these maps at PDF pages 282, 284, and 284.
Several options for building FTTP came into focus after the joint study session and were summarily
### "Summarily" is the wrong word. It means "suddenly, without discussion or legal process."https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/summarily
discussed with the UAC. During the meeting with the UAC, concerns were raised regarding uncertainties surrounding the deployment of FTTP, such as rising interest rates, whichcan impact cost estimates, or incumbent response and other market factors which can impact anticipated take rates. The discussion section contains some ideas to mitigate theserisks weighed alongside the various options presented to the UAC for further discussion with Council.
Discussion
The following discussion topics include follow-up information requested from the joint session and options for building FTTP.
Comparisons to other Municipalities with Fiber
According to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance Community Broadband Map, in the United States there are 83 municipal networks serving 148 communities with a publicly ownedFTTP citywide network. More broadly, there are 315 networks communities in 31 states with some form of a publicly owned network offering at least 1 gigabit services
### The text of the cited document (from September 2021) says "more than 315 networks."https://muninetworks.org/communitymapBut it's including some dark fiber networks, cable networks, cooperatives, and tribal networks, and apparently it's not requiring 1 Gbps uploads. The number of municipal FTTPnetworks offering 1 Gbps service may be closer to 272. (I tried to count them from the map.) I suspect the number has increased in the last year.
### These days, offering symmetrical 1 Gbps FTTP service is not as remarkable as it once was.
and more than 30 communities in 10 states with a municipal network delivering 10 gigabit services. [1]
### These days, new municipal FTTP networks should use hardware capable of at least 10 Gbps (symmetrical), to make sure the hardware doesn't become obsoleteprematurely.
### 08-24-22 press release: "EPB Launches America’s First Community-wide 25 Gig Internet Service"https://epb.com/newsroom/press-releases/epb-launches-americas-first-community-wide-25-gig-internet-service/
With limited resources to verify the business models of each municipal network, research was focused on high-profile municipal networks for those which are out-of-state, andmunicipal networks in California since unique legal conditions in each state substantially impact the deployment of broadband networks state to state. Staff focused on well-knownmunicipal networks or municipal networks with easily accessible public information to search for those which contained one or more of the following traits comparable to what theCity of Palo Alto has been exploring:
City-owned and built City-ISP (City is the ISP provider)
### This seems to exclude municipalities that offer "open access" to ISPs that provide the retail services.
City-wide (100% full buildout to all businesses and residents)
### In this map, from 01-11-17, MuniNetworks seems to define "citywide" as covering "at least 80% of a city."https://muninetworks.org/content/new-resource-map-list-citywide-ftth-munisI suppose that's to include cities that aspire to be 100 percent citywide but haven't gotten there yet.
### Why wasn't one of the criteria that the network be a FTTP network?
The resulting list in Attachment A is intended to provide the public a general idea of how other municipalities are providing fiber broadband and would require the information to befurther validated by the individual municipal network listed for accuracy. In general, many municipalities in California are either in the process of exploring fiber broadband,providing limited fiber broadband, or partnering with a third-party as the ISP provider.
### Again, Attachment A contains six municipalities that are not in California.
### Of the 34 cities in Attachment A, only eight (Alameda, Chattanooga, Fort Collins, Hillsboro, Lafayette, Longmont, Loveland, and Vernon) meet all three criteria stated above(city-owned and built, city is the ISP, and citywide coverage), if you include the cities (Fort Collins, Hillsboro, and Loveland) where citywide coverage is listed as a work in progress("WIP"). Alameda's network wasn't even FTTP.
Several cities are
----------
[1] Institute for Local Self-Reliance Community Broadband map: https://muninetworks.org/communitymap
--- page 4 --- --- packet page 271 ---
offering commercial services, and some are providing residential services under an incremental approach. Below are some examples:
Masterplan to explore fiber broadband
1. Developing a master plan▪ Fremont▪ Glendale
2. Completed a master plan▪ Vallejo▪ San Leandro
Limited, Non City-wide fiber broadband
3. Providing only dark fiber and commercial ISP (no residential)▪ Burbank▪ Los Angeles
4. Providing limited (instead of city-wide fiber broadband)▪ Loma Linda (homes built after 2004)▪ Rancho Cucamonga (greenfield developments)▪ Santa Monica (select multi-family developments)▪ San Bruno (hybrid fiber/coax; incumbent cable television operator)
Non City-ISP provided fiber broadband
5. Non-city ISP provider▪ Culver City (CLEC Onward)
### "Onward, formerly known as Inyo Networks, has been a nationally recognized internet service provider and broadband network operator since 2009."https://business.culvercitychamber.com/list/member/onward-8152
▪ Ontario (CLEC Onward)▪ Vallejo (CLEC Onward)▪ Santa Cruz (Cruzio Internet)▪ Brentwood licenses conduit to Sonic* in select areas
### What does the asterisk mean?
Micro-trenching as an Alternative Construction Method
In response to Council’s question on micro-trenching as a method to reduce construction costs, Utilities, Public Works and Magellan evaluated the benefits and disadvantages ofapplying micro-trenching in Palo Alto’s FTTP buildout.
In recent years, “micro-trenching” has emerged as a new construction method for deploying fiber infrastructure. Whereas traditional standards call for fiber to be buried at least 24-36 inches below grade either with directional boring or trenching, micro-trenching uses thinner, shallower cuts averaging 8-16 inches in depth. Typically, these cuts are madeeither in the pavement, sidewalk or the joint between the pavement and guttering. Proponents of microtrenching note the shallower placement reduces construction cost by40%-50% and can accelerate construction schedules by three to four times of the typical timeline. Street closures can also be reduced. Thus far, only a few cities (e.g., Austin,Texas) have successfully allowed fiber network builders to use micro-trenching as the preferred construction methodology to deploy broadband and other telecommunication
services.
### How many cities prefer to use microtrenching in some situations and other approaches (directional boring, conventional trenching) in other situations?
As of the writing of this report, the City has not received any inquiries from the incumbent ISPs (wired and wireless) to use microtrenching to deploy fiber.
The biggest downside to micro-trenching is the shallow depth and how this impacts future access to underground facilities for maintenance or repairs. While micro-trenching
employs cuts averaging 8-16 inches deep, Palo Alto streets are resurfaced at 6 to 18 inches deep, and
--- page 5 --- --- packet page 272 ---
routine cuts to access underground facilities such as electric underground lines are 24 to 36 inches deep.
### If "routine cuts to access underground facilities ... are 24 to 36 inches deep" and "traditional standards call for fiber to be buried at least 24-36 inches below grade," why isn'tthat a potential problem for traditional methods as well as for microtrenching?
Additionally, to minimize damage to trees in areas where such precaution may be necessary, new techniques in micro-trenching may need to be deployed which may significantlyimpact construction. Finally, streets and sidewalks are routinely cut by contractors for underground work who would have to exercise greater precision and control to avoid cutting
shallow fiber. The shallow depths not only impact how underground facilities are accessed in the future, but this also increases the vulnerability of micro-trenched fiber to dig ups.Although there are benefits for implementing micro-trenching, the tradeoffs in future access, ease of maintenance, risk of outages, and the time and resources to mitigate theseissues would need to be considered as well.
Effective January 2022, state law requires the City to allow micro-trenching for the installation of underground fiber if the installation in the micro-trench is limited to fiber, unless
the City makes a written finding that allowing micro-trenching for a fiber installation would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety.
### Yes. The law is SB 378.https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB378It defines a microtrench as less than 4 inches wide and between 12 inches and 26 inches deep. (Staff's 11-02-22 report said the depth might be between 8 inches and 16 inches,and a photo at packet page 120 showed a width of more like 1 inch.)
### SB 378 passed with no nay votes. (Becker and Berman voted aye.)https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB378
### This document from Senator Gonzalez's office explains the motivation for SB 378. Note: Crown Castle is listed as a "sponsor."
https://sd33.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd33.senate.ca.gov/files/sb_378_gonzalez_fact_sheet.pdf
### The League of California Cities initially opposed it (03-17-21)https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/public-works-officers-institute---session-materials/legislative-update.pdf?sfvrsn=157e404b_3but then "watched" it (05-12-21).https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/guide-to-local-recovery-resources/may-12-13---legislative-action-days-day-1.pdf?Status=Master&sfvrsn=f9289b13_3
The law also requires the City to adopt or amend its existing policies, ordinances, codes, or construction rules to allow for microtrenching for fiber. The Public Works Departmentin collaboration with the City Attorney’s Office, Utilities and Urban Forestry, is developing a micro-trenching standard for the City which will further inform on how this method maybe implemented in the future.
As a part of ongoing efforts to explore potential cost savings for building FTTP, staff evaluated micro-trenching and found although there may be construction cost savings of $10– $20 million (high-level estimate) in the undergrounded “last mile” portions of a FTTP network, these savings are unlikely to be fully realized due to cost factors which would offseta significant portion of potential savings. These cost factors include but are not limited to future outages, tree root protection, and impacts to street conditions. For a more thoroughcalculation of cost savings applying micro-trench, Magellan may need up to four months to conduct a field survey in the underground areas and redesign the architecture of theFTTP network.
The cost savings and efficiency gained by using micro trenching is achieved when it is used in large volume. To realize the full savings of micro-trench, the City would have toutilize microtrenching for largest part of underground construction. One of the advantages that allows micro trenching to be less costly is the depth placement of conduit, which isalso a disadvantage to operating and maintaining the network. The cost to mobilize equipment and crew to microtrench small segments and/or service laterals would potentiallyoutweigh construction cost savings combined with high risk of future outages.
Although micro-trenching has the potential to result in reduced construction costs and faster implementation time in high density and rural areas, staff’s research suggests thereare longterm risks in Palo Alto such as network reliability, impact to the City’s street pavement condition index score, and the effect on tree canopies – all of which maysignificantly outweigh the construction benefits. Based on these concerns, staff does not recommend using microtrenching to build the FTTP network in underground districts.
--- page 6 --- --- packet page 273 ---
Use of Fiber surplus for FTTP and other City services
To date, the City has accumulated a surplus of approximately $34 million through its dark fiber licensing revenues. This surplus may be used for capital expenditures related to thefiber network, including the FTTP buildout, or as unrestricted funds. However, potential uses for future surpluses—particularly from a FTTP line of business—are less clear. The
legal landscape for local government revenues, especially revenues contemplated for expenditure on general municipal services, is complex and frequently changing eitherthrough ballot initiatives or litigation over the meaning and application of existing laws.
For present purposes, the most significant State law is Prop 26 [2], the 2010 ballot initiative that amended the California Constitution to expand the general definition of a tax toinclude "any…charge…of any kind imposed by a local government." If Prop 26 applies to a local government fee or charge, the charge must either fall within one of sevenenumerated exceptions or be imposed with voter approval. The stated intent behind Prop 26 was to close a "loophole" under which the state and local governments "disguisednew taxes as 'fees' in order to extract even more revenue from California taxpayers without having to abide by these constitutional voting requirements."
In August of this year, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Zolly vs. City of Oakland that clarified a previously unresolved question about the meaning of the phrase"imposed by a local government" in the context of franchise fees paid by the City of Oakland's solid waste and recycling service providers. The City of Oakland argued thefranchise fees are not “imposed by a local government” because they were a product of voluntary contractual negotiations and therefore Prop 26 does not apply to such fees. The
Supreme Court rejected this argument, finding that the ordinary meaning of the word “imposed” is “enacted” and it is sufficient that
----------
[2] The full text of the Prop 26 provisions discussed in this staff report is as follows:
(e) As used in this article, “tax” means any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government, except the following:
(1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonablecosts to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.
(2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed thereasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.
(3) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcingagricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.
4) A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.
(5) A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government, as a result of a violation of law.
(6) A charge imposed as a condition of property development.
(7) Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D (Prop 218). Article XIIC, Section 1(e) of the California Constitution
### A similar but not identical version appears here, page 10https://www.cacities.org/UploadedFiles/LeagueInternet/76/76adbe58-ba68-4aac-95a8-94ebcba43425.pdf
--- page 7 --- --- packet page 274 ---
Oakland exercised its legal authority to execute the two franchise agreements and then enacted those charges into law by ordinance.
A court could very possibly reach a similar conclusion regarding the applicability of Prop 26 to the City's fiber utility's charges. However, the full impact of the Zolly decision on thefiber utility rates is still unclear because another Prop 26 case (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association vs. Bay Area Toll Authority) currently pending before the California SupremeCourt will provide additional guidance on how the various exceptions to Prop 26 might apply in the context of the fiber utility. In addition, a statewide initiative that would impose
even stricter limitations on local government fees and charges [3] appears likely to qualify for the ballot in the 2024 election. Staff will continue to monitor these developments andtheir implications for the fiber utility's revenue potential.
Options to build FTTP and enhance broadband service in Palo Alto
Upon review of the findings from the joint session and follow-up information incorporated into this report, options for providing FTTP and enhancing broadband service werenarrowed down to the following three:
Option 1. Build backbone and citywide FTTP within five years with $98M of Revenue Bond financing
Based on the current business models and anticipated construction costs for the fiber backbone and FTTP distribution network, the project team estimates a funding gap of
approximately $98 million to be allocated in both the Fiber Fund and Electric Fund. The allocation for the construction costs and the bond financing structure would still need to befinalized based on actual plans.
Table 1. Cost estimates as of August 2022
Costs Current Estimates 2022
Fiber Backbone $25.6 M
Fiber-to-the-Premise $102.3 M
Working Capital Set Aside $15.0 M
Total Costs $142.9 M
Funding Current Estimates 2022
Cost Savings if Built Jointly ($10.9 M)
Existing Fiber Fund ($34.0 M)
Total New Funding Required $98.0 M
----------
[3] Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
### 08-12-22: "Campaign to increase vote threshold for new or increased taxes in California submits signatures for a place on the 2024 ballot"https://news.ballotpedia.org/2022/08/12/campaign-to-increase-vote-threshold-for-new-or-increased-taxes-in-california-submits-signatures-for-a-place-on-the-2024-ballot/
--- page 8 --- --- packet page 275 ---
New Funding Allocation* Fiber $80 M - $85 M
Electric $13 M - $18 M
Utility Revenue Bonds are a cost-effective option for long-term capital improvement projects with a large funding gap such as the $98M in this project. There are various revenuebonds structures and potential bond rating assumptions which could be applied for the fiber backbone and FTTP distribution network. The bonds are anticipated to be issued by
both the Fiber Optics Fund for the FTTP construction, and the Electric Fund for the building the fiber backbone. Given the financial strength of the reserves, assets, and lack ofcurrent debt by the Electric utility, the new revenue bonds for the backbone and FTTP has little to no impact on potential future Electric bond issuance(s). The Electric utility is theCity’s financially strongest utility, and the other City utilities with outstanding bonds have a triple A credit ratings from Standard and Poor’s therefore, staff anticipates the Electricutility will also receive the highest credit rating as well. The credit rating for the Fiber utility is less certain, as is the credit rating for a combined (Fiber and Electric) bonds issuance.The allocation of construction costs between the two funds and the bond financing structure is still being finalized, and the potential bond rating will be determined after a ratingpresentation (usually occurs a month prior to the bond issuance). Typically, bond issuance takes three to four months to process. Sometimes it takes longer when associated to amajor construction contract Request for Proposal (RFP) being issued, receiving proposals, and evaluating bids to determine the lowest responsible bidder. The RFP processneeds to be substantially completed to determine the final amount of the bond issuance since this result can substantially differ from the Engineer project cost estimate.
The table below shows the preliminary potential bond structures estimated on a 30-year $98 million (par) bond issuance needed to fund the project gap for the following scenarios:Table 2. Debt Schedule as of August 2022
Scenario Rating Capitalized All-In Annual Total
Interest True Average Debt
Interest Debt Service
Cost Service (net of Capl)
1* AA+ 18 months 4.42% $6.47 M $186.82 M
2** AA+ None 4.42% $5.96 M $179.45 M
3* AA 18 months 4.49% $6.52 M $188.34 M
4** AA None 4.49% $6.01 M $180.80 M
*Scenarios 1 and 3: 18 months Capitalized Interest. First three (interest only) semi-annual debt service payments during project construction are paid by bond funds. This amountis added to the principal bond issuance.
**Scenarios 2 and 4: No capitalized interest. First debt service would be due six months after the bond issuance
--- page 9 --- --- packet page 276 ---
The advantages of option 1 is it seeks to provide every resident and business in Palo Alto with equal access to Palo Alto Fiber within five years so construction bid prices may bemore favorable and competitive with a larger construction project and economies of scale, and the customer take rates would be higher due to speed-to-market and favorablemomentum for Palo Alto Fiber. In addition to providing fiber broadband high-speed internet access to all residents and businesses, the new citywide FTTP network will provide
more dark fiber licensing opportunities, support “smart city” initiatives for all departments, and serve as future telecommunication infrastructure for City or third-party needsthroughout the city. There may also be construction savings of approximately 25% in areas where the City must replace poles or trench to upgrade its electrical distribution systemfor the grid modernization project. Staff will evaluate total FTTP and grid modernization joint savings after the construction buildout areas are determined.
The disadvantages of option 1 is the reliance on customer take rate to be financially sustainable. Given the uncertainties with take rate, and how existing ISP incumbents mayrespond in an adversarial manner to further impact take rates, there is a risk if Palo Alto Fiber cannot attain a minimum take rate of 25% after the build out, the City will have toadjust the construction schedule, and/or identify other sources (i.e. General Fund, partnership) of funding to repay the outstanding debt amount.
Option 2. Build fiber backbone and FTTP with existing fiber reserves under a phased approach.
The phased deployment approach will decrease the City’s financial risk because no bond financing is required. Construction can be phased to start in areas with higher potentialtake rates and lower accessibility to fiber internet, ramping up instead of committing to a full deployment. With a ramp up approach, the City could build up revenues from darkfiber licensing and incremental FTTP deployments to reinvest into building out more of the fiber network in subsequent areas instead of taking on new debt. Depending on theviability of the City ISP business and take rate percentage, Council has the option to accelerate the FTTP citywide buildout with or without bond financing in future years. If Councildecides to bond finance the remainder of citywide FTTP, it will take about two months to complete financing after Council’s approval. Staff will provide key financial information(i.e. number of subscribers, revenue, expenses) on a regular basis to inform Council of the new FTTP business and decide whether the City should 1) continue the phasedapproach; 2) seek revenue bond financing to accelerate the buildout; 3) pause FTTP expansion.
Under the phased approach, and assuming a $20 million capital investment in the first phase of FTTP, the City can provide access to 20% - 30% of homes and businesses within2-3 years. Magellan developed three potential phase 1 deployment models for FTTP with the following initial build out scenarios (Attachment B):
### In the REVISED staff report, Attachment B is included at PDF page 282, but it is called Attachment A.
1. Areas with the lowest construction cost and highest density
2. Areas with the highest demand based on deposits
--- page 10 --- --- packet page 277 ---
3. Areas without AT&T Fiber, with the goal of increasing take rates
Areas of Areas Areas
Lowest Cost, of without
Highest Highest AT&T
Density Demand Fiber
Total Cost $20 M $20 M $20 M
Single-Family with Access 4,231 3,540 3,186
Multi-Family with Access 6,213 4,712 4,594
Total Homes with Access 10,444 8,252 7,780
Total Businesses with Access 1,064 879 912
Total Homes and 11,508 9,131 8,692 Businesses with Access
In response to the UAC request, Magellan created a citywide heatmap of broadband speed from 25 Mbp to 1Gbp or greater based on 1,700 self-reported speed tests from theinternet survey (Attachment C).
### It should say "Mbps," not "Mbp," and "1 Gbps," not "1Gbp."
### In the REVISED staff report, Attachment C is included on PDF page 283, but it is called Attachment B.
Based on the heatmap, it is inconclusive whether there are neighborhoods with access to only low speed internet since there are adjacent neighborhoods with moderate to highspeed access. Therefore, the speed test heatmaps are not a conclusive indicator of areas where speeds may be lower, and resultantly where the City should potentially focus itsinitial deployment.
For option 2, Magellan created a construction map for phase 1 incorporating the various scenarios of lowest cost, highest density, least competition, and highest demand.(Attachment D).
### In the REVISED staff report, Attachment D is included on PDF page 284, but it is called Attachment C.
### The map demoed at the 11-02-22 UAC meeting -- from which Attachment D is derived -- is interactive. Has staff considered providing the interactive map to UAC, Council,and the public?
### The FCC has recently released a new interactive map of who has access to broadband.https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/location-summary/fixed?location_id=1319618599&addr1=731+COLORADO+AVE&addr2=PALO+ALTO%2C+CA+94303&zoom=15.00&vlon=-122.127510&vlat=37.433909&br=r&speed=1000_100&tech=3I have initialized this copy of the map to view my house, and to view only fiber technology and only 1000/100 Mbps speed (and faster). Green dots are where you can getservice. Red dots are where you can't. You can pan and zoom. By clicking on the "gear" icon, you can select the technology and speed you want to view.
### The map has lots of mistakes. MuniNetworks recommends that people fix the mistakes they see, because it might affect a community's ability to get a federal grant forbroadband.https://muninetworks.org/content/new-resource-how-submit-challenges-fcc-broadband-map
The advantage of option 2 is no initial bond financing required with $34 million of Fiber Reserves and $13 million contributions from the Electric Fund. The City can build adedicated fiber backbone for the Electric utility to enhance reliability, security, redundancy, and future electric-related initiatives such as automated SCADA sensors. The City willalso be able to provide internet access to approximately 20% - 30% of homes and residents who prefer to switch to City-owned ISP. Council can decide whether to accelerate ordecelerate the FTTP expansion plan in one or two years based on how the deployment of Phase 1 goes. Under Option 2, the City will evaluate the feasibility of integrating FTTPexpansion into future capital improvement projects such as electric grid modernization, electrification and undergrounding. Similar to option 1, there may be construction savingsof approximately 25% in areas where the City must replace poles or trench to upgrade its electrical distribution system for the grid modernization project. Staff will evaluate total
FTTP and grid modernization joint savings after phase 1 construction buildout areas are determined.
--- page 11 --- --- packet page 278 ---
The disadvantages of Option 2 are primarily the longer implementation time, which would likely impact take rates and weaken the City’s competitive position. Additionally, the
phased approach could impact equity as not all parts of the community would be built out at the same time.
Option 3. Build fiber backbone, Pause City-owned ISP plans, and Collaborate with private ISPs
The City’s fiber optic backbone network was planned, designed and constructed in the mid to late 1990s. The estimated useful life of fiber plant is typically 30 to 40 years.
### There is a wide variety of estimates about this. Virtually all FTTP networks deployed so far haven't failed because their fiber plants are too old, so there isn't much data onwhen they will fail. In this 12-02-22 video, at 27:10,https://muninetworks.org/content/mapping-challenge-process-pon-vs-active-ethernet-and-market-pricing-episode-59-connect-showConsultant Doug Dawson says, "But I've had private conversations with engineers at Corning who are guessing that it's at least 75 years. But they can't -- they won't say that outloud. The lawyers won't let them do it. But it's certainly not 25 years."
The Utilities Department began to license dark fiber service connections for commercial purposes in the late 1990s. Since then, several sections of the fiber network have reachedcapacity, which limits the City's ability to effectively serve its existing customers and acquire new customers. Building a separate fiber backbone is essential to maintaining and
improving network reliability and security, increasing network coverage and capacity for commercial dark fiber customers, and supporting some “smart city” initiatives for Citydepartments such as Information Technology, Office of Emergency Services, Public Safety, Public Works, Transportation and Utilities.
In light of future network and service upgrade plans by incumbent ISPs and the development of emerging technologies such as mobile and fixed 5G wireless,
### There's no reason to think that wireless technologies ("emerging" or otherwise) will ever be an acceptable substitute for FTTP. The 12-02-22 video cited above discussesthis at length.
instead of building out the last mile the same time, the City may postpone its FTTP development. The City could, instead, identify resources to improve coordination of Citypolicies, processes, and access to communication infrastructure in the PROW to facilitate network upgrades. These efforts could enhance transparency and predictability for ISPsplanning network upgrades and/or building new networks. In general, municipal strategies for advancing broadband deployment without building their own FTTP are typically to:
1. Facilitate access to key assets such as fiber, communication conduit and utility poles in the PROW in addition to access to City-owned real property;
2. Provide frequently used information such as construction standards and pole requirements to potential broadband service providers; and
3. Streamline and publicize local construction, PROW and permitting processes.
The advantages of option 3 are primarily proceeding with building the fiber backbone to provide a more robust network and increase capacity, possibly creating new opportunitiesfor dark fiber licensing in fiber congested areas such as Stanford Research Park. Dark fiber reserve could be redistributed to support other City initiatives such as gridmodernization or electrification. The City could focus on working with existing ISPs to enhance broadband service throughout the City with substantially less financial investmentand risk for the City as delivery of broadband services would be completely controlled by the existing providers.
The disadvantages of option 3 are postponing FTTP. If FTTP is resumed at a future date, labor and materials costs may be higher, other providers may be further entrenched, andthe City’s share of the market would be limited or more difficult to compete in, dwindling any chances for the community to invest in a community-owned asset. New technologiessuch as wireless could
--- page 12 --- --- packet page 279 ---
evolve and become widely available to residents and businesses, further reducing market share. The net impact to the community for postponing FTTP is a loss in the opportunityfor the City to maintain local control of how broadband is delivered in Palo Alto citizens and businesses, in terms of pricing, internet speeds, net neutrality, and privacy.
UAC/Staff Feedback
The UAC noted there are portions of the City which present an opportunity for more parity based on the map provided from Magellan. The map indicates there are areas withhigher customer demand and no fiber broadband options which the City can serve. With rising interest rates and uncertain take rates, UAC recommended option 2 which providesa path forward that helps mitigate some of these risks. Staff acknowledged the phased approach was previously not recommended as it stretched the implementation timeline to10-20 years. However, the phased approach provides the City opportunities to check in and evaluate if take rates justify continued build out at a faster pace. Construction of thefirst phase may take 12 – 24 months; however, community interest may accelerate the construction of subsequent phases. Furthermore, the phased construction approach may
also be more efficient and cost-effective to overlap with the electric grid modernization work.
Resource Impact
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Description Fiber Backbone + Fiber Backbone + Fiber Backbone +
FTTP in 5 years $20M FTTP Phase 1 Pause City FTTP
Expenses:
Fiber Backbone $25.6 M $25.6 M $25.6 M
Fiber-to-the-Premises $102.3 M $20.0 M $0.0
Working Capital $15.0 M $3.0 M $0.0
Total Costs $142.9 M $48.6 M $25.6 M
Funding:
Cost Savings if ($10.9 M) ($1.7 M) -
Built Jointly
Fiber Fund ($34.0 M) ($34.0 M) ($12.8 M)
Electric Fund $0.00 ($12.9 M) ($12.8 M)
Total Funding/Savings ($57.9 M) ($48.6 M) ($25.6 M)
New Funding Required $98.0 M* $ 0.0 $ 0.0
* Allocation of revenue bond between Electric and Fiber will be determined based on actual construction costs.
--- page 13 --- --- packet page 280 ---
The staffing resources needed to implement, support, and manage options 1 and 2 are included in the working capital estimates in the table above. However, staff will need tobring forward new job classifications if the City Council chooses to proceed with options 1 or 2.
Stakeholder Engagement
On September 19, 2022, City Council and UAC held a public joint session to discuss the City’s fiber expansion plan and specifically FTTP. The joint session included informationfor Council and UAC as they consider next steps for FTTP. The information included FTTP engineering design details, construction cost estimates, market analysis results,
financial models, and organizational structure options.
On November 2, 2022, the UAC unanimously (6-0, Bowie absent) recommended Option 2 – build fiber backbone and FTTP under a phased approach with existing funds ($34million from Fiber and $13 million from Electric) (Staff Report #14845).
### 11-02-22 staff report:https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/11-02-2022/11-02-2022-uac-agenda-and-packet.pdf
UAC expressed the goal of FTTP is to provide ubiquitous or citywide high-speed internet access to all residents and businesses in Palo Alto. Option 2 can become a springboardto Option 1 which is a citywide FTTP deployment within five years if phase 1 of Palo Alto Fiber is deemed to be successful and financially self-sustaining. Other topics raised
during the meeting was partnering with an ISP service since the City does not have experience in this area which is under consideration with the outsourcing model. Multi-dwellingunit (MDU) is a different market segment than residential or commercial customers because most property owners have an exclusive multi-year term contractual agreement withan ISP. If Council approves Option 1 or 2, the City will begin a MDU marketing campaign in the beginning of 2023 to gauge MDU interest in negotiating access agreement.
Environmental Review
Council action on this item is not a project as defined by CEQA because the Council direction regarding the fiber utility is a general policy making activity. CEQA Guidelinessection 15378(b)(2)."
Attachments:
• Attachment20.a: Attachment A: Comparison to Other Municipalities
### Attachments B, C, and D are not mentioned here, but in the REVISED staff report, they exist on PDF pages 282, 283, and 284.
--- page 14 --- --- packet page 281 ---
Attachment A -- Examples of Municipal Broadband
### This source (updated 01-01-22) lists seventeen "Municipal Broadband Providers in California"
https://www.connectcalifornia.com/internet-service/municipal-broadband-providers
### I won't try to put the following text information from the staff report into a table format. Sorry.
Public Agency State Type Utilities Offered Incumbent Telecom Providers Publicly owned and built Public Agency as the ISP 100% buildout Additional comments/notes
### Column headings.
Alameda, City of CA Electric AT&T; Xfinity Yes Yes Yes When initially built, the City hired a contractor to provide ISP support. Hybrid Fiber Coax network sold to Comcast in 2008.
### Alameda chose to deploy HFC, not FTTP. (A 05-07-03 Palo Alto staff report, at the behest of UAC Commissioner Rosenbaum, looked into the HFC vs. FTTP question andconcluded that FTTP would be better. Too bad Alameda didn't do that.) Alameda did TV. We propose not to do TV. Alameda chose a flakey private sector partner. I hope wedon't chose to do a partnership.
Anaheim, City of CA Dark Fiber, Electric, Water AT&T; Spectrum No Unknown Yes
### Anaheim does dark fiber, but we don't need to learn how to do that. (Anaheim names its dark fiber customers. But we don't.)https://www.anaheim.net/5996/Fiber-Lease-Agreement
Atherton, Town of CA None AT&T; Xfinity No Unknown WIP Atherton Fiber is not a municipally‐owned enterprise. City allowed PROW access.
### Atherton Fiber is not a municipal effort, so why mention it?
Beverly Hills, City of CA Solid Waste, Storm Water, Waste Water, Water AT&T; Spectrum Yes Unknown YesCitywide FTTP project halted and resumed, currently the project is under evaluation.
### Beverly Hills: "March 7, 2022. The implementation of the completed assets of the City’s Fiber to the Premise Project is currently under evaluation."http://www.beverlyhills.org/departments/informationtechnology/beverlyhillsfiber/
Brentwood, City of CA Garbage, Sewer, Water AT&T; Xfinity No No No City leases conduit to Sonic in select areas of the city where the city installed empty communication conduit for new housing developments.
### Brentwood has a policy of deploying conduit for new construction. Sonic took advantage of that.https://muninetworks.org/content/sonicnet-lights-brentwood-ca
Burbank, City of CA Dark Fiber [1], Electric, Water AT&T; Spectrum No Yes No Commercial Dark Fiber and Business Internet Services.
### Burbankhttps://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/one-services
Chattanooga EPB TN Electric, Fiber AT&T; Xfinity Yes Yes Yes Chattanooga Electric Power Board FTTP network offers Internet Broadband, Cable TV and Phone
### Chattanooga's EPB (Electric Power Board) has a famous FTTP network. Internet speeds to 25 Gbps (symmetrical) for all residences and businesses. Residential 1 Gbps(symmetrical) is $67.99 per month.https://epb.com/
Culver City CA Dark Fiber, Electric, Water AT&T; Spectrum No No No Partnership with CLEC Onward ‐ Business Internet.
### Culver City -- businesses onlyhttps://www.culvercity.org/City-Projects/Culver-Connect-Municipal-Fiber-Network
Fort Collins, City of CO Electric, Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, Fiber CenturyLink; Xfinity Yes Yes WIPFort Collins Utilities is a member of the Platte River Power Authority. FTTP network brand name is Connexion ‐ offers Internet, TV and Phone
### Fort Collins -- Internet speeds to 10 Gbps (symmetrical). Residential 1 Gbps (symmetrical) is $59.95 per month. (For Wi-Fi in the home, an additional $9.95 per month.)https://fcconnexion.com/
### This 11-03-22 report says construction of the citywide FTTP network will be complete by the end of 2022.
https://www.fcgov.com/citymanager/report?report_id=latest (This URL may not be permanent.)
### Here's a construction map.https://fcconnexion.com/construction-map/
### Fort Collins' FTTP take rate is 31% (January 2022) Not bad for a network that's still being constructed.https://fcconnexion.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/January-2022-connexion-monthly-report.pdf
Fresno, City of CA Sewer, Wastewater, Water AT&T; Xfinity No No No
### Fresno did an RFQ in 2016 for a "Gigabit Wireless and/or Wired/Fiber System"
https://www.fresno.gov/informationservices/gigabit-fresno/I didn't find evidence that anything came of it.
Glendale, City of CA Dark Fiber, Electric, Water AT&T; Spectrum No Planning Planning Curently working with Magellan on Fiber Optic Business Plan for network expansion
### Glendale (population 192,366) is considering building a municipal FTTP network for businesses, for about $10 million. So, not for residences.https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/glendale-water-and-power/business-customers/glendale-fiber-optic-solutions
Hillsboro, City of OR Water, Wastewater CenturyLink; Xfinity Yes Yes WIP Hillsboro FTTP network brand name is HighLight ‐ offers High‐Speed Internet and Digital Voice
### Hillsboro -- Internet speeds to 4 Gbps (symmetrical). Residential 1 Gbps (symmetrical) is $55.00 per month. (For Wi-Fi in the home, an additional $5.00 per month.)https://www.hillsboro-oregon.gov/services/hilight/rates-and-servicesThey hope to be citywide by FY 2027.https://www.hillsboro-oregon.gov/home/showpublishedimage/28308/637805299204970000
### Incremental approach.
https://muninetworks.org/content/hillsboro-hilight-55-gig
Huntington Beach, City of CA Dark Fiber [1], Sewer, Trash, Water Spectrum; Frontier No No No
### Huntington Beach considered municipal FTTP.https://www.govtech.com/dc/articles/huntington-beach-calif-considers-offering-broadband-as-a-utility.html?mc_cid=578a10095f&mc_eid=2910c7b52bbut apparently decided not to do it.https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/residents/utility-services/
Lafayette Utilities System LA Electric, Water, Wastewater, Fiber AT&T; Cox Yes Yes Yes LUS FIBER FTTP network offers Broadband Internet, Cable TV and Phone
### Lafayette -- Internet speeds to 10 Gbps (symmetrical). Residential 1 Gbps (symmetrical) is $117.95 per month (For Wi-Fi in the home, add 14.99 per month.)https://www.lusfiber.com/standardpricing
Loma Linda, City of CA Refuse, Sewer, Water AT&T; Spectrum Yes [1] Yes No City FTTP is limited to select areas and provided to homes built after 2004.
### Loma Linda -- Internet speeds to 15 Mbps (symmetrical, I suppose). Residential 15 Mbps (symmetrical, I suppose) is $99.95 per month. So, too slow and too expensive.https://www.lomalinda-ca.gov/services/l_l_c_c_p/f_a_q_s/other_f_a_q_s
Long Beach, City of CA Dark Fiber [1], Gas, Water Spectrum; Frontier No No No
Longmont, City of CO Electric, Fiber CenturyLink; Xfinity Yes Yes Yes Longmont Power & Communications is a member of the Platte River Power Authority. FTTP network brand name is NextLight
### Longmont -- NextLight -- Internet speeds to 10 Gbps (symmetrical). Residential 1 Gbps (symmetrical) is $69.95 per month.
https://mynextlight.com/residential/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI1Y209P_5-wIVojWtBh32sgyTEAAYASABEgKxtfD_BwEBut "charter members" get 1 Gbps for $49.95 per month.https://mynextlight.com/terms-conditions/
### Longmont's FTTP take rate is 60% (11-15-21)https://www.providencejournal.com/story/opinion/2021/11/15/opinion-ruggiero-why-ri-needs-municipal-broadband-infrastructure/6360935001/
Los Angeles, City of CA Dark Fiber [1], Electric, Water AT&T; Spectrum No No No Commercial Dark Fiber and Business Internet Services.
Loveland, City of CO Electric; Water, Fiber CenturyLink; Xfinity Yes Yes WIPLoveland Water & Power is a member of the Platte River Power Authority. FTTP network brand Name is Pulse ‐ offers Internet TV and Phone
### Loveland -- Pulse -- Internet speeds to 10 Gbps (symmetrical). Residential 1 Gbps (symmetrical) is $74.95 per month.https://www.lovelandpulse.com/residential/internet/
### Loveland's FTTP take rate is 30%. Construction is 84% complete, the "active service area" is 59%. The expected take rate after full buildout is 42% (October 2022)https://www.lovelandpulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Fiber-to-the-Premise-Dashboard-October-2022.pdfConstruction history here:https://www.lovelandpulse.com/monthly-progress-reports/
Ontario, City of CA Dark Fiber, Wastewater, Water Spectrum; Frontier No No WIP Partnership with CLEC Onward ‐ Residential and Business Internet.
### Ontario just refers you to Onward.https://www.ontarioca.gov/fiberOnward:https://getonward.com/residential/
Palo Alto, City of CA Dark Fiber, Electric, Gas, Wastewater, Water AT&T; Xfinity TBD
Pasadena, City of CA Electric, Water AT&T; Spectrum No No No Commercial Dark Fiber and Business Internet Services.
### Pasadena -- no residential FTTP.https://www.cityofpasadena.net/information-technology/fiber-services/
Plumas‐Sierra Electric Co‐op CA Electric, Fiber/Coax/Wireless/Satellite Broadband AT&T Yes Yes NoPlumas‐Sierra Electric Co‐op serves Plumas, Sierra, Lassen & Washoe Counties
### Plumas-Sierra -- doesn't have much FTTP (see map). FTTP -- Residential 1 Gbps (symmetrical) is $199 per month.
https://www.plumassierratelecommunications.com/services/residential/
Rancho Cucamonga, City of CA Broadband, Electric, Water AT&T; Spectrum No No WIPCity Muni Broadband partners with CLEC Onward ‐ Residential & Business Internet. City funded the fiber.
### Rancho Cucamonga -- Residential 1 Gbps (symmetrical?) is $69.95 per month. For now, only greenfield.https://www.cityofrc.us/rcmu/rcmu-residentialSee map:https://regis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d1640a4f45fd48eebd712408537580a3
Riverside, City of CA Dark Fiber, Electric, Water AT&T; Spectrum No No Planning Council recently approved agreement with SiFi to build FTTP ($300M) ‐ Open Access Model.
### Riverside: 05-20-22 press release:https://riversideca.gov/press/city-riverside-receive-citywide-high-speed-fiber-network-following-approval-agreement-sifi"Only about 39 percent of homes in Riverside currently have access to high-speed fiber, according to City estimates. SiFi, based in Delaware, will fund, design, construct andmaintain the system, which is expected to cost more than $300 million, and is required to be 95 percent complete within four years." And "SiFi will market the open access system
to internet service providers that can use SiFi’s network to provide up to 10 gigabit broadband connectivity to residents and up to 100 gigabit connectivity to businesses."
### SiFi plans to deploy to 20 cities in California.https://sifinetworks.com/corporate/state-california/and 30 cities nationwide. With speeds to 10 Gbps symmetrical. (I think Fullerton is further along than Riverside.)
https://www.fiercetelecom.com/operators/sifi-networks-eyes-rollouts-30-cities-as-open-access-fiber-gains-traction
### Pricing is up to the retail ISPs. But 1 Gbps (symmetrical) might be $79 per month in Fullerton, according to this 04-26-19 announcement.https://www.ctcnet.us/blog/sifi-announces-new-open-access-fiber-network-in-fullerton-california/ISPs might do introductory pricing.https://www.gigabitnow.com/fullerton/residential/#pricing
San Bruno, City of CA Fiber, Solid Waste, Waste Water, Water AT&T; San Bruno CityNet Yes [2] Yes Yes [2]City‐owned San Bruno CityNet Services is the incumbent cable TV and broadband provider. Former name San Bruno Cable TV.
### San Bruno offers municipal HFC service to most places, but FTTP to a few places.
https://sanbruno.ca.gov/825/Fiber-to-the-HomeResidential 1 Gbps (symmetrical?) is $85 per month.
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2884/Current-Rate-Sheet-Effective-03-01-22
San Francisco, City of CA Dark Fiber, Wastewater, Water AT&T; Xfinity No No No
### Google "site:sfgov.org fiber <past-year> " just 1 hit.
### But in the past there's been talk of a citywide municipal fiber network. For example, 05-09-13: "Mayor Farrell Releases Report on Cost-Savings and Benefits from Proposed
Citywide Fiber Network"https://sfgov.org/news/mayor-farrell-releases-report-cost-savings-and-benefits-proposed-citywide-fiber-network
San Leandro, City of CA None AT&T; Xfinity No No No City provides conduit while private partner provides the fiber and services to businesses for "Lit San Leandro".
### Lit San Leandro.https://litsanleandro.com/
Santa Clara, City of CA Dark Fiber, Garbage, Sewer, Water AT&T; Xfinity No No No Santa Clara electric utility is called Silicon Valley Power.
### Santa Clara's Silicon Valley Power (SVP) provides dark fiber services.
https://www.svpfiber.com/
Santa Cruz, City of CA Water AT&T; Xfinity No No No 2016: Drop efforts for City and local ISP Curzio Internet to build FTTP under a public‐private partnership agreement branded Santa Cruz Fiber. City is not involved with the limited self‐funded
Santa Monica, City of CA Dark Fiber, Resource Recovery, Sewer, Water Spectrum; Frontier No No No Commerical dark fiber and Business Internet Services.
### Santa Monica's City Net does dark fiber plus FTTP to business, plus FTTP to a few MDUs (affordable housing).https://www.smcitynet.com/Residential 1 Gbps (symmetrical) is $69.00 per month.
Shafter, City of CA Fiber, Sewer, Trash, Water Optimum; AT&T Yes No Yes [2] Business and residential FTTP ‐ ISPs include Level 3 and Vast Networks.
### Shafter relies on ISPs Lumen and Vast Networks.http://www.shafterconnect.com/
### I have the impression that the infrastructure is all FTTP (i.e., not HFC) (so footnote [2] is inapplicable).
Vallejo, City of CA Water AT&T; Xfinity No No No Partnership with CLEC Onward ‐ Residential and Business Internet.
### VallejoNet is only for businesses.https://vallejoca.hosted.civiclive.com/our_city/departments_divisions/city_manager/information_technology/vallejo_net_business_fiber_internet_access
Vernon, City of CA Fiber, Gas, Electric, Water AT&T; Spectrum Yes Yes Yes Primarily an industrial community with approx. 1,800 businesses; population 2020 census: 222
### Vernon's residential internet service for 20 Mbps is $35.77 per month. Too slow. Business internet service for 100 Mbps (symmetrical?) is $2,800 per month. Too expensiveand too slow.https://www.cityofvernon.org/government/public-utilities/rates-fees/-folder-50
### I'd like to add Fairlawn, OH, to the list.https://muninetworks.org/content/fairlawn-gig-adds-speed-lowers-priceThey started building in 2015. The take rate is 68 percent. Internet speeds to 10 Gbps (symmetrical). Residential 1 Gbps (symmetrical) service is $55 per month.
[1] Limited to regions/market segments[2] Hybrid instead of just Fiber, for example Fiber Coax
### Footnote [2] is applicable only to San Bruno, which had a citywide HFC network and then added FTTP in a few places.
--- PDF page 282 --- --- packet page 281.1 ---
Attachment A -- Fiber Zones of Different Scenarios
### This page was added to the REVISED staff report. It's really what the staff report calls "Attachment B." Let me call it Attachment B.
### If an interactive map were available, I could zoom into an area of specific interest.
### The color key has four colors: light blue, dark blue, magenta, and dark green. The map has five highlighted colors: light blue, dark blue, magenta, dark green, and lightgreen. What does light green mean?
### The dark blue areas (where survey responders reported AT&T Fiber service) don't exactly match where the FCC map says fiber service at 1000/100 Mbps speed isavailable. (Keep in mind, the FCC map is known to have errors.)
--- PDF page 283 --- --- packet page 281.2 ---
Attachment B -- Citywide Heatmap of Broadband Speed
### This page was added to the REVISED staff report. It's really what the staff report calls "Attachment C." Let me call it Attachment C.
### Is this map talking about only download speed, or about both download and upload speeds? The data is based on speed tests performed by survey participants, so it's
based on what the participant subscribed to, not what he/she could have subscribed to.
### I see that many areas identified in Attachment B as covered by AT&T Fiber are shown here as offering less than 1 Gbps speed.
--- PDF page 284 --- --- packet page 281.3 ---
Attachment C -- Phase 1 -- FTTP Construction Map
### This page was added to the REVISED staff report. It's really what the staff report calls "Attachment D." Let me call it Attachment D.
##################################################################################################################
From:Aram James
To:Molly; Sean Allen; Jethroe Moore; Binder, Andrew; Jeff Rosen; Council, City; Jeff Rosen; Winter Dellenbach; JoeSimitian
Subject:"YOU"RE DONE SO YOU CAN LEAVE" PALO ALTO FIRST AMENDMENT
Date:Saturday, December 17, 2022 2:24:12 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
https://youtu.be/9GyKs26Jqx8
Sent from my iPhone
From:Aram James
To:Lydia Kou; Greg Tanaka; Greer Stone; Pat Burt; Julie Lythcott-Haims; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Ed Lauing;Council, City; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; Sean Allen; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Supervisor SusanEllenberg; Cindy Chavez; Rebecca Eisenberg; Josh Becker; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; ladoris cordell; HumanRelations Commission; Wagner, April; Reifschneider, James; Shana Segal; Jay Boyarsky; Cecilia Taylor; TonyDixon
Subject:Freedom March/Rally for IRAN: "Woman, Life, Freedom", "Free All Political Prisoners", "No to Execution", "No to
Islamic Republic of Iran"
Date:Friday, December 16, 2022 9:02:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.Greetings all,
I just found out about this. I found it on San Jose Peace Center Calendar
Please share widely and come if you can!
Donna
Freedom March/Rally for IRAN: "Woman, Life,
Freedom", "Free All Political Prisoners", "No to
Execution", "No to Islamic Republic of Iran"
Sat, Dec 17, 2022 2:00pm - 4:00pm | US/Pacific
Location: San Jose City Hall Plaza
Category: Rallies, Vigils, and Actions
Description
December 10th marks the Global Human Rights Day with the slogan of “Dignity, Freedom, Justice
for All!” which coincides with the execution of many protestors (without any access to attorney) in
Iran. On Saturday Dec 17th, we will protest and urge the community and authorities to demand the
release all political prisoners without delay and continue calls to the Iranian government to halt itssystematic targeting, harassment, detention and execution of Iranians rightfully exercising their
right to free expression.
The first women-led revolutionary uprising for a Democratic Iran will foster peace in the MiddleEast which can lead to a titanic change in the world.
We invite the media to echo our global outcry to the atrocities of Iranian regime and its disregard
for basic human rights before it’s too late.
Please come to this momentous event and see how Iranians and our Bay Area supporters areexcited and extremely enthusiastic about inevitable regime change in Iran.
When:
Saturday Dec 17th
Time:
2:00 – 4:00 PM
Where: San Jose, CAfrom: San Jose City Hall
To: Plaza De Cesar Chaves
Who: Bay Area residentsThis is a grassroots event organized by the Bay Area communities, including community leaders,
human rights activists, women's rights activists, and many more.
In case of conflict in your schedule, we are more than happy to forward a video of our event upon
your confirmation.
Sincerely Yours,
BayArea4Iran Media Team
Megan: 925-212-5575Yasaman: 510-396-7901
Daryoush: 650-814-9376
Arzhang: 408-439-3527
Background:
Since the death of Mahsa Amini on September 16, 2022, at the hands of the morality police, an
estimated 459 innocent protestors have been killed, including 70 minors (amnesty international).
Over 18,000 social activists, journalists, lawyers, artists and students have been jailed withoutaccess to attorneys-several of whom have been sentenced to death and their lawyers arrested.
"The Iranian authorities executed today a young protester, Mohsen Shekari, after he was convicted
and sentenced to death in proceedings that bore no resemblance to a meaningful trial for
participating in the ongoing popular uprising across the country, said Amnesty International today."Amnesty International has identified 20 people at risk of execution in connection with the protests.
They include:
11 individuals sentenced to death: Sahand Nourmohammad-Zadeh; Mahan Sadrat (Sedarat)
Madani; Manouchehr Mehman Navaz; Mohammad Boroughani; Mohammad Ghobadlou; SamanSeydi (Yasin); Hamid Ghare Hasanlou; Mohammad Mehdi Karami; Sayed Mohammad Hosseini;
Hossein Mohammadi; andan unnamed individual in Alborz province.
Three individuals who have undergone trials on capital charges and who are either at risk of being
sentenced to death or may have already been sentenced to death, with no publicly availableinformation on their status: Saeed Shirazi; Abolfazl Mehri Hossein Hajilou; and Mohsen Rezazadeh
Gharegholou.
Six individuals who may be awaiting or undergoing trial on charges carrying the death penalty:
Akbar Ghafari; Toomaj Salehi; Ebarhim Rigi; Amir Nasr Azadani; Saleh Mirhashemi; and SaeedYaghoubi.
IG: https://www.instagram.com/bay_area4iran/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/bayarea4IranFB Event: https://fb.me/e/2wPRBgA94
Telegram: BayArea4Iran
Contact: Arzhang Kalbali
Email: alikalbali@yahoo.comPhone: 4084393527
More Info: https://www.instagram.com/bay_area4iran/
--
"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom byappealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them."
Assata Shakur
2 books you must read: "Against Our Better Judgement: The hidden history of how the U.S. wasused to create Israel" by Alison Weir
http://www.againstourbetterjudgment.com/
"State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel" by Thomas Suarezhttp://thomassuarez.com/SoT.html
Free Palestine!Right of Return to Palestine for all Palestinians!
Free all political prisoners!
Leonard Peltier www.WhoIsLeonardPeltier.info
Mumia Abu-Jamal www.FreeMumia.com
Ruchell Cinque Magee http://denverabc.wordpress.com/prisoners-dabc-supports/political-
prisoners-database/ruchell-cinque-magee/
Russell Maroon Shoatz https://russellmaroonshoats.wordpress.com/
Mutulu Shakur http://mutulushakur.com/site/
Julian Assange https://assangedefense.org
The Holy Land Five:
Shukri Abu Baker Ghassan Elashi Mufid Abdulqader Abdulrahman Odeh Mohammad Elmezain
https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-trial-and-conviction-of-the-holy-land-foundation-
five/237440/
and thousands more
End Solitary Confinement
https://prisonerhungerstrikesolidarity.wordpress.com
California Prison Focus http://newest.prisons.org/our_story
End United $tates of Amerikkka invasions and occupationsU.S. Government and UN Occupation Force Soldiers - Hands off Haiti!
http://www.haitisolidarity.net/
Donna WallachDonnaIsAnActivist@gmail.com
Skype: palestinewillbeTwitter: @PalestineWillBe
(cell) 408-569-6608
-- 2 books you must read: "Against Our Better Judgement: The hidden history of how the U.S. wasused to create Israel" by Alison Weir
http://www.againstourbetterjudgment.com/
"State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel" by Thomas Suarezhttp://thomassuarez.com/SoT.html
Other important websites to visit
http://www.ifamericansknew.orghttp://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/https://wearenotnumbers.org/
End the Blockade/Siege on Gaza!Tear down the Apartheid Walls in West Bank & Gaza!End the War Criminal Israeli collective punishment on the Palestinianpeople!End the illegal Apartheid Israeli Occupation of all of Palestine!Right to Return to their homes and land in Palestine for all Palestinians!End all U.S. aid to IsraelFree Palestine! Long Live Palestine!
Support Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) & Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel(PACBI) Campaigns!http://www.bdsmovement.net
http://www.WhoProfits.orghttp://www.pacbi.org
Support Solidarity with Gaza Fishershttps://sgf.freedomflotilla.org/ https://freedomflotilla.org/https://sgf.freedomflotilla.org/category/we-are-not-numbers
Support ISM volunteers in West Bank and Gaza Strip!http://www.palsolidarity.org
Donna Wallachcats4jazz@gmail.comSkype: palestinewillbeTwitter: @PalestineWillBe(h) 408-289-1522(cell) 408-569-6608
From:Hamilton Hitchings
To:Council, City
Cc:Batchelor, Dean
Subject:Municipal Residential Fiber: Please Avoid Bond Financing
Date:Friday, December 16, 2022 4:29:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
The Utilities Advisory Commission voted 6-0 to support Option 2, to proceed with building a
partial fiber residential network without incurring bond debt. The reasons they did not vote
for option one included concerns about the risk of low take rates and the current record
high interest rates. I support Option 3, enhancing the existing infrastructure and supporting
smart city initiatives. However, at least Option 2 does not involve borrowing money.
Unfortunately, it leaves the door open for future bond financing, which is problematic.
I think Option 1, which is to borrow $100 million up front to build a city wide fiber network, is
too financially risky.
According to a UPenn Law School Study*1, which analyzed 20 municipalities which were
willing to break out their fiber financials from the rest of their utilities, 11 were cash flow
negative and another 5 will require over 100 years to pay back the amount they borrowed,
and only the remaining two would be able to pay back on time. One of those two profitable
municipalities was essentially a business only offering so not representative. This study
covered projects in the period from 2010 to 2014, when municipalities were without
competition from private fiber providers. Since then conditions have become more
competitive.
For the 11 utilities that were cash flow negative that means they were not able to pay back
even one dollar of the bond debt they incurred from their fiber revenue. If the Palo Alto
service was cash flow negative that would mean we would need to repay the approximately
$200 million (including interest) from our general fund at the cost of other services such as
public safety, affordable housing, climate initiatives, library hours, south Palo Alto rail
crossings, and Cubberly modernization, etc…
When utilities have had to sell off their money losing fiber assets it’s typically been at a
dramatic loss, such as Provo Utah, Marietta Georgia*1, Quincy Florida, Salisbury, NC;
Bristol, VA; Burlington, VT; Groton, CT and Crosslake, MN*2, and they are left to pay off
their bond obligations from the general fund. Despite these many examples of failed
municipal fiber services, our consultant, Magellan refused to name a single example of a
failed fiber utility when asked by council. He also failed to mention that his examples of
profitable fiber utilities were ones which had no existing fiber competitor when launched,
unlike here in Palo Alto.
AT&T has been providing almost exactly the service that Palo Alto Municipal Fiber plans to
provide in terms of speed and price. If you are unhappy with AT&T’s fiber customer
service, you can also get it through Sonic, which I hear great things about. There is
essentially no value add of Palo Alto Municipal Fiber over AT&T Fiber. Furthermore, in
neighborhoods where AT&T is first to market or a close second, there will be very low take
rates for Palo Alto Fiber. Thus we will be cash flow negative and have to repay all of that
debt from the general fund.
In terms of take rates, AT&T Fiber already covers almost 30% of Palo Alto before recently
expanding to Greenmeadow. If we assume AT&T beats Palo Alto Fiber to market for 60%
of the residents, that leaves a potential market of 40% of households. If we optimistically
assume Palo Alto Fiber gets half of that, we get a 20% take rate, which would mean a
money losing service. However, this may be optimistic given AT&T could easily accelerate
their rollout, offer marketing incentives such as the first 6 months free and also existing
Comcast customers can continue to get high speed internet at half the price of Palo Alto
Fiber. Finally, there is good chance we will have substantially higher costs than currently
projected, limiting our ability to pay back the bond debt.
The bottom line is a city wide offering is very likely to be money losing and cost 10s of
millions up to 200 million from our general fund. Especially in areas where AT&T Fiber is
first to market or a close second. Palo Alto Fiber is a nice to have offering and not worth
betting our city’s finances on and the quality of all our existing services for. Please do not
vote for Option 1. Thank you.
Hamilton Hitchings
Footnotes:
*1: UPenn: Municipal Fiber in the United States: An Empirical Assessment of Financial
Performance, by christopher S Yoo and Timothy Pfenninger, 2017,
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-fiber-in-the-united-states-an
*2: GON with the Wind: The Failed Promise of Government Owned Networks Across
America, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, May 2020
https://www.protectingtaxpayers.org/wp-content/uploads/Broadband-Report-May-2020-
1.pdf
*3: Broadband Myths: Does Municipal Broadband Scale Well to Fit U.S. Broadband
Needs?, Doug Brake and Alexandra Bruer, June 2021
https://itif.org/publications/2021/06/24/broadband-myths-does-municipal-broadband-scale-
well-fit-us-broadband-needs/
From:Robert Smith
To:Council, City
Subject:Fiber to the Premises
Date:Friday, December 16, 2022 2:09:42 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from rlsmithjr@comcast.net. Learn why this isimportant
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor and Council, City of Palo Alto
December 16, 2022
Dear Mayor and Council:
I am writing concerning Fiber to the Premises. I welcome the latest plan which seems
to reduce the amount of city risk in fiber. However, I have an alternative approach
which I think will work better.
I suggest that you partner with AT&T (or another provider if that is workable) to meet
actual city needs without requiring much city investment. Here is how:
The city would contract with AT&T to provide the connectivity for the traffic
monitoring and similar projects. This seems like a worthwhile project but does
not require wiring everything in the city.
The city would identify areas that do not have adequate coverage (either AT&T
or Comcast) with AT&T undertaking to provide coverage. I am opposed to
building connectivity in areas that are already covered by a vendor that
customers could use. Comcast should be considered a fully competent provider
of Internet services even if not, strictly speaking, "fiber".
The city could also consider selling its dark fiber business to AT&T or another
party. I suggest capturing the value before it is too late.
My goal here is to focus the city's resources on projects that it alone can do and to get
the city out of the fiber business without more effort. There is a lot of work that needs
to be done.
Thanks in advance.
Robert Smith
From:Aram James
To:Lydia Kou; Greg Tanaka; Shikada, Ed; Greer Stone; Pat Burt; Julie Lythcott-Haims; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; EdLauing
Cc:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:San Jose overuses consultants—and the mayor says enough - San José Spotlight
Date:Friday, December 16, 2022 9:28:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.________________________________
Palo Alto City Leaders Must Keep Their Eyes On The Consultant Industrial Complex.
Once 2023 Palo Alto City Mayor Lydia Kou and new 2023 Vice Mayor Greg Tanaka take office one of the firstthings they need to do is to explore, with City Manager Ed Shikada and other staff, all ideas on how to reduce theoveruse of high cost and often unnecessary consultants. See the link to article below from the San Jose Spotlight onthis topic.
Sincerely,
aram James
https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-overuses-consultants-and-the-mayor-says-enough/
From:Jo Ann MandinachTo:Council, City; Tom DuBoisSubject:Fwd: Undeliverable: Please kill the $$$ Fiber Network project: PA has NO expertiseDate:Friday, December 16, 2022 9:13:46 AMPlease tell Council member DuBois to fix his email since he's the only one with email problems.I know he adamantly supports this project but this is absurd.
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Microsoft Outlook <MicrosoftExchange329e71ec88ae4615bbc36ab6ce41109e@paloalto365.onmicrosoft.com>Date: Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 9:09 AMSubject: Undeliverable: Please kill the $$$ Fiber Network project: PA has NO expertiseTo: <Tom.DuBois+SRS=tFy5S=4O=needtoknow.com=joann@cityofpaloalto.org>
Your message to Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org couldn't be delivered.cityofpaloalto.org suspects your message is spam andrejected it.
Tom.DuBois+SRS=tFy5S. . .Office 365 cityofpaloalto.orgSenderAction RequiredMessages suspected as spam
How to Fix ItTry to modify your message, or change how you're sending the message,using the guidance in this article: Bulk E-mailing Best Practices for SendersUsing Forefront Online Protection for Exchange. Then resend your message.If you continue to experience the problem, contact the recipient by someother means (by phone, for example) and ask them to ask their email adminto add your email address, or your domain name, to their allowed senderslist.
Was this helpful? Send feedback to Microsoft.
More Info for Email AdminsStatus code: 550 5.7.350
When Office 365 tried to send the message to the recipient (outside Office 365), the recipient'semail server (or email filtering service) suspected the sender's message is spam.
If the sender can't fix the problem by modifying their message, contact the recipient's emailadmin and ask them to add your domain name, or the sender's email address, to their list ofallowed senders.Although the sender may be able to alter the message contents to fix this issue, it's likely thatonly the recipient's email admin can fix this problem. Unfortunately, Office 365 Support isunlikely to be able to help fix these kinds of externally reported errors.
Original Message DetailsCreated Date:12/16/2022 5:08:57 PMSender Address:Tom.DuBois+SRS=tFy5S=4O=needtoknow.com=joann@CityofPaloAlto.orgRecipient Address:Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.orgSubject:Please kill the $$$ Fiber Network project: PA has NO expertise
Error DetailsReported error:550 5.7.350 Remote server returned message detected as spam -> 5505.7.1 [40.95.18.76 12] Our system has detected that this message is;likelyunsolicited mail. To reduce the amount of spam sent to Gmail,;thismessage has been blocked. Please visit;https://support.google.com/mail/?p=UnsolicitedMessageError; for moreinformation. qa38-20020a17090786a600b007acef3bec44si2954323ejc.221 - gsmtpDSN generated by:MW4PR09MB8932.namprd09.prod.outlook.com
Message HopsHOPTIME (UTC)FROM TO WITH RELAY TIME
1 12/16/20225:09:09 PM mail-oi1-f169.google.com SMTP 12 sec
2 12/16/20225:09:09 PM mail-oi1-f169.google.com BL0GCC02FT025.mail.protection.outlook.com Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384)*
3 12/16/20225:09:09 PM BL0GCC02FT025.eop-gcc02.prod.protection.outlook.com CY4PR09CA0014.outlook.office365.com Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384)*
4 12/16/20225:09:09 PM CY4PR09CA0014.namprd09.prod.outlook.com MW4PR09MB8932.namprd09.prod.outlook.com Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384)*
Original Message HeadersARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=fhFYogOrYZZ28TdnfGxeXI3KesUVnAGf/B0/mUal2acZdqsFW2kSN49oGzCZ2hjeArBqh9ki9khmZeMMbPiIvHFGxgB3CRkPN/WTcxoA3fx93GXjarEDVTC8CeWrPiprQWEjOnP8b6fP+w7dUpy6fG1QIMimVAjo0pIBUc8gGhk1HlsGS9MYGHeNVAZyG7Es7g5MsoHVsjW7+5vIMjInDoc1fECnUb41CVOa2cPGpawQv0lq8tOEN2PBrHoZdvZ+pd2/UTFohkSWzyCvxKoVZIfBYSDsX8ijuOYyk2VTQSKuclhjXtdVIIu5t1QEdxKno5q0AhHqvYnQZ8GhSt0b+Q==ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=43uNLIX5VsperF6UK4PPoSR8b0ws8Ekmb1RZsychctI=; b=ISPFiUpXeq3P5Ge0wXvaRrfQFp7RDkUKRPcasHnke1znAhDLfgfatieU8kWCM581okClg9OmSnNn9PpfXts+2Q33l5kjfxf9vL7BHeQL7REEQwwdxWJrx2s/XuQDwVEo3BXdp4q0kJK2EZFfoLhgjyPausczg3Au5zyXTosXKD9nlnaI/dYAHHLMT7EqNzzDKn3nMOvsYpWU0eY0AMzZ1rdyR4S9FKScSQp6WSJkV9/EAprw4sh3HTtBGzV7i/PAZpMTPPQxOQXlAOTs2LjMH1S5NxsYUsP7iGG+W2yC27uaJ2Q1eDe2hYp/eU6LMb3hgurUO5gz02m7cTuNrGigcw==ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none (sender ip is 209.85.167.169) smtp.rcpttodomain=cityofpaloalto.org smtp.mailfrom=needtoknow.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=needtoknow.com; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=needtoknow-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; arc=none (0)DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paloalto365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-paloalto365-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=43uNLIX5VsperF6UK4PPoSR8b0ws8Ekmb1RZsychctI=; b=W6cIGrcJVaLJ6d8rd4tlhz1FefWPl/nOMxgg76Vg93A7x3rF7fThQcFBFk16OLO1p1Vh2wMhbdXmW9d2FayC///Pj76+wR42c2zDxgESac6Zkwjr1GlQRQBDTzLxlMW3McT2J1e6IQdsivxWLySGmPtIRE4pzXqIe/56Nre1dVo=Resent-From: <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>Received: from CY4PR09CA0014.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:910:2::24) by MW4PR09MB8932.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:303:1f8::13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.5924.16; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:09:09 +0000Received: from BL0GCC02FT025.eop-gcc02.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:f400:7d05::208) by CY4PR09CA0014.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:910:2::24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.5924.12 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:09:09 +0000Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is 209.85.167.169) smtp.mailfrom=needtoknow.com; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=needtoknow-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com;dmarc=none action=none header.from=needtoknow.com;Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: needtoknow.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)Received: from mail-oi1-f169.google.com (209.85.167.169) by BL0GCC02FT025.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.97.10.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.5924.12 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 17:09:09 +0000Received: by mail-oi1-f169.google.com with SMTP id v82so2479730oib.4 for <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:09:09 -0800 (PST)DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=needtoknow-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bWsT5CGWKHNkuOTzASMnyZkLcagdYPel94e/aJnzpHU=; b=NR61pOr1f9Owg8u5X1U5odzt7l4fH+Zwn/zC0Ll7vTNCEvztWP6JiYtuVHdCUM9/LW 9bQdPF/laq9XvpHfz1wVxPFATb6fqzgs9QUcD5Mkb+WGeqd+5Ddqm4Lkh8I5Hq9Jveg2 P/24TSChPWoSsG86BMH4MLkdhQzxeAgDFX7VTLProEmEYeVQDEFnWG6NARgT781CY31U xVlKNn296y0yt61X0Q5YblKywhTY7AkjLSwHqyusO7D0ZdaTVSW0zl/JQdzKH1qPE5NT ZD0wPOIaj6o64nCLh5ON3N27wnX7VqA6L/ECRXCCAbsxap2I78Nb7sKvEdNTBUu16/OE NcjQ==X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bWsT5CGWKHNkuOTzASMnyZkLcagdYPel94e/aJnzpHU=; b=LXyR/oMuAuaiWHRyfGPIATgqI4Yr86kQV073fDutFPIAsP4uChLTDOihqL0qeRXxBa fyqM91T3pprZYZC2DozpoVd4mVGYCM+IukxPRKG8cDY+iuw2FiCuxwm20PMwb5OEwCdZ RN/r/BpAQvR2reo3R7VRXEQ9gVQyv0902/CmDyQZ4oDVeNnwO/0AMmImrcKMGh/NI2/w 7HUNf8HEJY3TJUeOeTMw2/RjLKF7DKjWPeMA/IwYlHoLL99tE4PwKOHu7DvXNIZp9Di9 ZZ6vBSnIfIlAU4nEzu25sdYBPFpZ7VaKQR1PZz1vpMRV/YyLPtiRHdIg2715xV/bsO6j 2HYg==X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnM1CY4oX7hU+lqS3lfplYLq4QT4ri0GMglC0tHmWjXTlCOBDVF 58v/yJOirLGakixkb3J8qIC8wWj40draELG7iha05tYuie4R/w==X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf6s83MlOZulusfv3cinzHVrYtwRruyRyGRECyY9+vWis8s7cyTc+or0RlS3eEuGWBGzBmcK0MkAt0iGphcn5Vc=X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:10d0:b0:35a:cf84:d834 with SMTP id s16-20020a05680810d000b0035acf84d834mr608501ois.41.1671210547782; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:09:07 -0800 (PST)MIME-Version: 1.0From: Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:08:57 -0800Message-ID: <CAMie-LJ9Ewj7Tm+xKasZ+QETJf5nQHQ5Qs0NUJou0EifPKRrBw@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Please kill the $$$ Fiber Network project: PA has NO expertiseTo: city.council@cityofpaloalto.orgContent-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000bbaea05eff507ba"Return-Path: joann@needtoknow.comX-EOPAttributedMessage: 0X-EOPTenantAttributedMessage: 68949a6d-ce6e-4230-8536-f3e1f8d5dfdd:0X-MS-PublicTrafficType: EmailX-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: BL0GCC02FT025:EE_|MW4PR09MB8932:EE_X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 09a254aa-afe0-429a-0a49-08dadf883f0aX-LD-Processed: 68949a6d-ce6e-4230-8536-f3e1f8d5dfdd,ExtFwdX-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 2X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-Relay: 1X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:209.85.167.169;CTRY:US;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:mail-oi1-f169.google.com;PTR:mail-oi1-f169.google.com;CAT:NONE;SFS:(13230022)(4636009)(451199015)(336012)(508600001)(42186006)(356005)(55446002)(86362001)(7596003)(7636003)(26005)(83380400001)(9686003)(33964004)(5660300002)(34206002)(2906002)(8676002)(6666004)(70586007)(68406010)(450100002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1022;X-ExternalRecipientOutboundConnectors: 68949a6d-ce6e-4230-8536-f3e1f8d5dfddX-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, OOF, AutoReplyX-MS-Exchange-ForwardingLoop: Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org;68949a6d-ce6e-4230-8536-f3e1f8d5dfddX-OriginatorOrg: cityofpaloalto.orgX-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2022 17:09:09.2515 (UTC)X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 09a254aa-afe0-429a-0a49-08dadf883f0aX-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 68949a6d-ce6e-4230-8536-f3e1f8d5dfddX-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BL0GCC02FT025.eop-gcc02.prod.protection.outlook.comX-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: AnonymousX-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: InternetX-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MW4PR09MB8932
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.orgCc: Bcc: Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:08:57 -0800Subject: Please kill the $$$ Fiber Network project: PA has NO expertiseCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.Dear Mayor Burt and Council,
Please stop this pricey boondoggle, Now we learn it won't serve the entire community -- something most of us knew when we started asking questions about neighborhoods with underground wiring which surprised the CPAU staff.
Not only is this ignorance of what's what unforgivable this is just another expensive boondoggle "justified" by an absurd survey that doesn't let us say we don't want it!
Please get your act together and fix the electrical grid instead, restore full library hours and stop wasting OUR money on your silly fantasies.
Most sincerely,Jo Ann Mandinach
From:Jo Ann Mandinach
To:Council, City
Subject:Please kill the $$$ Fiber Network project: PA has NO expertise
Date:Friday, December 16, 2022 9:09:15 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Burt and Council,
Please stop this pricey boondoggle, Now we learn it won't serve the entirecommunity -- something most of us knew when we started asking questions about
neighborhoods with underground wiring which surprised the CPAU staff.
Not only is this ignorance of what's what unforgivable this is just another expensiveboondoggle "justified" by an absurd survey that doesn't let us say we don't want it!
Please get your act together and fix the electrical grid instead, restore full library
hours and stop wasting OUR money on your silly fantasies.
Most sincerely,
Jo Ann Mandinach
From:Alex Ng
To:Council, City
Subject:Student Documentary Interview
Date:Thursday, December 15, 2022 10:45:47 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from alex.c.ng@outlook.com. Learn why this isimportant
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I am a high school student currently enrolled
at Palo Alto High School and am making a documentary on the possibility of raising the driving
age in the US. I was hoping someone from the City of Palo Alto would be open to conducting
an in-person interview about their viewpoints on the issue, given the experience that they
may have regarding safety issues in Palo Alto. I understand the City may have a busy schedule,
but any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks again,
Alex
From:Aram James
To:Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Binder, Andrew; Vicki Veenker; PlanningCommission; Council, City
Subject:From The Mercury News e-edition - Two more deaths are linked to cold weather (Palo Alto needs a cold weather
shelter too)
Date:Thursday, December 15, 2022 2:03:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
I saw this The Mercury News e-edition article on the The Mercury News e-edition app and thought you’d be
interested.
Two more deaths are linked to cold weather
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=7f3c6468-5efb-422d-89cd-
b7d6e6ec6cbe&appcode=SAN252&eguid=b39f1115-1308-416a-bf0e-e2ab2f85c61b&pnum=35#
For more great content like this subscribe to the The Mercury News e-edition app here:
Sent from my iPhone
From:Romola Georgia
To:onlineissues@duncansolutions.com; UtilitiesCommunications; Council, City
Subject:Fw: Permit Account Registration
Date:Thursday, December 15, 2022 1:29:21 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from rgeorgia@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
I received this email confirming my registration for a parking permit. When I attempted to
activate the account, it required an account number. No account number was sent to me, so Ican't do that.
I was on hold with your customer service for 25 minutes before anyone answered.
I moved this week, the car is on the street and there seems to be no way to get the permit quickly.
Thanks for your immediate attention,
Sincerely,Romola Georgia
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: OnlinePermitsRevColl@cityofpaloalto.org <onlinepermitsrevcoll@cityofpaloalto.org>To: "rgeorgia@yahoo.com" <rgeorgia@yahoo.com>Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022, 12:43:57 PM PSTSubject: Permit Account Registration
Thank you for registering your account with the City of Palo Alto. You must activate your account before
your account can be used by clicking the following link:
http://duncan.imageenforcement.com/PermitSites/PaloAltoPermits/Home/ActivateAccount?
key=nnQhOcfYgigLbA7Y7uN%252bumIruc%252bQ%252bwEzQqlS54muLCU%253d
Please do not reply to this message. It is not a monitored email account. If you have anyquestions please contact the City of Palo Alto Permit Processing Center at 866-210-2417 (M-Ffrom 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Pacific Standard Time). You may click here to re-enter the portal.
Sincerely,Revenue CollectionsCity Of Palo Alto
From:Charlie Weidanz
To:Council, City
Subject:The 43rd Annual Tall Tree Awards - Now Accepting Nominations
Date:Thursday, December 15, 2022 11:20:13 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mark Your Calendar
The 43rd Annual Tall Tree Awards
Thursday, April 20, 2023
Oshman Family JCC | 3921 Fabian Way, Palo Alto
Recognizing our Outstanding:
Business, Professional Businessperson, Citizen Volunteer, Non Profit
Organization
Event Info
Nomination Form
Tickets Available Soon
This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe clickhere. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email atinfo@paloaltochamber.com.
From:Aram James
To:Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Wagner, April; Jethroe Moore; Sean Allen; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Shikada,Ed; HRW Silicon Valley; Shana Segal; Greer Stone; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Greg Tanaka; Jeff Rosen;Kevin Jensen; dennis burns; Joe Simitian; Supervisor Cindy Chavez; Otto Lee; Rebecca Eisenberg; Jay Boyarsky;Cecilia Taylor; Tony Dixon; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; ladoris cordell; Human Relations Commission; Enberg,Nicholas; Perron, Zachary
Subject:BOP chief: Official who beat inmates deserves 2nd chance ( second chance or double standard when it involves
members of law enforcement? You be the judge?)
Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:08:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
https://www.corrections1.com/prea/articles/bop-chief-official-who-beat-inmates-deserves-2nd-chance-
pupR9xDIuVVqOHWN/
Sent from my iPhone
From:Rebecca Eisenberg
To:Patrick Burt; Pat Burt; Pat Burt; Burt, Patrick
Cc:Jmyers@thenation.com; Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto News Letter
Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 3:33:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt:
I think it is likely that your email was hacked, unless you intended to send the email below,which I received three times. The third time, inextricably, was sent to Jmyers@thenation.com,
with me on bcc. So JMeyers is included in this response, in case this email was in fact aforgery, which I have to imagine it was.
I hope that this response is helpful. And if this is a security issue, I am confident that it will be
resolved swiftly.
Best regards, Rebecca
Director, District 7
Santa Clara Valley Water District "the spark the board needs" --Los Altos Town Crier
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 2:01 PM Patrick Burt <patrickthegunner@gmail.com> wrote:Hello,
I trust you are well and I hope this email finds you well.
I am touching base with you to thank you for your support this year for the city of Palo Alto.Especially, your concerns and suggestions on how we can make Palo Alto a better place.
Furthermore, this email is also to serve as notice that we will be using this medium to informyou of some of the projects and initiatives we intend to embark on next year (2023).
Lastly, we will be sending out another support email in the coming days for your generoussupport to assist us prosecute some of the major projects we intend to execute next year.Kindly respond to this email if you would like to know of ways you can support.
No support is too little.
Thank you once more for supporting our great city of Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
**Please Note That You Can Also Reach Me on patrickburner@californiamail.com**
Patrick Burt (Mayor)
City Hall250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301
Office Hours1st and 3rd Tuesdays of the month from 10 a.m. - 12 p.m. For the safety of our constituents,we have temporarily moved all office hours to Zoom. Drop-in appointments are possible,but scheduled appointments are preferred.
From:Aram James
To:Jethroe Moore; Pat Burt; Greer Stone; Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; Council, City; Sean Allen; Jeff Rosen; JulieLythcott-Haims; Winter Dellenbach; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Richard Konda; Rebecca Eisenberg; Jay Boyarsky;Josh Becker; Reifschneider, James; Enberg, Nicholas; chuck jagoda; ladoris cordell; Human RelationsCommission; Wagner, April; Cecilia Taylor; Perron, Zachary; Tony Dixon; Joe Simitian
Subject:Cop Tackles Black Man On His Property For Filming Him
Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 3:12:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
https://youtu.be/FqRhrfQRwXw
Sent from my iPhone
From:Charlie Weidanz
To:Council, City
Subject:HOLIDAY CRAFT WORKSHOP - CALIFORNIA AVE - SATURDAY DECEMBER 17
Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 2:55:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
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 orcomments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com.
From:Charlie Weidanz
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Automated License Plate Recognition discussion / Q&A
Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 1:30:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Palo Alto Police Department - Automated License Plate Recognition Q&A
January 10, 2023
12:15pm - 1:00pm
The Palo Alto Police Department is exploring the possibility of deploying Automated License Plate
Recognition cameras (ALPR) in 2023.
Please join Captain James Reifschneider for an informational discussion
January 10, 2023 - 12:15pm - 1:00pm
Captain Reifschneider will explain what ALPR is (and isn’t), what it does (and doesn’t) do, and how it
might aid police in preventing and investigating criminal activity in Palo Alto.
He will also discuss applicable law, as well as policy and privacy considerations if the Department begins
using ALPR.
Captain Reifschneider is eager to answer your questions and hear your concerns and feedback.
Please RSVP to Charlie Weidanz - charlie@paloaltochamber.com to get the ZOOM link
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 atinfo@paloaltochamber.com.
From:Charlie Weidanz
To:Council, City
Subject:ACTERRA INTRODUCES CLIMATE FRIENDLY KITCHENS
Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 12:15:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
ACTERRA INTRODUCES CLIMATE FRIENDLY KITCHENS
Climate Friendly Kitchens is a free sustainability hospitality program focused on working directly with
Bay Area restaurants through personalized on-site consultations and training.
Acterra provides support to our local restaurant community by helping them develop plant-based menus
and prevent wasted food in the kitchen and dining space. Participating restaurants reap the rewards of
expanded clientele, better waste management, improved marketing tactics, and from demonstrating
environmental leadership in their community. List of services:
Plant-based recipe development
Menu evaluation, menu writing, and labeling
Marketing and website assessments and recommendations
Food waste evaluation and prevention tactics
Kitchen and service training pertaining to plant-based cooking, diets, and dietary restrictions
Supermarket tours to identify plant-based ingredients
Planning menu launch events
About Us:
Acterra is a San Francisco Bay Area 501(c)(3) nonprofit based in Palo Alto that brings people together
to create local solutions for a healthy planet.
For more information ;
Climate Friendly Kitchens
watch for details on upcoming Acterra Climate Friendly Kitchens webinar in January
This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe clickhere. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email atinfo@paloaltochamber.com.
From:Burt, Patrick
To:Elizabeth Guthrie; Council, City
Cc:Joshua Moss; Pat Burt
Subject:Re: SV Business Journal request: Will Palo Alto be part of our Economic Forecast event Jan. 26
Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:38:40 AM
Elizabeth,
I'd be glad to participate. It sounds like a good event. What time of day would
the panel be?
Also, I've cc'd my personal email which is the better one to use.
Best regards,
Pat Burt
650-892-0925
From: Elizabeth Guthrie <eguthrie@bizjournals.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 10:35 AM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Joshua Moss <jmoss@bizjournals.com>
Subject: SV Business Journal request: Will Palo Alto be part of our Economic Forecast event Jan. 26
Some people who received this message don't often get email from eguthrie@bizjournals.com. Learn why this isimportant
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello Mayor Burt,
My name is Elizabeth Guthrie, and I am the Events Director at Silicon Valley Business Journal. The
first SVBJ public event of 2023 will be an Economic Forecast discussion and we’re hoping you’ll agree
to take part.
We’re working to bring the mayors of the region’s four biggest cities — Fremont, Palo Alto, San Jose
and Santa Clara — together for a 30-40 minute panel conversation to talk about the big economic
issues facing Silicon Valley in 2023. The event will take place Jan. 26 at The Westin in downtown San
Jose.
Is this something you’re able/interested in doing? Happy to discuss more or provide other details.
I’ve included our Editor, Josh Moss, on this email chain to help answer any content/programming
questions. I can help with event-related questions.
I hope you’ll be able to join us. We would really like to get your voice into this program!
Please let me know if you have questions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Elizabeth GuthrieEvents DirectorP 408.299.1871 | F 408.295.5028Silicon Valley Business Journal
From:Aram James
To:Michael Gennaco; Sean Allen; Binder, Andrew; Jethroe Moore; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Rosen; Winter Dellenbach; JulieLythcott-Haims; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Council, City; Greer Stone; Shana Segal; Reifschneider, James;Wagner, April; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; ladoris cordell; Human Relations Commission; Lydia Kou;Greg Tanaka; Richard k
Subject:From The Mercury News e-edition - Council approves expansion of police auditor’s powers
Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 7:57:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
I saw this The Mercury News e-edition article on the The Mercury News e-edition app and thought you’d be
interested.
Council approves expansion of police auditor’s powers
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=2b189b42-a514-4b9c-a822-
46dcd26512b8&appcode=SAN252&eguid=34b668c3-92b5-4eb0-bd6d-725963d24eac&pnum=4#
For more great content like this subscribe to the The Mercury News e-edition app here:
Sent from my iPhone
From:Aram James
To:Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; Sean Allen; Jethroe Moore; Julie Lythcott-Haims; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com;Council, City; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Winter Dellenbach; Josh Becker; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; GreerStone; ladoris cordell; Human Relations Commission; Enberg, Nicholas; Wagner, April; Reifschneider, James;Perron, Zachary; Cecilia Taylor; Council, City; Council, City
Subject:The New McCarthyism: Angela Davis Speaks in New York After Critics Shut ...
Date:Wednesday, December 14, 2022 12:16:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
https://youtu.be/QR5_sNrNV6s
Sent from my iPhone
From:Art Liberman
To:pat.burt@cityofpalo.org; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Another argument for a bike/ped crossing in the Loma Verde area
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 8:50:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, Councilmember Cormack -
At previous meetings, the Rail Committee has discussed the possibility and feasibility
of a bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Caltrain and Alma in the Loma Verde vicinity.
I have heard statements that such a crossing would provide a way for workers in Palo
Alto to reach the Stanford Research Park by bicycle. I want to point out that such a
crossing would also provide a significant advantage for folks going in the other
direction, specifically a shorter and safer route to school for children living in the
housing planed in the Fry area development and other housing planned in the North
Ventura area.
At the November PABAC meeting, we heard from Planner Clair Raybould of the
early stage plans for townhomes proposed for the Fry Area / Development Agreement
area. We heard that children living in that housing and other housing that might be
proposed in the North Ventura area would go to Barron Park School and Fletcher
Middle School. This would require a lengthy commute and also the crossing of ElCamino, probably at Matadero, and then, for older children, traveling on Matadero
Ave to reach the Bol Park Path.
If a bike/ped crossing were to exist in the the Loma Verde / El Carmelo area,elementary age children could easily bike or walk the short distance to El Carmelo
School and older ones could bike to JLS Middle School.
Sincerely,
Arthur Liberman
From:Aram James
To:Binder, Andrew; Sean Allen; Shikada, Ed; Jethroe Moore; dennis burns; Kevin Jensen; Council, City; WinterDellenbach; Joe Simitian; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Reifschneider, James; Wagner, April; Human RelationsCommission; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; ladoris cordell; Enberg,Nicholas; Perron, Zachary
Subject:San Mateo County Sheriff I-Team investigation
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 6:58:35 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: Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>Date: December 13, 2022 at 6:28:44 PM PSTTo: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>Subject: San Mateo County Sheriff I-Team investigation
“Among those on that list include some high-profile tech executives, well-known
philanthropists, and at least five billionaires, including Oracle founder Larry
Ellison, tech CEO Tom Siebel, and Riley and Susan Bechtel of the Bechtel
Corporation.”
San Mateo Co. Sheriff criticized for potentially
favoring donors when issuing gun permits
abc7news.com
Sent from my iPhone
From:Aram James
To:Binder, Andrew; Sean Allen; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; Shikada, Ed; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; SupervisorSusan Ellenberg; Council, City; Jay Boyarsky; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; ladoris cordell; ShanaSegal; Human Relations Commission; Enberg, Nicholas; Wagner, April; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary
Subject:Selling 2A Rights?! Another Sheriff Taking Bribes?!?
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 6:30:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
https://youtu.be/-hFkus9-tkw
Sent from my iPhone
From:Charlie Weidanz
To:Council, City
Subject:Stanford Blood Center has a critical need for Type O Blood.
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 3:25:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
As a special thanks for keeping patients a priority, anyone who donates (December 11 – 31) 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 clickhere. 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:Pat Burt; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; Shikada, Ed; Sean Allen; Joe Simitian; WinterDellenbach; Josh Becker; Jay Boyarsky; Human Relations Commission; Cindy Chavez; Otto Lee; chuck jagoda;Greer Stone; Shana Segal; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council; Planning Commission; ParkRecCommission
Subject:Only 2K more to go! Stand up to the pro-Israel lobby and help us reach our goal
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 2:03:20 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: "Avi Lewis, IJV" <communications@ijvcanada.org>Date: December 13, 2022 at 12:35:29 PM PSTTo: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>Subject: Only 2K more to go! Stand up to the pro-Israel lobby and help usreach our goal
Dear Aram,
After years of following and supporting Independent Jewish Voices’
work, I finally decided to join as a member in September of this
year. And I couldn’t be more fiercely proud to have done so.
When I joined, it was at the height of a nasty smear campaign led
by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) against the NDPand our leader, Jagmeet Singh. CIJA had the chutzpah to go after
Jagmeet simply because the NDP had recently released a bold
policy platform that condemned Israeli violations of Palestinian
human rights.
The attacks, as usual, were cartoonishly vicious and entirely
unfounded. IJV was the only Canadian Jewish group to standup and say “not in our name”, and to defend Jagmeet and the NDP
from this broadside in bad-faith. Regardless of your political
leanings, our democracy is diminished when people, parties, or
organizations get misrepresented and smeared simply fordefending human rights.
Aram, IJV is in the very last week of our
fundraising campaign. We only have $2000 left togo before we make it over the finish line and hit ourgoal of $75 000. Will you join me in making a
donation today to get us there?
Donate today and help us over the finish
line
Or better yet, why not join as a member or supporter as I did?Joining is the best way to show our strength in numbers and build
the Palestine solidarity movement in Canada.
As a Jewish New Democrat, and former federal candidate, I’m
proud of the NDP’s new 13 point policy on Israel-Palestine. It’s
grounded in a moral clarity that is vanishingly rare in Canadian
foreign policy, and it came about because grassroots activists likeyou and I fought for it.
Conservative Zionist groups like CIJA are out of touch and out ofsync with the progressive Jewish community on Israel-Palestine.
That’s why more and more of us are joining IJV, and expressing
outrage over Israel's many indefensible policies. With Israel
having elected its most right wing and overtly racist governmentever, we are seeing CIJA and its allies reach new heights of
desperation, viciousness, and moral bankruptcy. We need IJV to
embody the values of social justice and respect for fundamental
human rights that are so starkly absent in those aggressivelypuffed-up self-proclaimed pillars of the Jewish community in
Canada.
Challenge the pro-Israel lobby: donate
today
So I was also proud to sign IJV’s Together Against Apartheidpledge earlier this year, and I was thrilled to see my signaturealongside dozens of Canadian elected officials from all levels of
government! This is really the first time in Canadian history that
so many of our leaders have been unafraid to use the term “Israeli
apartheid”, and it’s much on account of IJV’s work.
This crucial organization, and the inspiring and thankless work it
does deserves your support today. Please consider donatingwhatever your means allow.
In passionate solidarity,
Donate to IJV or become a member!
Avi Lewis,
IJV member, filmmaker and AssociateProfessor of Geography at UBC
communications@ijvcanada.org
PO Box 6, 216 Broadway
Orangeville, ON L9W 1K3
Canada
Unsubscribe from this list
View in your browser
From:Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & ZooTo:Council, CitySubject:Support the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & ZooDate:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 1:00:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Supporters,
It is hard to believe that a year has passed since the reopening of the newly rebuilt
Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ). It has been incredible to see the wonder andexcitement in children’s faces as they climb and explore up among birds and
branches out over the zoo, or experiment with the kinesthetic exhibits in theexpanded exhibit hall. This new facility was made possible by our supporters, and it
has truly become a special and welcoming place for children of all abilities to
engage with nature and science.
We hope that you enjoy reading our 2021-2022 Annual Report, which featuresphotos of the new JMZ’s exhibits and animals. In addition to supporting and
enhancing the JMZ, the Friends fundraises for programs that expand access to
science education in the community. One of our longest running programs, which
brings the JMZ’s science lessons to elementary school children in the Ravenswood
City School District and East Palo Alto Charter School, served 1,590 studentsthrough 414 in-person lessons during the 2021-2022 school year. To learn more
about this initiative, watch the video below.
As we close out the year, please consider supporting the JMZ and its missionby donating to the Friends' Annual Giving Fund, which includes support for
science education programs:
$90 pays for half a year’s worth of teaching supplies for a single JMZ Science
Outreach class.
$180 pays for an entire classroom science lesson in a selected elementary
school or at a Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula clubhouse.
$700 pays for a third-grade class to visit the Baylands Nature Preserve,
including transportation and instruction.
We are incredibly grateful for the continued support of our donors who allow us tofund and expand our impactful programs. Thank you for being a valued member of
the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo community!
Giving Tuesday with the PAJMZ & Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo
DONATE NOW
The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zooinfo@friendsjmz.org | friendsjmz.org
Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo | 1451 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Unsubscribe city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by info@friendsjmz.org powered by
Try email marketing for free today!
From:mark weiss
To:Council, City
Cc:Julie Lythcott-Haims; vickiforcouncil.22@gmail.com; Rebecca Eisenberg; Shikada, Ed; O"Kane, Kristen
Subject:PAVE or PA???
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:53:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
By my estimation, we now spent 10 times more on plastic dinosaurs then we do on the arts perse.
They took all the trees and put 'em in a tree museumAnd they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them
No, no, no
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone?They paved paradise and put up a parking lot…(Joni Mitchell, 1970)
Mark Weiss
Arts activist
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
From:Aram James
To:Binder, Andrew; Sean Allen; Jeff Rosen; Council, City; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Vicki Veenker; Shikada, Ed; RebeccaEisenberg; Pat Burt; Shana Segal; Jethroe Moore; Greer Stone; Greer Stone; Planning Commission; ParkRecCommission; Human Relations Commission; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Council, City; Josh Becker; ladoriscordell; Enberg, Nicholas; Wagner, April; Tannock, Julie; Reifschneider, James; Cecilia Taylor
Subject:Police dog bites 20-year-old pregnant woman unrelated to chase for suspect
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:22:38 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
https://youtu.be/5h1BizuCKAY
Sent from my iPhone
From:Mohit Mookim
To:Burt, Patrick; Council, City; julieforpaloalto@gmail.com; vicki.veenker@gmail.com; ed@edlauing.com
Cc:Robert Chun; Anais Carell; Jack Weller; Nathan Vaclav Tauger; Meredith Bohen; Jacob James Maddox; Jose Luis
Gomez Gamez
Subject:Please Stop Threatening to Further Displace Unhoused Families
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:15:24 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from momookim@stanford.edu. Learn why this isimportant
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,
I am a Stanford Law student and Palo Alto resident of 8 years, and I am writing along with
other concerned law students about the Tow Warnings that were placed yesterday on manyvehicles parked along El Camino (near Stanford Ave).
This is an inhumane policy. Many families who work for and support Palo Alto businesses and
residents cannot come close to affording housing in the city or nearby. They often have nochoice but to live out of their vehicles or RVs, if they have them. It is one thing for Palo Alto
to have a startling lack of housing affordable to low income families (a deficit of 2,500 unitsaccording to the recent RHNA allocation); but to persistently harass people living out of their
vehicles with nowhere else to go is completely unacceptable.
This group of law students has reached out to Council about these issues before, including inlast March when these same notices were issued to this same community. We were told that
the police department is "extremely sensitive to situations that appear to be someone's home."That is not an adequate response: even from my walk down El Camino, it was clear that onlyvehicles with the most evidence of habitation were being cited (e.g. larger vehicles withlots of belongings in them).
We were also told that very few vehicles are actually towed, although tickets are frequently
issued. Again, harassing and intimidating folks with the threat of losing the vehicle they areliving out of is cruel and uncompassionate. Moreover, even if it is “just a fine,” extracting
fines and fees from unhoused vehicle-dwellers can pose significant hardship for these familiesand is largely inconsequential for the city.
Please just leave these families be. It is the least the City can do for them. We call on you toimmediately revoke these Tow Warnings and designate this stretch of El Camino a safeparking zone. Given the time sensitive nature of this request, please respond within 48 hours.
Thank you,
Mohit Mookim
J.D. Candidate | Stanford Law School
From:Aram James
To:Sean Allen; Binder, Andrew; Jethroe Moore; Julie Lythcott-Haims; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Council, City;Rebecca Eisenberg; Shikada, Ed; ParkRec Commission; Pat Burt; Shana Segal; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia;Planning Commission; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; ladoris cordell; Enberg,Nicholas; Human Relations Commission; Wagner, April; Reifschneider, James; Cecilia Taylor; Tony Dixon; Perron,Zachary
Subject:Palo Alto needs to shelve its Tasers now —
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 10:57:22 AM
Attachments:Aram James (DJ-1-12-18) (00000003).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.________________________________
12/13/2022
Hi Folks,Although the title of this piece suggests the article was focused on Not allowing Tasers in our jails
the concepts explored in the piece make a compelling case for shelving Tasers altogether. Tasers arevery expensive to purchase and maintain and the weapon fails in the field approximately 50% oftime they are deployed. Tasers deaths in this country are now well over 1000. 85% or more of thosewho die were unarmed at the time the Taser was deployed. A hugely disproportionate number of
those who die after being tasered are black, brown or suffering from a severe mental illness. It istime we ask our city manager and police chief to explore the possibility of shelving Taserspermanently in Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Aram James
Sent from my iPhone
From:Aram James
To:Binder, Andrew; Tannock, Julie; Jethroe Moore; Sean Allen; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Council, City; Shikada, Ed;vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Cindy Chavez; Josh Becker; Javier Ortega; Reifschneider,James; Jay Boyarsky; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; ladoris cordell; Shana Segal;Enberg, Nicholas; Human Relations Commission; Wagner, April; Cecilia Taylor; Tony Dixon; Perron, Zachary;Planning Commission
Subject:Off-duty K9 officers bites teen I KMSP FOX 9
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 9:36:11 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
https://youtu.be/5mNab0S5y1k
Sent from my iPhone
From:FEC United
To:Council, City
Subject:FEC United Education Newsletter
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 9:05:44 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links.
FEC United
Education Pillar Newsletter
December 13, 2022
The Issues are Known, How Do We Fix Them?
The problems in our schools are many - CRT, DEI, SEL, sexualization of our
children, academic failure, mental health- but how do we fix them?
There are certainly many issues that need to be addressed at once. Some areopting to pull their children from government schools. Some are pulling their
students from district schools and choosing charters. But many of these issues
exist in charter, private and parochial schools. Homeschooling is an option for
some. But, the fact remains that more than 80% of American students are
students in government schools (district or charter).
As communities we must demand that our schools -the government schools that
we all pay for through our taxes and elect boards of education to oversee for us-
find a neutral place to teach all students. The agendas need to go, and
academics must be the priority. Our children have suffered tremendous academic
loss and emotional upheaval during the past three years. The highly controversial
topics being used to divide and confuse them (DEI, CRT, SEL) has only made
things worse. Expectations for behavior, dress, and academic success must be
clearly defined and applied evenly to all students and staff.
Students should never be exposed to controversial materials without parental
consent. The definition of the materials must include age and developmentally
appropriateness, and discussions of sexuality, sexual identity, CRT, DEI, and
SEL. Parents must be included in reviewing and approving all educationalmaterials used in the classroom, not just curriculum, but also supplemental
materials.
If troubling behavior at school is noticed, parents must be informed and involved.
It is not the place of the school to step between the parent and child except invery rare circumstances.
Schools and teachers need to understand that their job is to provide a path for
academic growth and success for each student, regardless of race, creed,
culture, or sexual orientation. None of those issues matter when it comes to astudent's potential for learning. It is their job to teach facts in an age appropriate
manner that engages and allows students to grow. It means finding and using
classroom materials that are neutral in the presentation and academically
focused.
It is a parent's job to make sure that their children arrive at school ready to learn -
appropriately dressed, fed, and with an understanding that inappropriate behavior
will not be tolerated at school or at home. Parents must advocate for their children
and teach their children to advocate for themselves.
We have lost the sense of partnership with our schools. It's time to build it back.
Parental and community involvement is key. It is time to stop complaining and be
present. Volunteer in the classroom, or for a school or district committee. Show
up at meetings to learn more or speak. Run for school board. Make your newyear's resolutions to become more involved in the education of your children.
Join Us on Facebook
Use the following link to join FEC United Education Pillar FEC United- Education
pillar | Facebook Please answer the questions to be approved.
_________________________________________________________________
Education Survey
We need your help to make an impact. What are your education issues andconcerns? How are you willing to step into the gap to give our children a better
future? Respond to the survey to help to build better educational opportunities for
our children. Click this link to take our survey - https://fecunited.com/education-
pillar-survey/
If you run a private or homeschool program, share your information here so that it
can be shared with the community. education@fecunited.com
If you are willing and able to volunteer now, send an email to
education@fecunited.com
FEC is continuing to explore how we can change and provide the education
parents want for their children. If you are interested in becoming part of the
solution and taking back education, email education@fecunited.com
I Want to Help FEC United!
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:Aram James
To:Binder, Andrew; Sean Allen; Enberg, Nicholas; Michael Gennaco; Foley, Michael; Council, City; Shana Segal; JeffRosen; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Tannock, Julie; Jethroe Moore; Rebecca Eisenberg; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; PatBurt; Bains, Paul; Winter Dellenbach; Jay Boyarsky; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; ladoris cordell;Human Relations Commission; Wagner, April; Reifschneider, James; Cecilia Taylor; Tony Dixon; Perron, Zachary;Betsy Nash; Shikada, Ed; Cindy Chavez; Greg Tanaka; Afanasiev, Alex; KEVIN JENSEN; Stump, Molly
Subject:Polk County deputy forced to shoot, kill colleague"s police dog after bite
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 1:02:59 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
https://youtu.be/M5irKeYB6UM
Sent from my iPhone
From:Aram James
To:Binder, Andrew; Sean Allen; Rob Baker; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Moore; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Jeff Rosen; Council,City; Pat Burt; Shana Segal; Greer Stone; Anna Griffin; ladoris cordell; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; Shikada, Ed;Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Cindy Chavez; Javier Ortega; Josh Becker; Human Relations Commission;Enberg, Nicholas; Wagner, April; Reifschneider, James; Cecilia Taylor; Perron, Zachary; chuck jagoda; JayBoyarsky; Tony Dixon
Subject:Man bitten by police dog plans to sue
Date:Tuesday, December 13, 2022 12:58:24 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
https://youtu.be/BZef8NLme2E
Sent from my iPhone
From:Aram James
To:Tanaka, Greg; Cindy Chavez; Binder, Andrew; Sean Allen; Perron, Zachary; Doug Fort;Assemblymember.Berman@assembly.ca.gov; Joe Simitian; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council;Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Michael Gennaco; Foley, Michael; Stump, Molly; Jeff Rosen; Rob Baker;Wagner, April; mark weiss; Council, City; Rebecca Eisenberg
Subject:Indiana Police Dog Attacks Innocent Man
Date:Monday, December 12, 2022 11:17:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
>
> https://youtu.be/WlAE8idyQjY
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
From:Aram James
To:Binder, Andrew; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Sean Allen; Enberg, Nicholas; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Jethroe Moore;Jeff Rosen; Rebecca Eisenberg; Shana Segal; Greg Tanaka; vicki@vickiforcouncil.com;wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Javier Ortega; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Cindy Chavez; Tannock, Julie;Enberg, Nicholas; Cecilia Taylor; Tony Dixon; Joe Simitian; Winter Dellenbach; Rob Baker; Jay Boyarsky; Council,City; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; ladoris cordell; Human Relations Commission; Wagner, April; Reifschneider,James; Perron, Zachary; Betsy Nash
Subject:South Pasadena Police K9 Bites 5-Year-Old Boy In The Face Tuesday At Nat...
Date:Monday, December 12, 2022 11:09:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
https://youtu.be/VlEf-IAiHnw
Sent from my iPhone
From:Friends of Rebecca Eisenberg
To:Council, City
Subject:Join Rebecca at her swearing in tomorrow!
Date:Monday, December 12, 2022 10:48:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links.
Hi all, I am being sworn in at a ceremony scheduled for approx 1 PM at
tomorrow's/Tuesday 12/13 Board Meeting.
See: https://scvwd.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?
ID=1060837&GUID=5589D8B9-5B3C-4981-9B3D-
648502EC4769&Options=info%7C&Search=
I would LOVE to see you there! If you cannot attend in person at 5750 Almaden
Expressway San Jose, CA 95118-3686, then please attend via Zoom -- URL in
the agenda linked below! (I know that the swearing-in is not on the agenda, but
I was promised it is happening at the beginning of open session.) If you do join
(in person or by Zoom) please consider staying for the meeting! There is a time
for public comment, and I encourage people to make comments. There also
are some important items on the agenda, and you will have a chance to speak
to those too. Nothing about us without us!
- Rebecca
Donate
Visit our Website
Mercury News Endorsement Los Altos Online Endorsement
Share This Email Share This Email Share This Email
Paid for by Rebecca Eisenberg for Santa Clara Valley Water District 2022FPPC #1427865
Rebecca Eisenberg for Santa Clara Valley Water District 2022 | 2345 Waverley St., Palo Alto ,CA 94301
Unsubscribe city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by info@rebecca4water.com in collaboration with
Try email marketing for free today!
From:Jennifer Landesmann
To:Council, City
Subject:Public comment for Dec 13 Policy & Services, Agenda items 2 and 1
Date:Monday, December 12, 2022 9:41:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Policy & Services Community,
First, thank you for your efforts to update and improve Council procedures and protocols to
address City business, including Council priority setting. while also enhancing publicparticipation.
2023 will be my 10th year following the annual priority setting sessions as a member of the
public concerned with airplane noise. With the exception of 2-3 years, since 2014 Council hastaken up airplane noise as a priority or specifically mentioned it within Community Health. In
some respects, airplane noise is a long term issue, but the guidelines are unclear about how tohandle a priority topic that a) may require attention beyond 3 years, b) isn't otherwise a regular
part of Council's agenda and c) the community is still very concerned about it. Is thissomething you can add to discussions about priority setting?
I also wanted to suggest maintaining a 3-5 year perspective of topics (vs looking at last year's
list), and to be able to more easily access what the community identified as potential prioritiesover the years, ie. the summaries of the Town Hall survey. Last but not least, a neighbor
asked where to find what changes have been implemented as a result of the priority settingprocess and surveys, which would be helpful. I've seen improvements to the process in recent
years and hope more can be considered as regards the documentation. Thank you,
Jennifer
From:Erik Nelson
To:Council, City; info@ecologycenter.org; williamw@bergmill.com
Subject:Article; question on recycles destination, answer wasn"t pretty.
Date:Monday, December 12, 2022 8:53:54 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from phenixresources@gmail.com. Learn why thisis important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To whom this may Concern:
In 2002 till 2008, my partner Erik Nelson and I, using our proprietary equipment, successfullyconverted tons of post-recycled msw into a feed-stock used to demonstrate a pyrolysis systemfor conversion in the waste to power industry; this same material, can when mixed with apolymer, be used for a press or extrusion process forming a block, fence post, roofing or otherbuilding material, replicating wood, cement, or plastic.
Our proprietary process uses one piece of equipment and requires no sorting of post-recycledMSW including baby diapers. In one pass the MSW is dried and sanitized, destroying any
offensive odor. Pressed or extruded end products are absent of oxygen creating resistance tofire, water, or insect infestation, and when no longer of use can, again, be converted giving
trash an endless, cost-effective, life.
The Integrated Waste Management Industry enjoys talking “green” but landfilling, andincineration, of this unappreciated asset, provide the greatest profit at the least cost whiledevastating our Planet.
Phenix Resources has a video of our process.
Lynda L. Paxton
From:Aram James
To:Pat Burt; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Wagner,April; Reifschneider, James; Human Relations Commission
Subject:Stop Police Attack Dogs
Date:Monday, December 12, 2022 2:53:02 PM
Attachments:Outlook-cue0d3bk.png
Outlook-5xunbmye.png
Outlook-ohcwl11i.png
Outlook-ksxouzlm.png
Outlook-e32h0tso.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.Hi Everyone:
As you all recall, last month on November 9th as part of the San Jose
State conference - A Movement, Not a Moment,
Aram James, Sean Allen, Victor Sin and I presented a one hour
webinar - Police Dogs as Weapons - Who is injured, Who Dies?
We've edited the webinar into two parts.
This is the link to the conversation between Aram and Sean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txf-ncYm7cU
This is the link to the second question and answer section
Police Dogs asWeapons Webinar -2022 SJSUTransformingCommunitiesConference
View this video forinformation and resources toadvocate for the banning ofpolice dogs as weapons. Thissegment of footage is from alarger conversation that took
www.youtube.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBeMjFYw1kk
Please share these links widely!
----Richard Konda (he/him/his)
Executive Director
Phone: (408) 287-9710Email: rkonda@asianlawalliance.org
991 W. Hedding Street, Ste. 202
San Jose, CA 95126
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: This message is being sent by a legal organization. The contents ofthis email message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the addressee. Theinformation may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery tothe intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or disseminationof this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the senderimmediately by reply email and delete this message and its attachments, if any. Email is covered by theElectronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.
Police Dogs asWeaponsWebinar Q&A- 2022 SJSUTransformingCommunitiesConference
www.youtube.com
From:Katherine Causey
To:Council, City
Subject:Support Memo
Date:Monday, December 12, 2022 1:14:02 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from katherinecausey@gmail.com. Learn why thisis 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,
My name is Katie Causey and I am a Lead at Peninsula For Everyone who I am
writing on behalf of to support the memo put forth by Vice Mayor Kou, council
member DuBois and council member Stone.
I was so happy when this came forward, I know that housing issues can be very
divisive in this community, but I think there’s actually a lot of opportunities for us to
make progress and find common ground and I think this memo is a perfect example.
I think if you haven’t had to look for a place to rent for sometime you might not know
what the housing shortage looks like. I can say as a former Organizer for the Palo
Alto Renters’ Association for us what we want the housing stock to look like is, if you
are a tenant who let’s say is in a vulnerable situation and you face eviction from a
downtown Palo Alto one bedroom in a perfect world your life wouldn’t be super
disrupted because there would be a similar apartment available for you just around
the corner.
When I was helping a Palo Alto senior facing eviction last February, who just wanted
to stay in their neighborhood and have a small place to live - it was so frustrating to
see the exact types of homes that senior was looking for listed only on short term
rental sites.
I know that estimates for how many full homes listed as short term rentals in Palo Alto
go up to 1000, I would honestly not be shocked if there were more, and I think this is
a really great move to help improve our housing stock, meeting our housing element
goals, and ensure people can continue to live in this community. So many of the
homes listed on short term rental sites are the type of housing we want our
community members to benefit from - in walkable neighborhoods, close to public
transit to discourage car use.
Whether you consider yourself “slow growth” or more ready to build - none of us want
to see investors buy up homes and use them as make shift hotels, filled with bunk
beds that you can rent for $800 rebranded as “co living cubes” - we want homes in
Palo Alto be for families who hopefully live here the rest of their lives.
We hope to see this memo move forward! Thank you!
From:Tran, Joanna
To:Council, City
Cc:Executive Leadership Team; ORG - Clerk"s Office; Paras, Christine; Tong, Sunny; Bhatia, Ripon; Sumpter, Andria;
Audrey Ke
Subject:Updated: Council Consent Questions Items 6 and 8 (12/12/22)
Date:Monday, December 12, 2022 12:46:54 PM
Attachments:image016.pngimage018.pngimage019.pngimage021.pngimage022.pngimage023.pngimage001.pngimage004.png
Hello Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please see updated links below for additional questions on Item 8 from Councilmember Tanaka with
staff responses:
December 12 Amended Agenda
Staff response to Item 6 and 8
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: Tran, Joanna <Joanna.Tran@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 5:50 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Executive Leadership Team <ExecutiveLeadershipTeam@cityofpaloalto.org>; ORG - Clerk's Office
<ClerksOffice@cityofpaloalto.org>; Paras, Christine <Christine.Paras@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tong,
Sunny <Sunny.Tong@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Audrey Ke <audrey.ke@gregtanaka.org>
Subject: Council Consent Questions Item 6 (12/12/22), Item 8 Posted
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view the following links below for the amended
agenda and staff response to a question from Councilmember Cormack for Monday night’s Council
Meeting:
December 12 Amended Agenda
Staff response to Item 6
Please note, Item 8 has been added to the late packet. If you have any questions on this item, please
provide those as they come in and we will respond as time permits. Thank you!
Best,
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:Flor Sanchez
To:Bob Wenzlau
Cc:Board of Neighbors Abroad; Gaines, Chantal; Milton, Lesley; Council, City
Subject:Re: Good News at Neighbors Abroad - Transitions in Leadership
Date:Monday, December 12, 2022 11:58:28 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Congratulations everyone
Have a wonderful Holidays Flor
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 12, 2022, at 11:17 AM, Bob Wenzlau <bwenzlau@neighborsabroad.org>wrote:Board and City Council,
Last night we celebrated our support for children at our holiday party. Ourfocus is on programs in Palo, Leyte Philippines and Oaxaca, Mexico.
We also announced an important transition. Sarah Burgess will assume the roleof President of Neighbors Abroad. This is a transition at a high point for ourorganization - our engagement both internationally and now domestically is
strong and caring. I will transition to President Emeritus supporting where myimpact is judged most useful.
Additionally we welcomed Nodelyn Smith our newest board member and as a
Vice President for Palo, Leyte joining Ellena Valentine in that role. Flor Sanchezwill assume the leadership of our Oaxaca programs as the Vice President for
Oaxaca. Betty Duran will step down as Vice President of Palo, but stay on ourboard.
We have had an impactful role around the world. We thank the engagement by
our City Council with special attention to our Mayor Burt and CouncilMember Tom Bubois. Additionally, we thank the engagement by city staff
especially Chantal Cotton Gaines and Lesley Milton.
A tradition at Neighbors Abroad is sharing a painting by Raphael Morales ofOaxaca held by the incoming President. I am handing the artwork in my barong
from the Philippines to Sarah.
Yours,
Bob
--
Bob Wenzlau
PresidentNeighbors Abroad of Palo Alto
650-248-4467Facebook | 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 emailto board+unsubscribe@neighborsabroad.org.