9/25/2017 - cityofpaloalto.org

701-32

DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:

LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL

RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS

ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES

ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES

Prepared for: 9/25/2017 Document dates: 9/6/2017 – 9/13/2017

Set 1

Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet

reproduction in a given week.

City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/11/2017 3:51 PM

1

Carnahan, David

From: Svendsen, JaniceSent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:51 PMTo: Council Members; Council Agenda Email; ORG - Clerk's Office; Shikada, Ed; Keene,

James; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, MichelleCc: Portillo, Rumi; Jimenez, Angelica; Blanch, Sandra; Lee, Frank; Perez, Lalo; Nose, KielySubject: 9/11 Council Question Item 5: USI broker service

Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries by Council Member Tanaka regarding the September 11, 2017 council agenda Item 5: USI broker service.

Q.1. Why was there a amendment in year two of the contract to add $15,000 annually. A.1. In a City Council Colleague’s Memo dated June 15, 2012 and approved by the Council, a series of public sessions by the Council were to be scheduled to discuss how to ensure that Palo Alto has highly skilled employees with a passion for public service, balanced by a sustainable model of employee compensation, retirement, and benefit options. Included in one of the presentation was information on healthcare and the Affordable Care Act which had been recently enacted. Human Resources requested assistance from WFIS to present how this Federal health care reform would affect the City of Palo Alto. WFIS Senior Compliance attorney, Ms. Lilliana Salazar presented information on this topic as well as benchmark information that other California agencies were pursuing to provide flexible health plan options. (CMR ID#3502‐ http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/32956) The contract amount was increased by $15,000 in case any further study was needed, however, actual costs in year 2 did not exceed $76,000. Q.2. If the current contract is meeting current service needs that why should the city of Palo Alto pay by $75,000 more? Is there not a better place to allocate these funds? A.2. This is the continuation of an annual service, the $75,000 is for one additional year of service that maintains the current service needs for 12 additional months. During this time, a formal solicitation will be completed for these services.

The current contract term date ended on June 30, 2017. HR is seeking approval to extend the contract by an additional year at $75,000 for period beginning July 1,

dcarnah

Example1


2

2017 to June 30, 2018. This fee is approximately $15,000 less than the standard insurance industry commission. Q.3. How much money has WFIS saved for the city of Palo Alto? A.3. Below is the savings WFIS has negotiated for the City in the last five years. WFIS works with 100 municipalities in California and is able to execute group purchases for benefit plans outlined below:

Q.4. If the money is coming from the FY 2018 General Benefits Fund then how is there no impact to the General Benefits Fund? A.4. There will be an expense from the General Benefits Fund, however, there are sufficient funds appropriated in the fund to absorb this cost in FY 2018 as the annual budget presumes the use of a consulting contract to complete these services annually. No additional funding authorization is needed beyond the levels approved by the City Council as part of the FY 2018 Adopted Budget. Should the planned solicitation for these services in FY 2018 result in a different annual cost, that will be factored into the annual budget process.

Thank you, Janice Svendsen

Janice Svendsen | Executive Assistant to James Keene, City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301D: 650.329.2105 | E: [email protected]

City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 9/13/2017 11:25 AM

1

Carnahan, David

From: Stump, MollySent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:39 PMTo: Amar Johal; Council, CitySubject: RE: Smoking Ordinance (TRP)

Hello Mr. Johal – You may provide input on all of the new rules at the City Council meeting on September 18th. All of the new rules are included in one ordinance, which is before the Council for adoption on September 18th. Some of the new rules go into effect on July 1, 2018, while other rules don’t go into effect until January 1, 2019. Regards, Molly Stump City Attorney From: Amar Johal [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 9:34 PM To: Council, City <[email protected]> Subject: Smoking Ordinance (TRP)

Hello, I received the attached letter (7-Eleven, 401 Waverley St). I see in the letter there are 2 different ordinances: 1) July 1, 2018 - Ban Tobacco Sales at Pharmacies, and the Tobacco Retail Permit 2) Jan. 1 2019 - Ban Flavored Tobacco at certain establishments. Then on the bottom there is a date for a hearing, does this hearing include both ordinance's or is it just for the July 1st ordinance? Reason I ask is because I went to the http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/smokingordinance website, and it doesn't mention anything about Flavored Tobacco ban. Please let me know, as a retailer the 2nd ordinance impacts our business and also creates a blackmarket for these products that I rather not have in our neighborhoods. We already go through a rigorous ID checking process to insure no minors are sold products to, and also subscribe to a mystery shop service to check our employees on a consistent basis. -Amar

Scanned by CamScanner

PALO ALTO

PUBLIC WORKS

2'~01 tml.Hr~:'d •o ·:, '~

Palo Alto, c A Q430 •

650.3, 9 259

September 1, 2017

7-Eleven Store #2366-18584E 401 Waverley St Palo Alto, CA 94301

I

Re: Proposed Tobacco Retail Permit Ordinance

Dear Store Owner:

l • t,

A Tobacco Retail Permit (TRP- also referred to as a license) Ordinance is being considered by the City of Palo Alto. It is designed to implement protective tobacco retail practices since the California state tobacco retail licensing law has been insufficient in reducing illegal tobacco sales to minors. Although retailers pay an annual fee to the State Board of Equalization (BOE), the funds are used to enforce tobacco tax regulations. No portion of these funds is used to enforce the law restricting tobacco sales and no state licensee has ever been penalized by the BOE for selling tobacco to minors. To address this concern, California cities can adopt additional local TRP ordinance requirements. Currently 133 towns, cities, and counties within California have adopted local TRP ordinances including Campbell, County of Santa Clara, Gilroy, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, San Jose, and Saratoga.

Effective July 1, 2018 the proposed ordinance would:

1. Prohibit all pharmacies from selling tobacco products;

2. Require all Palo Alto establishments selling tobacco products to obtain a Tobacco Retail Permit from the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health. Permit conditions would

require: a) an annual permit renewal; b) an annual inspection of the premises for compliance with the City's TRP requirements by

City or County staff; c) a TRP to be displayed in a publicly visible location at the permitted location.

3. Include fines for permit violations.

4. Allow permit suspensions and revocation for violations.

Effective January 1, 2019 the ordinance would prohibit:

5. Sales of flavored tobacco products (note: an exemption exists in the draft ordinance for retailers

who primarily sell tobacco products, generate more than 60 percent of its gross revenues annual for

tobacco sales, do not sell food or alcohol for onsite consumptions, and comply with the ordinance age and signage requirements);

6. Self-service displays of tobacco products;

Scanned by CamScanner

7. Any new tobacco retailing within 1,000 feet of a public or private school (k-12) or within 500 feet of another tobacco retailer (existing Palo Alto retailers other than pharmacies would be exempt from this requirement until the business transfers ownership). Visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/smokingordinance to see if your location is within the 500 or 1,000 foot requirements listed above.

Background Tobacco use is the number one preventable cause of death and disease in California, killing nearly 40,000 Californians every year. The 2012 Surgeon General's Report found that about 90 percent of all smokers first tried cigarettes as teens, and that about three of every four teen smokers continue into adulthood. Further, young adults, ages 18 to 24, have the highest smoking prevalence among any age group according to the California Department of Public Health.

In 2017, the City of Palo Alto adopted revisions to the City's existing Smoking and Tobacco Regulations (Ordinance 9.14) to address these health concerns. The ordinance prohibits smoking in designated public spaces, including outdoor dining areas, entryways, public events, recreation areas, and service areas and multi-family residential units. During the discussion, the City also recognized studies showing that limiting where tobacco is sold can curtail youth use, access and exposure to tobacco products. Council therefore directed staff to develop a Tobacco Retail Permit Ordinance.

The City of Palo Alto is currently scheduled to consider the proposed Tobacco Retail Permit Ordinance on Monday, September 18 at 6pm, at its City Council Meeting (held in the City Council Chambers at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto). Council agenda dates and discussion times are subject to change. If you plan to attend the meeting, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp in advance to ensure that the meeting date or discussion time has not been revised. You may also submit comments to City Council by emailing [email protected].

Draft ordinance language and additional information is available at cityofpaloalto.org/smokingordinance. For additional information, email [email protected], or call 650.329.2122.

Sincerely,

t/2(7~ Phil Sobel Public Works Assistant Director Environmental Services Division

Pr rn : • "1 1 ...., "c,~

-¥1!J.JJ/f~ l\ \~\-

c i tyO f Pa I oAlt o.org


1

Carnahan, David

From: Admin <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 12:41 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Tobacco Retail License OrdinanceAttachments: Palo Alto Sept 2017.docx

Honorable Mayor Greg Scharff Please find attached a letter from our Chairman Manraj Natt, on behalf of APCA & its 900+ retailer members, expressing his concerns and recommendations on the upcoming City Council meeting on September 18th about Tobacco Retail license ordinance. Please feel free to contact me for any questions

Thanks & with Best Regards Kewal Krishan Executive Director Dir. 408‐385‐2020

Email: [email protected] Web: www.apca.us The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without authorization from the sender. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

September 11, 2107 The Honorable Greg Scharff Mayor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301

Re: September 18, 2017 City Council Agenda Item re: Tobacco Retail License Ordinance

Dear Mayor Scharff: I write on behalf of the American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association (APCA), a grassroots organization of independent gasoline and convenience store owners located throughout the state of California to express our concerns and recommend amendments to the draft ordinance that would establish a Tobacco Retail License requirement in the City of Palo Alto. Let me begin by stating that APCA does not object to local tobacco licensing ordinances so long as they do not impose unreasonably high license fees and do not contain sales restrictions that create unnecessary regulatory burdens on our members. The ordinance before the City Council includes provisions that will harm the law-abiding retailers in Palo Alto and in some cases, cause great economic harm and even business failure. That is why we respectfully request that the City Council make the following amendments to the ordinance:

1. Delete the flavored tobacco ban (Sec. 4.64.030(h)) 2. Amend Sec. 4.64.030(j) to comply with California state law that exempts

active duty military from Age 21; and 3. And add a grandfather provision under Sec. 4.64.030 that will allow existing

tobacco retailers within 500 feet of another retailer or 1,000 feet from a school to sell, through an arm’s length transaction, to a new owner.

We believe the sales restrictions in the draft ordinance go too far, especially given the state laws enacted last year related to tobacco including raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco products to age 21 and regulating e-cigarettes as tobacco products and existing city regulations governing gas stations.

Your municipal code already prohibits automobile service stations from selling food or grocery items or alcoholic beverages except for prepackaged soft drinks, cigarettes and snack foods either from automatic vending machines or in shelves occupying a floor area not to exceed forty square feet. Banning the sale of all flavored tobacco products would further diminish the already limited number of items that service stations can sell. We have spoken to retailers in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County about the impact the flavor ban has had on their business. These businesses have reported a decline in overall sales as their adult customers, who can no longer purchase the tobacco products they desire, have taken their business to stores outside the County where there are no flavor bans. We also know that the County’s TRL ordinance has depressed the overall value of businesses when owners have sold their businesses to a new owner. Retailers operate on thin profit margins and the loss of important products can mean going out of business. Should Palo Alto adopt the County tobacco retail license ordinance, it will create an uneven playing field for existing businesses in the City as customers can easily go to retailers in neighboring cities to purchase tobacco. It will also give the smoke shops in Palo Alto a competitive advantage over gas stations, corner markets and convenience stores. We find this particularly troublesome given the fact that the California Department of Public Health has noted that smoke shops have the highest rate of sales to minors. Last year, these stores had an illegal sales rate of 31.8%. We urge the Council to amend the TRL ordinance to protect small businesses in Palo Alto. Sincerely,

Manraj Natt Chairman cc: City Council City Attorney


1

Carnahan, David

From: Jeanne Fleming <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:30 PMTo: Atkinson, RebeccaCc: Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Architectural Review BoardSubject: A Formal Request for Letters from the Public Regarding Verizon's Proposed Cell Towers

Dear Rebecca, To follow up on my two informal requests for this information : Please consider this my formal request for access to the letters you or any other city employees have received from Palo Altans in connection with Verizon’s plan to install cell towers in residential neighborhoods. In particular, I am referring to the over 700 letters you have received from residents who are concerned about the towers, letters you have been compiling in preparation for the Architectural Review Board’s hearings. As you know, these letters are part of the public record, I am entitled to see them and I am entitled to see them promptly. Thank you, as always, for your help. Sincerely, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming [email protected]


1

Carnahan, David

From: Shannon Rose McEntee <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:48 PMTo: Council, City; Keene, JamesSubject: Ban on Idling Cars

Dear City Council and City Manager Keene, Thank you all for the work you do on behalf of all Palo Alto residents. I write today to respond to the news that Palo Alto will prepare a new ordinance to ban idling cars. Thank you!!! I ride my bicycle all over Palo Alto and I hear when cars are idling. Sometimes they are city vehicles. I'll often stop and politely suggest that they turn off their motor so they don't cause undue pollution. Most drivers oblige and don't seem at all irritated -- they know they shouldn't be running their motors. Given the extraordinary changes in climate throughout the USA and internationally, no adult who is awake is unaware that running a car motor causes pollution which in turn contributes to climate change. Will they grumble about being held to account? Of course, but having enforceable regulations will allow our city to force positive change. Getting a ticket for needless idling will be powerful, just as raising the tax on cigarettes has reduced smoking. Thank you once again for your leadership on an important environmental issue. Sincerely, Shannon Rose McEntee


1

Carnahan, David

From: PNQL-Now <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 12:48 PMTo: Council, City; Keene, James; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory;

Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Planning Commission; French, Amy; Gitelman, Hillary

Subject: Castilleja Update - September 2017

SEPTEMBER 2017

Castilleja Continues to Ignore Neighborhood Plea for No Underground Garage

Instead of working with neighbors on a solution, Castilleja is forging ahead with their flawed plans for a massive underground garage and a 30% increase in enrollment, knowing that

they are alienating the neighborhood for generations to come.

In May, 47 individual households within a two-block radius of the school signed statements opposing the garage. Castilleja has not responded. Instead, they have stepped up their PR efforts, recruiting students from the school to appeal to City Council. And they continue to


2

promote the falsehood that they have listened to neighbors.

Please continue to write to City Council with your opposition, and attend meetings and speak out if you can find one Monday evening free.

City Council email:

[email protected]

VISIT PNQLNOW.org →

Please make a donation >

News in Review

Yard Signs Are Working. Want One? The yard signs signs continue to be a very effective tool to communicate the widespread opposition to this

unreasonable expansion. Please send us an email at [email protected] to get a sign or to replace a stolen/vandalized sign.

Letters Published between Castilleja and City Manager/City Attorney

Castilleja shows their true colors by trying to blame the City and residents for delays in their destructive and divisive project. On May 23, the City Manager told Castilleja they must start reducing enrollment in the 2018-

2019 year. Castilleja's response was that the City was "punishing the girls."

READ LETTER FROM CASTILLEJA →

Palo Alto Weekly Editorial

June 16: "Castilleja's Unwise Stubborness".

READ EDITORIAL →

Castilleja Misleads Planning Commission in Effort to Alter Setbacks

Along Embarcadero Road Castilleja falsely states that neighbors want the underground garage in a letter sent to the Planning

Commission in support of the multiple variances they seek along Embarcadero Road. Castilleja also plans to alter the utility easement on Melville Avenue. Reducing the width of the easement threatens any future use for

the neighborhood for sewer improvements, recycled water, and storm drain efficiency.

READ LETTER FROM CASTILLEJA →


3

Neighbors Make it Clear: No Garage

In May, after a PA Weekly article where Castilleja's PR agency was quoted as saying that neighbors have "always insisted" on a garage, 47 individual households within a two-block radius of the school signed

statements saying they are opposed to the underground garage. The school did not respond.

Upcoming Events

City Council Meetings Every Monday The Palo Alto City Council meets every Monday evening, and anyone from the public can speak to any topic during oral communications. It's clear that Castilleja plans to be at every meeting, and so

will PNQLnow.org. CALENDARS AND AGENDA →

Stay Up to Date — Bookmark the City's Castilleja Page You can also subscribe to get email notifications of any developments

CASTILLEJA UPDATES →

Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

No date set for this yet, but expected in 2018.

Architectural Review Board September 7 meeting has been postponed with no date set.

PNQLNOW.org | Email: [email protected]

MAKE A DONATION


1

Carnahan, David

From: Geri <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 3:06 PMTo: Council, City; [email protected]; Geri Mc GilvrayCc: A-MIKE BECHLER; [email protected]; Dorian MankeSubject: Ccss? Re council meeting

I didn't know what ccss was either until James Keene Explained it. And, Ms. Holman was right about the rail crossing at Churchill. Today I see that a biker was ticketed downtown on September 3rd. Cars are pretty LETHAL too. Please remember the excessively speeding drivers on MIDDLEFIELD and MARION in Midtown, and our other arterials. We are not protected there at all. NOT EVER. There are a THOUSAND accidents a year in this small town. Tickets should not exceed a hundred dollars each, so that people would pay them, BUT, they should be issued. PLUS, we need safe SEQUENCING from the Oregon turners, so we have a moment to turn LEFT if we can ever get out of our driveways. We need our CALMING officers back. BRAVE ones! The state should be OUT of it with all their expensive paperwork buildup. Thanks for sitting through those long meetings. It's hard to understand what you're talking about, but, we try. The busses are all empty. Door service jitneys would work. Trees are being cut down. Garbage should not be 50 dollars. PASCO Sam was much better. For the 11 MILLION dollars allocated to council chamber remodeling last year from our utility bill money (general fund), etc., we could hire six traffic enforcers for the red light running, and you would still have NINE million plus to fool around with. I digress! I will try to have a safety meeting at my house in November again this year. Geri mcgilvray EVERYDAY SAFETY AND WALKABILITY, and speed enforcement for all our Palo Alto streets including MIDTOWN Sent from my iPhone


1

Carnahan, David

From: Mary Thomas <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 4:53 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Verizon cell towers

Dear City Council Members, I am writing to ask you to direct all city staff to follow the leads of other California cities, such as Palos Verdes, to do everything you possibly can to keep Verizon out of our Palo Alto residential neighborhoods. I hope the City Council will choose to hold its own public hearing on Verizon's planned installations as there are many residents who oppose the installations. Perhaps there can be an urgency measure passed to lawfully protect our peace and quiet in our Palo Alto neighborhoods that have above ground utilities. Verizon has targeted these neighborhoods because they have existing utility poles. Thank you for your attention to this very important issue. Mary Thomas 249 Santa Rita Ave. Palo Alto 94301


2

Carnahan, David

From: Nahid Waleh <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 9:15 AMTo: Council, City; [email protected]: Verizon Cell Towers

Dear Council members:

As a 40-year resident of Old Palo Alto, I would like to urge you to protect our city from Verizon and stop the company from bringing the unwanted cell towers to our beautiful city. In a group meeting with Mr. Tanaka, I was very discouraged by the passive attitude of Palo Alto city council toward this matter.

I would like to encourage the council members to block the action of Verizon and stand firm not allowing the installation of the cell towers in Palo Alto.

With regards, Nahid Waleh 2344 Emerson St. Palo Alto, CA 94301


3

Carnahan, David

From: Monty Frost <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 11:39 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: Verizon Antennas

Dear City Council Members, This is a brief note to support the efforts of Verizon to improve cell coverage in Palo Alto. I am an AT&T cellular user. Since AT&T put in mini‐cells on telephone poles in our neighborhood, our cell coverage has definitely improved. This is a good thing! Who wants to live in a neighborhood where cell coverage is poor? Verizon users should have the same benefits. This addition would slightly increase property values, not decrease them. Some people object to the proposed Verizon additions, complaining about “radiation”. This is a non‐starter. First, it is not hard radiation that can break down your DNA, Chernobyl style; it is radio waves similar to wi‐fi in your home. These emissions have no proven adverse health effects. As you know, the Telecom Act forbids objecting to health concerns as a reason to deny cell installations. The “radiation” objections are a non‐starter, but do get a rise from certain people. The cellular transmitters are mostly on or on top of telephone poles and are thus usually hidden or partially hidden in the tree canopy. The “ugly” argument is pretty weak. The power supplies sometimes do produce fan noise or hums, which are noticeable when one walks very close to a telephone pole so equipped. I do wish these noises could be reduced, even if they are within federal guidelines. The noise is my only slight objection to these transmitters, which otherwise provide a definite benefit to our community. I hope you don’t have to spend a lot of time listening to people complaining about “radiation”. With regards, Monty Frost


4

Carnahan, David

From: Richard Brand <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 12:33 PMTo: Shikada, Ed; Tom; Stump, MollyCc: Keene, James; Council, CitySubject: Small cell palcement on city ligt fixtures Crown Castle & Mobillite

Tom and Ed: As you may remember on the Aug 14 Council meeting Consent Calendar was a request from Mobilitie (sp?) Corp to place small cell antenna boxes on many locations within the north section of the City. Already put up at two poles near my house were signs indicating antenna boxes to be placed on top of these street light poles. The forthcoming 5G cellular service implementation requires many more "small cell" antennae from all of the Cell carriers to guarantee coverage. I objected to this request because of not only the visual damage effect, but also because a few years back at&t was granted approval to place antenna shells (DAS) on top of many utility poles in the neighborhoods under the condition that they share those spaces with other carriers upon request. In response to my objection I was told that the City was required to share even the city-owned street light fixtures with service providers under an existing law. I have investigated to find this law and it seems to the contrary that the City has the discretion of permitting or not small cells and in fact because that is the case today, there is a pending bill in the State Senate, SB649 to change this. Here is the documentation from the California Legislature page: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649 which clearly describes the status today: "Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that wireless telecommunications collocation facility, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit, but certain other wireless telecommunications facilities are subject to city or county discretionary permitting and are required to comply with specified criteria." It appears because these small cell antennae do not qualify as a "collocation facility" and that they are presently not covered by the law had been assumed applied to the Crown-Castle and Mobillite requests. I do not want to start yet another battle in our city but would advise you to have these contractors for SPRINT, Verizon et al to go contact att for the placement of their gear before this does erupt into a clamor over all of the additional "radiation emitting boxes" being installed in front of peoples homes. You won't hear the end of that one for many months. Sincerely, Richard Brand


5

Carnahan, David

From: Saeid Salehi-had <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:43 PMTo: Council, City; Saeid Salehi-had; Leila BazarganSubject: Stop the proposed Verizon tower now.

Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I have been a Palo Alto resident for 23 years. I am writing you to ask you to please bring a halt to the proposed construction of Verizon Cell phone towers in residential areas. There is a proposed tower right in front of my house across the street on Whitsell Ave. Currently, my wife and I are extremely busy treating my six year old for Neuroblastoma, a difficult to treat childhood cancer. Still, I am making the time to fight the verizon towers. As you can imagine, under absolutely no circumstance do I want a verizon cell tower right across my son's bedroom; in fact, I do not want any cell tower in the residential areas, in particular those areas that are densely dotted with houses such the one on Whitsell Ave. I am a senior electrical engineer with over 25 years of experience at companies such as Intel. There is absolutely no justification for intruding towers at small streets such as Whitsell Ave. were houses are so close tothe tower. Coverage can easily be achieved by placing the towers at alternate sites on major streets where the width of the street and the zoning setbacks reduce the radiation, noise, and aesthetic impact. You can verify this for yourselves by just viewing tower maps in other cities and areas. I would like the city council to pass an urgent ordinance to lawfully protect Palo Alto neighborhoods with above-ground utilities, the ones Verizon has targeted, from cell phone towers. There are many cities that have proactively prevented such cell phone towers to protect their neighborhoods and preserve their home values. It will be unthinkable that a city like Palo Alto would not do the same. Best Regards, Saeid Salehi-Had (650) 906-7998 3810 Whitsell Ave. Palo Alto, Ca.


6

Carnahan, David

From: Phil Coulson <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 4:07 PMTo: Council, CityCc: Kou, Lydia; [email protected]: Verizon cell towers issues...please act!

Dear City Council members, It’s the look and the intrusiveness of the small cell networks that sparks the controversy. People are upset about the deployment of thousands of pieces of equipment the size of small appliances being placed strategically and liberally on publicly owned “vertical infrastructure” (that’s bureaucrat‐speak for municipal utility poles, street lights and even traffic lights). That means a lot of equipment in full view and in proximity — really close in many cases — to houses and people. Local governments must retain some authority to push back on proposed deployments. There is precedent for this kind of brazen move: The phone and cable TV companies persuaded the Legislature in 2006 to end local control over the construction of new cable TV systems, arguing that a shift to state licensing would bring much‐needed competition to pay TV. But that logic doesn’t apply to the mobile phone market, where there is vibrant competition. Local government officials are crying foul, calling it an audacious power grab and the equivalent of a gift of public funds to billion‐dollar telecommunications companies that don’t need the help. The new mobile networks also will involve much more equipment in public view than an upstart cable TV system. Wireless companies say that the transmitters are typically the size of a pizza box or briefcase, although the bill would allow equipment up to the size of a small refrigerator. Ok, I know the city is not looking at aspects of health safety with regard to the deployment of cell towers and associated support equipment but it is of concern to me nonetheless. In looking over a document that speaks about the equipment installation and its RF safety I found a name of a Paid expert of on RF Safety: Dr. Jerrold Bushburg... Bushberg, has worked as a paid consultant to CTIA, and has lobbied for Pacific Telesis Group (and SBC). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49415 Dr.Jerrold Bushberg's long‐standing history of ruling in favor of cell towers at various sites throughout many years does not bode well for the objections of the cell towers if he is the lone unbiased third party expert! Just so you know, in conflict with the rated RF power as stated by Bushberg in the above‐mentioned document here are actual measurements made of recent installations in Palo Alto: http://scientists4wiredtech.com/2017/04/palo‐alto‐4g‐small‐cells/ I mention this along with echoing Dr. Fleming's (and many other Palo Alto citizens) concerns and suggestions for moving forward on this matter. She has demonstrated a keen eye and mind along with constructive suggestions on cell tower 'action'. I also wish to applaud Lydia Kou's efforts and communication on this as well. In summary, look for solutions that move Palo Alto into a good light on this. Ignoring taking action and letting the telecom companies do as they wish without regard to the homeowners, neighborhood aesthetics, unnecessary expansion of said equipment, and actual health concerns is a huge disservice to the folks and families that live here.


8

Carnahan, David

From: Barbara Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 4:21 PMTo: Council, CityCc: Jeanne FlemingSubject: Fw: City Council must stop Verizon. Open letter to Lydia Kou

To Palo Alto City Council Members: I completely agree with Jeanne Fleming's letter (below) and sent a letter of my own to the City Council (27 August) objecting to Verizon's proposed cell towers, not only in the Old Palo Alto neighborhood but also in other neighborhoods of Palo Alto as well. I'm especially upset by the City Council not being more vigilant about what the City Management is proposing! As City Council Members, you need to remember the wishes and wisdom of residents whom you represent. Please do not betray our trust in you. Please know that in any upcoming election, neither my husband nor I will vote for anyone who supports Verizon's project. Sincerely, Barbara Kelly 444 Washington Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301

From: Jeanne Fleming <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 3:01 PM To: 'Kou, Lydia' Cc: 'Council, City'; 'Gitelman, Hillary'; 'Architectural Review Board' Subject: City Council must stop Verizon. Open letter to Lydia Kou Dear Lydia, Regarding Verizon’s proposed cell towers: My neighbors and I look forward to hearing your response and the response of your fellow members of City Council to our request that City Council take matters into its own hands--and out of the hands of city administrators—a) by holding your own hearings on the Verizon towers, b) by directing staff and consultants to use every possible tool to keep Verizon’s ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting installations out of Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods, and c) if needed, by passing tough, new ordinances to accomplish that end. In the meantime, I hope you will consider these facts:

1. Verizon’s bullying lawyers (and, I’m guessing, now Molly Stump) like to argue that it is

impossible to reject Verizon’s applications to install its antennas in our residential neighborhoods because AT&T installed antennas here a few years ago. That is absolutely false and nothing more than empty saber-rattling. There is not a single instance of a cell company successfully challenging a local government’s rejection of an application on so-called “discrimination” grounds. Not one.


9

2. As part of their applications, cell phone companies have a history of submitting drawings and photosimulations that have been manipulated to make the installations look smaller than they actually are. Specifically, while the equipment measurements the company submits may be correct, the images they submit—the illustrations we look at to try to understand what they want to install will look like (for example, the illustrations the city has posted on the poles around town)—these images have been distorted to make the equipment look smaller. I don’t know yet if Verizon has done this here. My point, though, is this: Cell companies such as Verizon aren’t above using dirty tricks to manipulate unwary city administrators.

3. The 93 towers Verizon is proposing to install is extremely aggressive, highly unusual and completely at odds with the requirement that a new tower can only be justified if a “significant gap” in coverage exists. Consider this: Verizon has proposed 12 towers for Old Palo Alto (so far). There are approximately 1,300 homes in Old Palo Alto. That is one tower for every 108 homes! At that rate, our town would soon have approximately 200 Verizon cell towers in its residential neighborhoods. Add in 200 more towers for AT&T and another 200 for T-Mobile, and you get a picture of what the cell industry wants our lovely city to look like.

Maybe Verizon gets away with these tactics in dusty little Central Valley towns. But this is Palo Alto. My neighbors and I expect our elected representatives on City Council to take action, and not to leave the defense of our residential neighborhoods to unelected city administrators who appear to be intimidated by Verizon and afraid to rock the boat.

As always, thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming, PhD 2070 Webster Street 650-325-5151 [email protected]


10

Carnahan, David

From: Alice Holmes <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 8:33 PMTo: Jeanne Fleming; Kou, LydiaCc: Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Architectural Review BoardSubject: RE: City Council must stop Verizon. Open letter to Lydia Kou

All – I agree with Jeanne and am horrified that the City Council is not addressing the issue of undergrounding utilities in Old Palo Alto, as was promised many years ago. Please protect our neighborhoods and consider what is best for the residents. We don’t need cell antennas from all cell phone carriers blanketing our utility poles. If people want better cell phone coverage in their homes they can find the carrier that has the best coverage in their neighborhood, the City does not have the responsibility to ensure that residents have cell phone coverage. Please work on behalf of residents to deny the application for Verizon’s proposed cell towers and propose new ordinances prohibiting future companies from attempting to install their installations in our neighborhoods. And when will the utilities in Old Palo be placed underground? Thank you for all your efforts. Sincerely, Alice Holmes Resident of Palo Alto since 1986

From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:02 PM To: 'Kou, Lydia' Cc: 'Council, City'; 'Gitelman, Hillary'; 'Architectural Review Board' Subject: City Council must stop Verizon. Open letter to Lydia Kou

Dear Lydia, Regarding Verizon’s proposed cell towers: My neighbors and I look forward to hearing your response and the response of your fellow members of City Council to our request that City Council take matters into its own hands--and out of the hands of city administrators—a) by holding your own hearings on the Verizon towers, b) by directing staff and consultants to use every possible tool to keep Verizon’s ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting installations out of Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods, and c) if needed, by passing tough, new ordinances to accomplish that end. In the meantime, I hope you will consider these facts:

1. Verizon’s bullying lawyers (and, I’m guessing, now Molly Stump) like to argue that it is

impossible to reject Verizon’s applications to install its antennas in our residential neighborhoods because AT&T installed antennas here a few years ago. That is absolutely false and nothing more than empty saber-rattling. There is not a single instance of a cell company successfully challenging a local government’s rejection of an application on so-called “discrimination” grounds. Not one.


11

2. As part of their applications, cell phone companies have a history of submitting drawings and photosimulations that have been manipulated to make the installations look smaller than they actually are. Specifically, while the equipment measurements the company submits may be correct, the images they submit—the illustrations we look at to try to understand what they want to install will look like (for example, the illustrations the city has posted on the poles around town)—these images have been distorted to make the equipment look smaller. I don’t know yet if Verizon has done this here. My point, though, is this: Cell companies such as Verizon aren’t above using dirty tricks to manipulate unwary city administrators.

3. The 93 towers Verizon is proposing to install is extremely aggressive, highly unusual and completely at odds with the requirement that a new tower can only be justified if a “significant gap” in coverage exists. Consider this: Verizon has proposed 12 towers for Old Palo Alto (so far). There are approximately 1,300 homes in Old Palo Alto. That is one tower for every 108 homes! At that rate, our town would soon have approximately 200 Verizon cell towers in its residential neighborhoods. Add in 200 more towers for AT&T and another 200 for T-Mobile, and you get a picture of what the cell industry wants our lovely city to look like.

Maybe Verizon gets away with these tactics in dusty little Central Valley towns. But this is Palo Alto. My neighbors and I expect our elected representatives on City Council to take action, and not to leave the defense of our residential neighborhoods to unelected city administrators who appear to be intimidated by Verizon and afraid to rock the boat.

As always, thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming, PhD 2070 Webster Street 650-325-5151 [email protected]


12

Carnahan, David

From: Sherryl Casella <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 3:03 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Verizon installation

I usually go along with whatever needs to be done but this is not acceptable. They plan to put a utilitarian (translate ugly) box, 4 1/2 feet tall and 2 1/2 feet deep across the street from my home on Emerson. The size is objectionable. It will be right in our faces as we walk the neighborhood. We live in one of the most affluent, beautiful and livable places in the country. Why can't the box portion of the installation be placed underground? I would appreciate a reply from someone. Sincerely, Sherryl Casella P.S. I almost didn't even call in response to the notice as it said it was in Midtown, not Old Palo Alto.


13

Carnahan, David

From: [email protected]: Saturday, September 09, 2017 6:51 PMTo: Council, CityCc: [email protected]: Verizon Poles

Dear City Council Members,

I share Jeanne Fleming's concerns about the installation of Verizon poles throughout Old Palo Alto. They will be be unsightly and their installation will cause more disruption to the neighborhood. We have had to endure continuing noise and traffic with all the construction that has been going on for years now. One house on Webster Street took three years to complete and another house on Tasso Street was under construction for over four years.

Now, Verizon wants to put in poles throughout the neighborhood! The quality of life has been greatly diminished over the past few years with the increased traffic, noise, dust, and just plain inconsiderate builders and their clients. When will it end?

I urge you to stop Verizon.

Sincerely,

Annette Rahn 590 Santa Rita Palo Alto


14

Carnahan, David

From: Barbara <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 3:45 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: no cell towers

Dear City Council, As our elected representatives, please prevent unelected city administrators from allowing Verizon to install radiation‐emitting cill towers in our neighborhoods. Other cities have accomplished this! Sincerely, Barbara Lilley


1

Carnahan, David

From: Jyotsna Nimkar <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:57 PMTo: Atkinson, RebeccaCc: Gitelman, Hillary; Architectural Review Board; Council, CitySubject: Verizon's Proposed Cell Towers

Hi Rebecca,

I wanted to request you to share any communications city has received from Palo Alto residents who are concerned about Verizon’s plan to install cell towers in residential neighborhoods. As a concerned resident myself I would like to know how others in similar situation are feeling.

Appreciate your support.

Thank you,

Jyotsna Nimkar


2

Carnahan, David

From: joel bergquist <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 2:07 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: Verizon cell phone relays

Joel R. Bergquist 2085 Emerson Street

Palo Alto, California 94301 12 September 2017

To the members of the Palo Alto City Council: I am writing to express my dismay and alarm about the installation of Verizon cell phone relays on telephone poles in Palo Alto. There is a notice on a phone pole outside our house that is just 24 feet from two bedrooms in our house at 2085 Emerson Street. Verizon plans to put one of their relays there. My wife and I have walked down to the Verizon cell relay next to the Jobs house near the intersection of Waverley and Santa Rita. People had told us that the VCT’s (Verizon cell towers) were noisy, but we were rudely surprised at the volume of noise emitted. The sound is like a constant whooshing, and is noticeable from more than 30 feet away. This noise is produced 24/7 —it is a ceaseless and unremitting nuisance. We often think of electrical installations as emitting a low hum only audible at a very short distance, measured in inches. But the VCT’s are disturbingly noisy and audible from a distance of more than 30 feet in all directions. Our house will be severely impacted, as will numerous others in Palo Alto. The noise will be audible in our bedrooms, morning, noon, and night! This is a first class disturbance that will deprive our family of the full use of our house. There will be no escape from the noise. And the presence of the VCT and its projected sound will adversely affect the value of our home. Other residents will also find the values of their homes diminished. The City Council of Palo Alto can stop this intrusion into our community. Our city government is established to protect Palo Alto residents and their property. Palo Alto is not, nor should it be, beholden to multi-national corporations like Verizon that don’t give a damn about how they affect people. Their only motivation is profit. And if Verizon gets its way, the people of Palo Alto will be casualties. Palo Alto is an enlightened, progressive community and we shouldn’t be bending to the will of large corporations. I have heard that Berkeley, Palos Verdes and other California cities have prohibited installations such as that planned by Verizon. Palo Alto must do the same. City Council needs to hold hearings, get the community involved, and do its job of protecting Palo Alto and its people. We urge every member of the City Council to go to the Jobs relay to hear for yourselves the noise it emits. Sincerely, Joel R. Bergquist


1

Carnahan, David

From: Penny Ellson <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:13 AMTo: 'board'Cc: Council, CitySubject: Cubberley Comments

Dear PAUSD BOE Members, I want to congratulate the city and PAUSD on getting the Cubberley process off to a good (albeit slow) start with the community partnership approach. As a former member of the Cubberley Community Advisory Committee (CCAC), I want to encourage you to continue working in close partnership with community stakeholders as you move forward. When the CCAC studied issues related to the future of Cubberley, PAUSD had not raised inclusion of employee housing as an issue that should be considered; therefore, it was never considered or discussed and it was not included in the recommendations that were made. The public has never had opportunity to comment on this possibility. Further, this staff report provides no detail as to what the PAUSD employees’ need for housing is. How many units, what size/type, etc.? Would the housing be added in addition to the concept that was recommended or instead of some component of it? I can’t speak for other neighborhoods, but my neighborhood, Greenmeadow, held a meeting to consider the CCAC recommendations before their CCAC representative voted on them. A quorum strongly supported the intensified multi-use concept and recommendations of the CCAC with the understanding that:

It would preserve existing open space, playing fields, and tennis courts. It would provide space for a possible future secondary school and elementary school

(Greendell) It would provide space for needed community services A community needs survey would be completed.

In short, Greenmeadow supported Cubberley growth for use as a public facility. I cannot speak to whether or not my neighborhood (which immediately abuts the Cubberley site) will support housing in addition to or instead of these other uses on a PF site because we—the city, PAUSD, the CCAC, the public, and our neighborhood never discussed it. Further, I don’t know if they would support an increase in density beyond the increase that has been discussed and recommended by the CCAC.


2

In the interests of continuing engagement of community stakeholder partners, I hope that,early in the process, as part of Phase One, PAUSD will specify the following important tasks to address the unvetted addition of a possible housing component to this project (a significant change): 1). Completion of a Community Needs survey as recommended by the committee (including specific employee housing --if housing is to be considered-- and community service/school facility needs) 2). Publicly vet the proposal to use a PF zoned site for housing as early as possible in the process. We have no idea whether the community supports this use of a PF zoned site (or, if they do, what kind of housing and how much housing they might support). An unvetted surprise could derail an important community project later in the process. Let’s avoid that possibility. 3). Please require that abutting neighborhoods are included in the planning process and that the City School Traffic Safety Committee is included on transportation and parking planning for any intensified use project that moves forward. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Penny Ellson


1

Carnahan, David

From: [email protected]: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:32 AMTo: Council, CitySubject: Cubberly Consultant

The former mahyor’s letter to the editor said it all. There is a plan that was developed. It only needs adjustment according to high school attendance projections. That you would even consider a $400,000 contractor is appalling. You will make the citizenry furious if you hire this individual. What do you say when you defend our hiring practices and tell us we have to pay high salaries to get the best people? Can’t out best people do some of the work you are eager to hire from outside? Please do not enter into this contract. Carol Gilbert

555 Byron St. #209 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-323-2862


1

Carnahan, David

From: Jeffrey S. Glenn <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 9:41 PMTo: Kou, LydiaCc: Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; [email protected]; [email protected]; Amir

Ben-Efraim; [email protected]: Fwd: Max McGee is not the only problem. An Open Letter to Lydia Kou re Verizon

Dear Lydia Kou, I was forwarded the email below from my neighbor Jeanne, and I could not agree with her more—both in terms of our support to date for you, and our urging of you to do whatever you can to stop this incompletely thought out Verizon proposal, which we strongly oppose because of the damage it will do to our neighborhood and well-being. Orit and Jeffrey Glenn 2061 Webster Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Jeffrey S. Glenn, M.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor of Medicine and Microbiology & Immunology Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Director, Center for Hepatitis and Liver Tissue Engineering Stanford University School of Medicine CCSR Building, Rm. 3115A 269 Campus Drive Stanford, CA 94305-5171 U.S.A. email:[email protected] tel (office): (650)725-3373 tel (lab): (650)498-7419 fax: (650)723-3032 pager: (650)723-8222; ID# 23080


2

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jeanne Fleming <[email protected]> To: 'Kou, Lydia' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Council, City' <[email protected]>; 'Gitelman, Hillary' <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017, 4:06:56 PM PDT Subject: Max McGee is not the only problem. An Open Letter to Lydia Kou re Verizon

Dear Lydia,

Schools’ Superintendent Max McGee has cost you, me and our fellow Palo Altans six million dollars. Please do not allow other city administrators to cost us tens of millions of dollars more by allowing Verizon to run down home values by ruining the matchless character of our neighborhoods with noisy and unsightly cell towers.

The Max McGee fiasco should be a wakeup call to City Council—a wakeup call that the city staff need more oversight than they have been receiving. Please consider my letters to you a heads up that James Keene and Molly Stump are likewise failing to do their jobs properly. And what’s at stake isn’t just money, it’s the character of our town.

Ask yourself, how could these two professionals not have known—as apparently they did not—that other California cities are successfully saying “no” to the cell industry’s plans to install sites in residential neighborhoods? How, months after Verizon’s applications were filed, could it be news to them that Berkeley has implemented tough “prioritization” ordinances, that expert Jonathan Kramer is helping Piedmont navigate the regulatory waters to keep the cell industry’s ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting installations away from its residents’ homes, and that Palos Verdes has three times now sent the cell industry packing? Ask yourself, more fundamentally, why do Mr. Keene and Ms. Stump continue to insist on maintaining the demonstrably false position that municipalities cannot protect their residential neighborhoods from cell industry antennas?

Palo Alto doesn’t need and can’t afford another Max McGee fiasco. I urge City Council to take matters into its own hands by doing three things: 1) direct all city staff to do


3

everything possible to keep Verizon out of Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods, including retaining Jonathan Kramer to advise them; 2) hold its own public hearings on Verizon’s planned installations; and 3) if necessary, pass by urgency measure new ordinances to lawfully protect the aesthetics, peace and quiet and home values of Palo Alto’s above-ground-utilities’ neighborhoods.

As you say, Lydia, the clock is ticking. Max McGee allowed one clock to run out. City Council needs to be proactive or Mr. Keene and Ms. Stump will run out this one.

Thank you for your email, and thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Jeanne

Jeanne Fleming, PhD

2070 Webster Street

650-325-5151

[email protected]

From: Kou, Lydia [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 10:32 AM To: Jeanne Fleming <[email protected]> Cc: Stump, Molly <[email protected]>; Keene, James <[email protected]> Subject: Re: City staff is misleading City Council. An Open Letter to Lydia Kou

Dear Ms. Fleming,

I believe I was included in the responses from the City Manager and City Attorney's to you and, yours in return. Thank you for checking.


4

The Council has been informed by our City Attorney, Ms. Stump that they will be communicating with everyone who have written pertaining to the installation of these small cell antennas sometime this week. I am sure Council will be provided with what was corresponded with all concerned.

Dr. Fleming, our City Manager, Mr. Keene was previously former City Manager for Berkeley and will be contacting Berkeley for more information. I will follow up with Mr. Keene.

I will keep in touch and I do realize the time urgency.

Kind regards,

--------

Lydia Kou - Council Member

Contact Info: https://goo.gl/BcgCQS

From: Jeanne Fleming <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 4:43 PM To: Kou, Lydia Cc: Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Gitelman, Hillary Subject: City staff is misleading City Council. An Open Letter to Lydia Kou

Dear Lydia,

Thank you for your prompt action on my request for a meeting with Mr. Keene and Ms. Stump. I trust you’ve received copies of the emails that followed between Mr. Keene, Ms. Stump and me. If you haven’t, please let me know and I will forward them to you. I’d like you to see firsthand the no-can-do—with a touch of not-invented-here—attitude expressed in their emails.


5

From what they’ve said, I fear these two key city employees have been misleading you and other members of City Council regarding what Palo Alto can do to protect its residential neighborhoods—protect them from Verizon’s ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting installations. I hope you are as angry about their misrepresentations as my neighbors and I are.

As you now know, many sophisticated California cities are successfully saying “no” to Verizon and other cell companies on the basis of the serious negative impact the antenna sites have on community aesthetics, neighborhood character and adjacent home values. There is no excuse for Palo Alto not doing the same.

SB 649 would strip municipalities of the rights they now have to prevent multi-billion dollar, out-of-state companies such as Verizon from littering their residential neighborhoods with cell towers. But contrary to what city staff have been trying to get you to believe, the cities of California are not helpless—not yet.

I don’t know why staff are misleading you. Perhaps they are poorly informed (but think they know it all). Perhaps they are being bullied or otherwise manipulated by Verizon. Perhaps having made the terrible decision to allow AT&T to install towers in some places, they are trying to cover up their error by pretending nothing can be done. Whatever the problem is, though, it is the responsibility of our elected officials to use the authority vested in them to stop Verizon.

I voted for you, Lydia, as did many of my neighbors who have been in touch with you about the cell tower installation proposal. In doing so, we expected you and your colleagues on City Council to look after our interests, not to defer to uncaring unelected administrators—to match your promise of enlightened governance with actual pro-active governing.

Please don’t allow city staff to continue to try to sell you the fiction that nothing can be done. I urge City Council to do three things: 1) Direct staff to do everything in their power to keep Verizon out of Palo Alto’s residential neighborhood, including retaining Jonathan Kramer to advise them; 2) hold its own public hearings on Verizon’s planned installations; and 3) if necessary, pass by urgency measure new ordinances to lawfully protect your constituents’ neighborhoods. Jonathan Kramer knows exactly how to do this, even though city staff wants to believe it can’t be done.


6

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

Jeanne

Jeanne Fleming, PhD

2070 Webster Street

650-325-5151

[email protected]

From: Kou, Lydia [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 2:40 PM To: Jeanne Fleming <[email protected]> Cc: Gitelman, Hillary <[email protected]>; Stump, Molly <[email protected]>; Keene, James <[email protected]> Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Lydia Kou Hold City Council hearings

Dear Dr. Fleming,

I sent an email this morning to the City Manager, Jim Keene, and City Attorney, Molly Stump, requesting a meeting. I am sure they will be in touch soon.

Kind regards,

--------

Lydia Kou - Council Member

Contact Info: https://goo.gl/BcgCQS


7

From: Jeanne Fleming <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 11:58 AM To: Council, City Cc: Architectural Review Board; Gitelman, Hillary; Stump, Molly; Keene, James Subject: An Open Letter to Lydia Kou Hold City Council hearings

Dear Lydia Kou,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate hearing from you.

I would very much like to have a short meeting with you, Mr. Keene and the city attorney to discuss this issue further. I understand that Mr. Keene believes that municipalities cannot say “no” to a cell company’s intrusion into residential neighborhoods. But there is ample evidence that they can—specifically, the cities of Berkeley and Palos Verdes have recently done exactly that, and Piedmont is in the process of doing so. It is my understanding that Palo Alto, through the vehicle of, for example, ordinances with respect to noise, aesthetics, sight line obstruction and street tree impacts, has the tools at its disposal to effectively restrict the cell industry’s antennas to commercial areas. My neighbors and I would like to work with you to accomplish this end.

As you know, the 150 day clock is ticking on this issue. And as you also know, hundreds of Palo Altans have contacted City Council asking you and your colleagues to take steps to defend the quiet beauty of our residential neighborhoods. If City Council is unable to stop Verizon, the Palo Alto neighborhoods with above-ground utilities are going to work very hard to see that the city delivers on its promise to put all of the city’s neighborhood’s utilities underground, not just the utilities of favored neighborhoods.

Thank you for raising the issue of SB 649. You will be happy to know that many Palo Altans have already contacted our representatives in the state legislature about this matter.

Lydia, I am very appreciative of your concern about the cell towers. My neighbors and I are eager to work with you to ensure that multi-billion dollar companies such as Verizon don’t steamroller Palo Alto into allowing them to put their noisy, ugly, radiation-emitting equipment on the utility poles next to our homes.

Sincerely,


8

Jeanne Fleming

Jeanne Fleming, PhD

2070 Webster Street

[email protected]

650-325-5151


1

Carnahan, David

From: Elizabeth Wong <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 12:49 PMTo: French, AmyCc: Brad Ehikian (PPM); Jon Goldman; Boyd, Holly; Eggleston, Brad; Architectural Review

Board; Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Stump, Molly

Subject: Garage D - 375 Hamilton AvenueAttachments: scanarb.pdf

Hello Amy, Please see attached letter regarding 375 Hamilton Ave. Thank you. Elizabeth

Via E-Mail

Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301

Dear Ms. French:

Waverley Post LP P. 0. Box 204 Palo Alto, CA 94302

September 6, 2017

As followup to our meeting on August 31, 2017, we wish to document the concerns and potential solutions we discussed with you and Ms. Holly Boyd regarding the new Downtown Parking Garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue. These fall into two categories: some that relate to the new garage in relation to its most nearby buildings, and then concerning the new structure itself.

Parking Access for Future Residential Units. Regarding parking access, we are encouraged by the opportunity for vehicular access to future on-site basement parking in lots 85 and 84 through tunnels (to be constructed by property owners) from the below-ground level of the garage at 375 Hamilton. You mentioned that this type of underground access has been provided elsewhere in the City. We request that the structural elements in the new garage be designed and constructed to accommodate a future two-way tunnel for such purpose.

Ongoing Servicing of Existing Grease Traps and HVAC Units. The restaurant operations at lots 85 and 84 require regular access for servicing, maintaining and replacing their grease traps, HVAC and other utilities. As well, regular access for trash and recycling removal is required. These activities take place at the back of the respective buildings. These activities are messy and uninviting and would not be compatible with the buildout and fine flooring for customer access at the front of the building. We request that the walkway behind the buildings and parallel to Waverley Street be constructed in a manner to allow trucks to enter and service the backs of the buildings in a similar fashion as the access for the Greenwaste trucks to the dumpsters in the new garage.

Deliveries and Loading Zones. There are no designated loading zones provided to the businesses on this block of Waverley Street as well as to many businesses on the 300 block of University such as CVS and the Apple store because the current parking lot where the new garage is to be built served as their de-facto loading zone. While we appreciate the suggestion of creating a loading zone in front of the new garage on Waverley Street, this is far from the receiving end of all of these businesses and we request a design that could accommodate one or two loading zones closer to the rear of the buildings.

Design of the Parking Garage. The design of the new parking structure itself appear massive in the context of the low buildings on that block of Waverley Street and the Birge Clark historical post office across Hamilton. We had proposed earlier a 3-story above ground structure with two

stories of underground parking. This would a much better fit for this location. Also, not having the additional parking to be provided by the second underground level of parking is a lost opportunity to the City in terms of foregoing the use of such valuable underground space, considering that such designs have become standard procedure for commercial downtown development. Much like in private developments, the City can mitigate the possibility of encountering underground hazardous materials, if encountered, through applicable insurance coverage, and mitigate underground water through modern construction techniques and procedures.

The proposed facades with walls and/or screens and/or vertical fins add to the appearance of mass and we advocate a simpler, more honest design with open floors above half-walls and/or elegant rails on each floor. Some screens or trellises can be used selectively at targeted spaces to provide relief and as backdrops for garden walls or other landscaping.

We appreciate your attention to this matter.

cc: Brad Ehikian Jon Goldman Holly Boyd Brad Eggleston ARB City Council James Keene Ed Shikada Hillary Gitelman Jonathan Lait Molly Stump

Elizabeth Wong


1

Carnahan, David

From: [email protected]: Sunday, September 10, 2017 11:09 AMTo: Lydia KouCc: Council, CitySubject: Housing in Palo Alto

Has there been any progress on solving the shortage of affordable housing, especially for Palo Alto policemen, teachers, civil servants and firefighters? I see no progress in consolidating lots along El Camino - by contrast, I see a lot of activity along the same road in Mountain View, including residential and ground floor retail? I also think it hypocritical to have a poorly used city golf course and airport when there is this unmet need. Jeff Lipkin Sent from my iPhone On Sep 10, 2017, at 2:02 AM, Lydia Kou <[email protected]> wrote:

Jeffrey --

Last night, Mexico experienced an 8.2 magnitude earthquake which was felt more than 500 miles away and by over 90 million people. There are tsunami warnings for the


2

Hawaiian Islands and Guam. Sadly, there are also casualties. http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/08/americas/mexico-earthquake-live-updates/index.html

In the last two weeks, there has been Hurricane Harvey which has devastating results in Texas and some of the nearby states, now Hurricane Irma which is leaving devastation in its pathway. Not far behind is Hurricane Jose, almost on the same path of Irma. Now, this 8.2mag earthquake in Mexico.

September is National Preparedness Month and 2017’s overarching theme is “Disasters Don’t Plan Ahead. You Can.” It is more evident than ever we have to take our well-being into our own hands. Let’s take this time to be prepared.

We can depend on our first responders to take care of us, but let’s be realistic. Let’s look at Texas, the first responders are overwhelmed and many states and cities have sent mutual aid. But, there will be more need with Irma and Jose. While Palo Alto has a phenomenal police and fire department, we do have to also rely on ourselves and our neighbors. To do that we ourselves must be self sufficient and prepared. Here is how http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/services/public_safety/emergency_preparedness/default.asp

Also, sign up for AlertSCC to get alerts from Santa Clara County http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/services/public_safety/emergency_preparedness/alertscc.asp

Please share/forward this to your neighbor, family and friends.

Thank you!

Lydia Kou http://www.lydiakou.com/

Vote for Lydia Kou · 708 Matadero Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306, United States This email was sent to [email protected]. To stop receiving emails, click here. You can also keep up with Lydia Kou on Twitter or Facebook.

Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders.


1

Carnahan, David

From: Glowe <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 6:29 PMTo: Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City; City Mgr; French, AmyCc: Kathy LayendeckerSubject: I support Castilleja

Dear Mayor Scharff, City Council Members, Mr. Keene, and Ms. French, The 2017‐18 academic school year has begun for Castilleja. I received a letter, as we do every year, informing the neighbors that school had begun. If I had not received that letter, I would not have known that full sessions had started! In general, even though I live directly across from the carved doors entrance to the school, the traffic has never bothered me nor been an issue. However, I want to applaud the school for its efforts. Even though the traffic has increased from summer, the flow seems much less and more importantly, there is hardly any noise. I don't know what they have done, but I cannot tell that school is in full swing. We need more good schools. Castilleja is a great neighbor and they have shown every effort to mitigate their impact on the neighborhood. Please support their request for increased enrollment. Respectfully submitted, Glowe Chang 1345 Bryant St. Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone


1

Carnahan, David

From: Palo Alto Free Press <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 6:52 AMTo: Council, City; Keene, JamesCc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Watson, Ron;

Perron, Zachary; Bullerjahn, Rich; Philip, Brian; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external)Subject: On going monitoring by IPA Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter

Gennaco stated in his police bias report his team of expert attorneys would monitor progress of perceived racial profiling and other biased activities of the Palo Alto police department. He has done no such thing!!! A complete sanctioned fraud...By James Keene Palo Alto Free Press Mark Petersen-Perez

Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)

8/13/17, 4:40 AM #RacialProfiling by @PaloAltoPolice 'racial bigotry hatred, they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated' Sessions @PaloAltoCityMgr pic.twitter.com/CNCs2YGBJp

Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPhone


1

Carnahan, David

From: Eric Filseth <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 3:38 PMTo: Keene, James; 'Penny Ellson'; Council, City; De Geus, RobertSubject: RE: 2017-18 PAUSD Enrollment Report

Todd tells me K was actually UP slightly this year even though K‐5 was down.

From: Keene, James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 2:50 PM To: Filseth, Eric (external); 'Penny Ellson'; Council, City; De Geus, Robert Subject: Re: 2017-18 PAUSD Enrollment Report Thanks!

James Keene | City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 E: [email protected] Sent from my Macbook Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you

From: Eric Filseth <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Council, City" <[email protected]>, James Keene <[email protected]>, Robert De Geus <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 2017‐18 PAUSD Enrollment Report

I hadn’t – thanks. We’re supposed to see it at city‐school mtg next week. Slight decline in Elementary – is good. Yes an increase in high school, but the Elementary one is most important. Eric From: Penny Ellson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:18 AM To: 'Council, City'; 'Keene, James'; 'De Geus, Robert' Subject: 2017-18 PAUSD Enrollment Report PAUSD has released the 2017-18 14th Day Enrollment Report. See Agenda item 5.B. here. http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/pausd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AQHSHV72A6ED


2

Given the discussion of PAUSD enrollment needs last night, I thought you might be interested in this annual update on enrollment trends. Best, Penny


1

Carnahan, David

From: Jeanne Fleming <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 1:12 PMTo: Atkinson, RebeccaCc: Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Stump, Molly; Architectural Review BoardSubject: RE: A formal request for information regarding Verizon's applications

Hi Rebecca, Thank you for explaining more about the shot clock. Am I correct then that, as of today, September 12:

1. 74 days have ticked off on the Cluster One clock, with either 16 or 76 days remaining on it; 2. 30 days have ticked off on the Cluster Two clock, with 120 days remaining on it; and 3. 30 days have ticked off on the Cluster Three clock, with 120 days remaining on it?

This is what I’ve concluded from the information you’ve provided, but please let me know whether I am correct. And please also let me know when the Cluster Two and Cluster Three clocks start running again. I look forward to hearing from the City Attorney’s Office about the 90 day clock Verizon says applies to its Cluster One application and what they plan to do about it. Obviously, the ARB’s role in the process cannot begin in October (which is what City Council has indicated) if Cluster One’s clock runs out in September. Regards to you, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming [email protected]

From: Atkinson, Rebecca [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 5:24 PM To: Jeanne Fleming <[email protected]> Subject: RE: A formal request for information regarding Verizon's applications Hello Jeanne Fleming, Thank you for your email. Days are basically 24 hour periods and it is calendar day, not business days. The City has 150 days in its wireless code for Tier 3 WCF permit processing and that is based on the Spectrum Act. There are also tolling agreements that can be entered into in regard to processing time. Planning is very mindful of the shot clock as just one of the very many items to keep track of. I will defer to the City Attorney’s Office for any other comments about the shot clock though. I also can’t speak for Vinculums/Verizon regarding their position on the shot clock, but you are free to inquire with them. We are anticipating resubmittal of Cluster 1 tomorrow and the resubmittal of Cluster 2 and Cluster 3 a few weeks out (which will start their shot clocks again; their clocks are stopped right now).


2

I hope this answers your questions below. Regards, Rebecca

From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 3:19 PM To: Atkinson, Rebecca Subject: RE: A formal request for information regarding Verizon's applications Thank you, Rebecca. Two questions for you:

1. Would you please explain what constitutes a “day” (e.g., are these business days) and indicate for each cluster exactly how many days remain on the clock; and

2. Would you please explain why Verizon believes a 90 clock applies to Cluster One and what the city is doing to ensure that a 150 day clock applies.

With appreciation, Jeanne

From: Atkinson, Rebecca [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 2:08 PM To: Jeanne Fleming <[email protected]> Subject: RE: A formal request for information regarding Verizon's applications Hello Jeanne Fleming. Good afternoon. I wanted to get back to you with a formal response regarding your request for information in your email below. Currently, there are three formal Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility applications on file from Vinculums/Verizon, although more are anticipated. Pending formal applications and their shot clock status are summarized below:

1. Cluster 1 – 17PLN‐00169

Initial Submittal May 23, 2017 – Deemed Incomplete June 22, 2017 – Shot Clock Stopped

Resubmittal August 01, 2017 – Deemed Complete August 10, 2017 – Shot Clock Running from August 01, 2017

The City believes the 150 day shot clock expiration date is November 28, 2017. Verizon has asserted that a 90 day shot clock applies instead.

2. Cluster 2 – 17PLN‐00170

Initial Submittal May 24, 2017 – Deemed Incomplete June 22, 2017 – Shot Clock Stopped

3. Cluster 3 – 17PLN‐00228

Initial Submittal June 27, 2017 – Deemed Incomplete July 26, 2017 – Shot Clock Stopped


3

Regards, Rebecca

4.

Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: [email protected]

Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped

From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 2:52 PM To: Atkinson, Rebecca Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City Subject: A formal request for information regarding Verizon's applications Hi Rebecca, To follow up on the message I left for you yesterday, please consider this my formal request that the Planning Department tell me exactly where the shot clock stands on each cluster of Verizon’s applications to install small cell sites in Palo Alto. When I spoke to you and to the folks at Verizon last, Verizon had identified three clusters. If there are more than three clusters now, I would like the shot clock information on all of them. And if other cell companies have now filed applications, I would like the same information for those applications. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks very much, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming [email protected]


1

Carnahan, David

From: Richard Brand <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:41 PMTo: Poggio, Andy; Weatherford, JeannyCc: Harrington, Bob (external); Donn Lee; Moe, Christine; Kau, Andrew; Smith, Loren;

Tapaskar, Vijay; Hoel, Jeff (external); Matthey, Olivier; Masnavi, Abbas; Fleming, Jim; Henderson, Todd; Reichental, Jonathan; Wallace, Josh; Yuan, Dave; [email protected]; [email protected]; Council, City

Subject: Re: FTTP / Wireless Citizen Advisory Committee

I agree with Andy's point about the pursuit of Fiber to the Nowhere (FTTN) which we both agree could be a dead end. If we do not pursue our original CAC objective to find a solution for Palo Alto to be innovative and deploy a FTTP network available to every resident, then why are we spending time on wireless networks? The CAC has always expressed the position that any type of wireless citywide network is no alternative to FTTH. Richard Brand FTTP CAC Member from the outset.

-----Original Message----- >From: Andy Poggio >Sent: Sep 12, 2017 9:15 PM >To: "Weatherford, Jeanny" >Cc: "Brand, Richard" , Bob & Margie Harrington , Donn Lee , Christine Moe , Andrew Kau , "Smith, Loren" , "Tapaskar, Vijay" , Jeff Hoel , "Matthey, Olivier" , "Masnavi, Abbas" , Jim Fleming , "[email protected]" , Jonathan Riechental , "Wallace, Josh" , "Yuan, Dave" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" >Subject: Re: FTTP / Wireless Citizen Advisory Committee > >It is likely that I won’t be able to attend this meeting. In any case, I’d like to make two points: > >1. Though the direction from city council is to pursue FTTN, I continue to highly recommend that we issue an RFP that includes a plan and incremental costing for FTTP in addition to FTTN. > >2. I am concerned about “What if we built an FTTN and nobody came?” By that, I mean serious ISPs with the intent to turn our FTTN into an FTTP. Can we get some readings from specific ISPs, e.g. Sonic, to determine that if we do build FTTN, one or more ISPs would extend it to make FTTP? If we are unable to get positive confirmations on such an extension, then we need to rethink only doing FTTN. > >Sorry I’ll miss this meeting. > >—andy > > > >> On Sep 12, 2017, at 4:15 PM, Weatherford, Jeanny wrote: >> >> >


1

Carnahan, David

From: Elana Katyal <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 3:44 PMTo: Markevitch, Pat; Council, CitySubject: Shuttle from terman to jcc

Dear city council members, I just heard that the City Council just recently approved a shuttle that would start near the JCC and go all the way to Gunn, they are just trying to find funding for it. I have a daughter I have to schlep back and forth from terman to east meadow twoce a day. Luckily I don't have a full time job. I don't know how two working parents could do it Biking is too dangerous. Every other city I have lived in had school buses. If you are looking for fudnding, How about funding it with the inordinate amounts of money I, and other palonalto residents, pay in property taxes (Not to mention my state income taxes!) Kids should have safe way home provided by the city. The traffic is terrible. A two mile round trip shouldn't take 30 minutes. My husband even parks and goes for a run in the morning after dropping her off to avoid the return trip traffic. This is a very pressing issue. Please let me know how we can solve this. I know there are many parents frustrated by the lack of good school transportation for Palo Alto kids. Thank you, Elana Katyal 512-791-3501


1

Carnahan, David

From: jilan yin <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 12:50 PMTo: Council, CitySubject: stop cell towers in our neighborhood

To whom may concern:

We are Palo Alto residents who are living 450 Loma Verde AVe where Verizon is planning to install the cell tower.

We are strongly against this plan and beg our city council to take every step to defend our neighborhood's aesthetics,home values and peace and quiet,more important our health.

our beddrom is less than 5 meter to the cell tower pole , no one knows the long term haelth impact of day after day close proximity to towers which Verizon is proposing,but we all know for sure is that the towers will increase the radiation level.

Please conside our worry and request, do as much as you can to stop this plan.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely ,

Chunming Niu & JIlan Yin


1

Carnahan, David

From: Jeff Hoel <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 12:36 PMTo: Council, CityCc: Hoel, Jeff (external); UACSubject: TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 08-21-17 Council meeting -- FTTP item

Council members,

Here's a transcript of the FTTP & wireless item from the 08-21-17 Council meeting. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59056 I have added my comments (paragraphs beginning with "###"). (The City will post an official transcript eventually, but I wanted to comment now.) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I'm glad that the motion Council adopted includes "engage an engineering firm to design an expansion option to build a citywide Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) network." It would have been even better to have required the engineering firm to design a citywide FTTP network (non-optionally) first, and then design a contraction option to identify what subset of the citywide FTTP infrastructure could be omitted initially and still accomplish FTTN's goals. I see no reason why staff couldn't still take this approach. If we don't, the risk is that we'll spend $15 million on FTTN and then find out that most of it was unnecessary as a step towards citywide FTTP. How many nodes will the FTTN design propose? Google Fiber thought that it needed only two nodes to deploy citywide FTTP in Palo Alto. Should fiber-to-two-nodes cost $15 million? Or is staff saying they know more than Google does about how to deploy citywide FTTP? The motion that Council adopted includes "engage a management consultant..." Ideally, such a consultant would provide needed experience, expertise, and vision that staff currently lacks. But does staff have what it takes to choose such a consultant wisely, in the City's best interest? To me, it makes no sense that the City's FTTP effort should be led by someone who believes "the future is wireless." For example, you wouldn't want the City's EV program to be led by someone who believed "the future is carless." The slogan, "the future is wireless," has been spouted since before the turn of the century, yet savvy municipalities continue to choose municipal FTTP. Thanks, Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- PS: I'm sorry I couldn't be present on 08-21-17. I was out of town -- a vacation planned since last year. This item was originally scheduled for before Council's summer break. I could have attended then. ######################################################################### Video: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-135/


2

3:24:35: Vice Mayor Kniss: So, that takes us to our last item, which is a "Work Plan for Fiber-to-the-Premises and Wireless Network." And for those of you who will know what I'm talking about, this is about as déjà vu as any item I can ever think of. 3:24:51: [laughter] ### "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana 3:24:52: Vice Mayor Kniss: So, this, tonight, is going to talk about the staff, UAC, and Policy & Services recommendation that we pursue a municipal fiber-to-the-node network for fiber and broadband expansion, and expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities, and discontinue consideration of City-provided Wi-Fi in the commercial areas. So, with that, I see that we have our illustrious group approaching us. Including Jon Reichental. And I imagine you might kick us off. Am I correct? 3:25:32: Jonathan Reichental: You are correct. Yes. 3:25:34: Vice Mayor Kniss: Excellent. Thank you. 3:25:35: Jonathan Reichental: Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kniss. And Council members. My name is Jonathan Reichental. I am the IT Director. I want to recognize a few folks. We have members of the Citizen Advisory Committee, who help us work through these complex issues of fiber-to-the-home. We have Christine Moe in the audience. Richard Brand. And Bob Harrington. It's great to have their help, and the rest of the team too. And I want to recognize the core team, who did a lot of the hard work behind the scenes of the City. That's Todd Henderson, Jim Fleming right here, Dave Yen, and Josh Wallace. So, I recognize the importance of the decision tonight. And also recognize that, for some of you, this is the first time we're presenting this. Jim and I have had the pleasure of presenting for multiple times over multiple years. But we want to be sure that you get the thoroughness of this complex topic. There's no important service that I can provide -- no more important service that I can provide than being an advisor to all of you and our City Manager. And so, I take tonight's sort of comments and recommendation very seriously. It seems like about four years ago that you asked me and the team to start to explore this again. And it seems that after several detours, we may be coming to the end of the journey. And a clear direction is required. We can't continue to exhaust every angle, when the economics and the environment have fundamentally changed. As time passes, more of the incumbents will offer gigabit Internet, and the City will have extreme difficulty succeeding as a third, fourth, or fifth provider in our community. When we started this effort, four years ago, there was no AT&T Fiber, ### AT&T invented the brand name "AT&T Fiber" in 2016, and abandoned the brand name "GigaPower." https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/techflash/2016/10/at-t-ousts-gigapower-branding-launches-at-t-fiber.html The "AT&T Fiber" "umbrella" includes both FTTP and other technologies, which is a nuisance. http://www.tellusventure.com/blog/the-copper-gigaweasel-lurks-under-atts-fiber-umbrella/ PacBell started deploying FTTH in 1993. But when SBC acquired PacBell, that effort was abandoned. http://articles.latimes.com/1996-05-09/business/fi-2303_1_fiber-optic-network Comcast was not offering a technology called DOCSIS 3.1, which we'll talk about in a moment. There was no Google Fiber, ### Google Fiber deployed its 850-home test network on the Stanford campus in 2011. http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/07/14/google-fiber-tests-ultra-high-speed-network-on-campus/ https://www.cnet.com/news/cyberattacks-artificial-intelligence-ai-hackers-defcon-black-hat/ no Facebook Terragraph, no 5G, no millimeter wave technology,


3

### Some millimeter wave technologies have been around for a long time. http://ethw.org/Millimeter_Waves and other innovation. A lot has happened in four years. Now, if you fast forward to August 2017, Comcast is now offering one-gigabit AND two-gigabit service in Palo Alto. ### The product that uses DOCSIS 3.1 technology offers the user "up to" 1 Gbps down but "up to" only 35 Mbps up. The 05-23-17 staff report said Comcast planned a "soft launch" in 2Q17. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57822 It didn't explain what "soft launch" meant. ### The other product, "Gigabit Pro," uses FTTP technology and offers the user "up to" 2 Gbps symmetrical (both down and up). But it's only available in areas that are within 1/3 mile of Comcast's existing fiber network, and maybe not even then And it might cost $300 per month plus $1,000 up-front. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/comcasts-gigabit-cable-will-be-in-15-cities-by-early-2017/ That was the DOCSIS technology I was referring to earlier. ### The Gigabit Pro product does NOT use DOCSIS technology. In fact, this cable offering is so compelling that, according to recent reporting, traditional telcos are concerned about playing catchup, and may lose market share to Comcast. ### Generally, the phone companies have been losing market share to the cable TV companies for years. See Susan Crawford's 2011 book, "Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age." http://isp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/crawford_proof.pdf AT&T Fiber is coming in January. We're told. ### Last year, AT&T said they'd deploy to a couple sites by the end of 2016. They lied. Council should insist that staff do more than just parrot whatever AT&T says. ### This AT&T Fiber coverage map doesn't mention Palo Alto, even as an "underway" city. https://www.att.com/shop/internet/gigapower/coverage-map.html?source=ECtr0000000000GdD&wtExtndSource=fibermap And it's likely they won't need new boxes, to be installed around the community. ### When AT&T says "around the community," they have never meant "citywide." ### Ironically, the excuse AT&T gave, parroted by staff, for not deploying in 2016 was that the City had insisted that the new cabinets be green, not AT&T's color of choice. Now it turns out that new cabinets aren't needed at all. But just have to change the tech inside the boxes. ### I think AT&T's existing infrastructure in Palo Alto doesn't have any FTTP. It's either DSL (all-copper) or U-verse (fiber-to-the-neighborhood and then copper to premises). So, unless AT&T deploys some fiber to premises, the "AT&T Fiber" product AT&T will be offering won't be FTTP. So, it should happen relatively smoothly. Without having to go through a significant permitting process. 3:28:40: Now, perhaps this is not without controversy -- I've said it many times to many audiences at the City, and many of the committees -- that the future of Internet connectivity will increasingly be wireless. ### If that's true, why do savvy communities continue to opt for municipal FTTP? On 05-02-17, the Beverly Hills, CA, City Council voted 7-0 to proceed with a $19 million Phase 1 FTTP project. http://beverlyhills.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=5551 On 08-15-17, the Fort Collins, CO, City Council voted 6-1 to put the question of citywide FTTP to voters this November. (At 3:49:00 on this video.)


4

https://fortcollinstv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=deoSaZoQ6rzE# However, I always caveat that by saying, to have really good wireless, you have to have a ton of fiber. [laughs] They're not one without the other. You have to have a lot of fiber backhaul. I want to stress that. But the future appears to be wireless. ### Yes, if the incumbents want to deploy world-class wireless, THEY will need a ton of fiber. But I don't see how the City will be able to make the incumbents do what wireless customers want. ### Staff used to say wireless was "complementary" to FTTP. On 02-02-15, Council approved hiring CTC to do a report on a FTTP master plan and a "complementary" wireless network plan. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49073 But, here, Reichental seems to be singing a different tune. He's saying that wireless can and will compete with wired, even for non-mobile applications. Lots of people disagree with that. For example, Broadband Communities' Masha Zager says, "Recent advances in wireless technologies haven't made FTTH obsolete, and aren't going to." http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/July/BBC_Jul17_EdLetter.pdf So, let me give you some data around that. So, back in 2013, one in ten American households who access the Internet did it only wirelessly. Fast forward three years, to 2016. Now, one in five Americans -- 20 percent of U.S. households -- only access the Internet wirelessly. With a mobile device. That's doubled in three years. And we would anticipate to see that continuing. ### According to this 03-06-17 article, most of the wireless-only Internet users are low-income households trying to save money -- not exactly the Palo Alto demographic. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/10-of-Broadband-Users-to-Go-Wireless-Only-in-Next-Year-139087 But wireless is actually more expensive per bit than wired, so to save money, you have to limit use. 3:29:41: As you know, smart phones dominate how people access the Internet. Not laptop computers. Not desktop computers. Smart phones. In homes, Wi-Fi-enabled devices are exploding, from security cameras to Amazon's Alexa. All wireless. Smart homes, smart cities, wearables, fitness devices, connected cars, the Internet of Things, next-generation healthcare. It's all going to be wireless. And there's a new generation of cellular technology and other wireless called fifth-generation. You all know about 4G, because most of us use 4G in our phones. Well, 5G is coming. It's not ready yet. And the people who are involved in developing it say it won't be until about 2020 until it goes mainstream. ### It's important not to believe all the hype from 5G developers. In his 08-09-17 blog, "A 5G Timeline," Doug Dawson says that 5G won't even be formally specified until 2020, and won't achieve "critical mass" until 2025. https://potsandpansbyccg.com/tag/5g/ However, that's only about a couple years to go. When we talk about wireless, we're not just talking about smart phones, but we're talking about something called fixed wireless. Accessing the Internet from your home to a wireless device. It's kind of fun, just this -- on the speed -- real quick. 'Cause I think it gives you some nice background. Most of us use 4G, on our smart phones and our tablets. And that is approximately 5 to 12 megabits of download. About 2 to 5 megabits of upload. Now, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has specifications for 5G. 20 gigabits for download, and 10 gigabits for uplink. ### This source says that "Downlink user experienced data rate is 100 Mbit/s" and "Uplink user experienced data rate is 50 Mbit/s." https://www.techdotmatrix.com/2017/03/5g-specifications-20-gbps-download-and-10-gbps-upload-speed/ Now, by the way, that's best-case scenario. It's probably never going to get that fast in terms of 5G. But that's the best-case scenario. So, if we do some quick math, if you round up 4G speed to 10 megabits, 5G will be 2,000 times faster. That's all you need to remember. [laughs] ### Note: Reichental first acknowledges, more or less, that it's completely illegitimate to compare 4G's everyday average speeds for a single user with 5G's hoped-for peak speeds for an entire cell. But then he goes ahead makes the comparison anyway. In the average home, the average American gets 50 megabits into their home. Of broadband. 5G is 400 times faster than that. 400 times faster than the average broadband speed in America.


5

### There's no reason to assume that the broadband the average American home gets should be the benchmark for what Palo Alto homes should be capable of getting. Anyhow, it's illegitimate to compare 5G's hypothetical best-case bandwidth for an entire cell with wired bandwidth to a single premises. When I was in Dubai last year, at Etisalat, who is the common carrier there, it was experimenting with 5G, and they reached speeds of 36 gigabits. ### 10-20-16: "Etisalat conducts the region's fastest 5G trial reaching 36 Gbps at GITEX 2016" https://www.menaherald.com/en/tech/telecom/etisalat-conducts-region%E2%80%99s-fastest-5g-live-trial-reaching-36-gbps-gitex-2016 That's just really, really fast. Right? The problem is, to roll out the next generation of cellular is going to require a lot of small cells. A lot of the cellular devices you're familiar with, but -- a lot of density. In fact, that's why state bill 649, ### a.k.a. Senate Bill 649. which is moving through Sacramento, and, we're told, will likely pass. Although the City is opposed to it, with regard to City control. ### On 06-24-17, Mayor Scharff sent a letter to Senator Hueso opposing SB 649. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58295 But, somehow, Palo Alto's opposition wasn't listed in a 07-12-17 official analysis of SB 649, which included a list of 187 (or so) other cities and 7 towns that opposed it. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649 As you may know, I asked Council to oppose SB 649 on 02-22-17 and 03-15-17. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56782 ### I guess we'll know by 09-15-17 whether SB 649 passed. http://senate.ca.gov/legdeadlines http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649 One of the main motivating factors for that is to enable 5G. To have a lot of density of cells. 3:32:54: So, I'll get to the final comments here. Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile are all in U.S. tests. And, as I mentioned in prior meetings, Google, who left us, may return with a wireless-to-the-home solution. ### I'm not holding my breath, and neither should Council. Verizon is currently experimenting with 5G fixed wireless in eleven geographies in the U.S., using urban and suburban settings. AT&T has testing in Austin and Indianapolis. And, just to make it international, Turin, Italy, is set to become the first 100 percent 5G community by 2020. ### Given that 5G won't even be formally specified until 2020, this seems like a stretch. These are exciting times for high-speed Internet. Now, if you choose Option 2 tonight, to explore the business case -- or explore the business cases and design options for fiber-to-the-neighborhood -- and explore only, not build -- but explore -- it's my bet that some form of last-mile wireless will be features of several of the options. So, what I've shared with you tonight is not at odds with our potential wireless future. I would like you to think and consider this information as you debate the City's long-term Internet strategy. So, thank you for that. Now, I'll just go to the summary of what we'll do tonight. As you can see there's a number of options. You're going to be selecting one of the fiber option -- expansion options one through three. And then, after that, we'll discuss two recommendations around wireless. And I'm going to hand you over to Jim Fleming, who's going to talk us through those. Thank you. 3:34:35: Jim Fleming: Good evening, Vice Mayor Kniss and Council members. My name is Jim Fleming. I'm a Senior Management Analyst with Utilities. This evening, we'll review recommendations for fiber expansion and City Wi-Fi additions to support high-speed broadband connectivity in Palo Alto. Here's some background. In April and May, staff presented three fiber expansion options, in


6

addition to two wireless recommendations to the Utility Advisory Commission and the Council Policy & Services Committee. Both the UAC and the Policy & Services Committee recommended recommending to the Council pursuit of Option 2, the Fiber-to-the-Node option, in addition to supporting the wireless recommendations to expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities, and to discontinue consideration of commercial Wi-Fi. ### Just to be clear, both UAC and the Policy & Services Committee made their recommendations directly to Council, not indirectly through staff. Just to be clear, UAC recommended also doing a FTTP pilot. I'll present a brief summary of each option, to provide some background, and to put these options and recommendations into context. Option 1 is to explore potential funding models to build a municipally-owned citywide fiber-to-the-premises network, based on an "open access" network model. ### Later, when Council Member Tanaka made his substitute motion based on (his kind of) "open access," he didn't acknowledge that (a kind of) "open access" was a part of Option 1. An "open access" network is defined as an arrangement in which a network is owned by the City but would be open to multiple Internet service providers, to offer gigabit-speed connectivity and broadband-based services dependent on high-speed, high-bandwidth networks. ### Actually, speed shouldn't be built into the DEFINITION of "open access." ### Also, later, Council Member Tanaka proposes a kind of "open access" in which the City wouldn't own all of the network. The City's 2015 Fiber-to-the-Premises Master Plan indicated that, assuming the network achieves the 72 percent take rate required to positively cash flow the enterprise, the City will require an estimated overall capital investment of approximately $78 million, to build and operate a citywide fiber-to-the-premises network. Take rate is defined as the number of homes passed by the network that choose to connect and pay a subscription fee. ### What does Fleming mean here by "subscription fee"? A monthly fee for service? Or an up-front connect fee? The usual DEFINITION of take rate is the number of premises connected divided by the number of premises passed (and therefore eligible to be connected). In terms of potential funding models for fiber-to-the-premises, and for fiber-to-the-network, ### What the heck is "fiber-to-the-network"? Perhaps Fleming meant "fiber-to-the-node." a key consideration for network implementation is how to fund both capital construction costs and ongoing operational expenses. Acknowledging that capital and operating costs associated with a full-scale citywide build-out will be significant, the City would have to seek outside funding and/or internal subsidies to support construction and start-up costs. ### I don't think spending money from the Fiber Fund on FTTP should be called a subsidy. I don't think spending money from the electric, gas, and water utilities on FTTP to the extent that FTTP enables these utilities to deploy smart grid should be called a subsidy. I don't know what other "internal subsidies" Fleming has in mind. Potential funding models for construction and start-up costs include bond issuances, such as general obligation or revenue bonds, use of the Fiber Optic Fund Reserve, and ongoing internal subsidies. Option 2 is a municipally-owned fiber-to-the-node network that would bring fiber infrastructure closer to residential neighborhoods and commercial zones for private last-mile connections, to provision broadband services to home and businesses. Last-mile technology is the final connectivity leg between the telecommunication service provider and the individual customer premise. A fiber-to-the-node network would enable an incremental approach to citywide fiber-to-the-premises, And the estimated one-time fiber-to-the-node costs are in the range of $12 [million] to $15 million. But at this point, ongoing operations and maintenance costs are unknown. The recommended action item for Option 2 is to develop a business case for a fiber-to-the-node network, for the purpose of providing a platform for public safety and Utilities wireless communication in the field, supporting smart grid and smart city applications, and to develop new dark fiber licensing opportunities. Option 2 also includes a recommendation to engage an engineering firm to prepare a preliminary design of a fiber-to-the-node network, with an expansion option to build citywide fiber-to-the-premises. On a parallel path, staff would reach out to the community to determine interest in fiber-to-the-premises, in addition, to identify potential partners and/or service providers, and last-mile funding models. A fiber-to-the-node network would provide the City with a phased and economically viable deployment approach to push fiber infrastructure closer to residential neighborhoods and


7

business areas, and to create a potential jumping-off point to bring fiber to the individual premises. In other words, building the last mile. 3:39:22: Potential funding models for the last mile include user financing. User financing is an approach that relies on homeowners that pay on a voluntary basis for some or all of the cost to build out the City's existing dark fiber backbone network into residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. Homeowners and businesses would voluntarily finance system build-out costs by paying a one-time, up-front connection fee that could range from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars. ### I have objected to this characterization before. Is staff saying that a given subscribing premises would have to pay a amount that might be different from what other subscribing premises have to pay, perhaps based on what it would cost the City? Or is staff saying that all subscribing premises would have to pay the same amount, but staff has essentially no clue what that amount would be? Another potential funding model is to create assessment districts, which may be used to finance new public improvements or other additions to the community. Generally speaking, an assessment district is formed with property owner mail ballot proceedings involving each property that will be assessed in the district. Owners vote yes or no, and the votes are weighted by the assessed amount. ### Why would this be better than, say, revenue bonds? What would the assessed amount depend on? Another last-mile approach is to explore the potential for a public-private partnership, with the City and a private entity would work together to achieve mutual goals for a fiber-to-the-premises network and complement one another by developing a partnership that could take advantage of each entity's strengths, which may significantly reduce the cost and financial risk of a citywide build-out in a competitive market. 3:40:46: Option 3 is to "pause" municipal fiber-to-the-premises work, to -- and increase transparency and predictability for Internet service providers. This would involve identifying additional resources, to streamline third-party network upgrades where feasible. For example, permitting inspection processes. And also make available useful information about City assets, and facilitate access to City infrastructure. For example, public rights-of-way, utility poles, utility routes, conduit, and real estate. And also to streamline and publicize local processes. 3:41:30: There are two staff recommendations for wireless. The first recommendation is to expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities. The expansion of Wi-Fi technology at unserved City facilities and public areas was evaluated by the Community Services Department. Most City facilities already have Wi-Fi access. The areas of the City where the Community Services Department recommends Wi-Fi deployment are at common areas and City facilities, such as Cubberley, Lucie Stern, the Golf Course Pro Shop and Café, and Lytton Plaza. A high-level cost estimate for the recommended sites is $165,000 for installation and $6,200 for monthly recurring charges. Funding for the project is available in the fiscal year 2017-2018 Operating and Capital Budgets, the Fiber Fund. ### It makes no sense to me that the Fiber Fund should be subsidizing this kind of wireless. The fiber utility needs all the money it can get to deploy FTTP. And the monthly recurring charges will be allocated to the respective departments consistent with the City's existing charge-back model. The second wireless recommendation is to discontinue consideration of City Wi-Fi in commercial areas. There is already widespread commercial Wi-Fi coverage in high-traffic commercial areas. And there is a lack of demand for City-branded Wi-Fi services. ### So, regarding Reichental's claim that "the future is wireless," apparently it's not this kind of wireless. So, to recap the two recommendations in the staff report, staff, the Utility Advisory Committee [sic] and the Council Policy & Services Committee recommend pursuing Option 2, for fiber-to-the-node, as requesting the Council to direct staff to develop a business case for a municipally-provided fiber-to-the-node network for fiber and broadband expansion. Including engaging an engineering firm to design a preliminary fiber-to-the-node network, with an expansion option to build a citywide fiber-to-the-premises network,


8

### How is this different from designing a preliminary citywide FTTP network, with a contraction option to build only the portions of that FTTP network that serve the purposes of staff's FTTN network? and to work to identify potential partners and/or service providers, including identifying last-mile funding models. The recommendations for wireless branding are to expand Wi-Fi to unserved City facilities, and to discontinue consideration of City-provided Wi-Fi in high-traffic commercial areas. ### These recommendations aren't really about "branding," per se. Right? So, that concludes my remarks. 3:43:51: Jonathan Reichental: Thank you, Jim. Thank you very much. And before -- if I could, Vice Mayor Kniss -- City Manager Jim Keene asked me to add a little bit more insight on Option 2, which we're recommending, about cost and timeline. So, of course, cost is something that's unknown at this time. But we can speculate, based on prior work. It probably will be in the $100,000-type range. It could be a little bit more, with the design elements. But we would know that as we proceed through the process. And timeline has sort of two considerations. We've consulted with Procurement. And if this was an amendment to an existing contract, or a sole source, we could get to the actual work quicker. If Procurement says, given the nature of the work we have to do, another RFP, it's lengthier. And so, to go through an RFP to select a vendor and then do the work, we would be returning with an actual set of recommendations and business cases, and the various design elements, likely by next summer. So, it's not a trivial exercise to get there, but that's the realistic timeline. Thank you. ### I am unclear about the motion that Council actually passed. Did it give staff permission to choose CTC as the sole-source contractor without doing an RFP? I have been very disappointed by CTC's work so far. And did it authorize staff to spend an amount of money "in the $100,000-type range," so that staff doesn't have to come back to Council to get a specific spending authorization? 3:45:09: Vice Mayor Kniss: Thanks. And I just want to acknowledge Jim Fleming, who is the first person I went to Kansas City with. And I think it was the 2013 ... 3:45:20: Jim Fleming: Right. 3:45:20: Vice Mayor Kniss: ... to study how we could do this, what Google was doing with it, and so forth. And I asked somebody today, whatever happened to the fiberhoods that Google was putting in in Kansas City? Did that ever come to anything? Or not? 3:45:44: Jim Fleming: Yes. They did build out parts of Kansas City. Although they're a little bit stalled, with their so-called "pause" in the last year. But they did build out to some extent in Kansas City. And parts of Austin, Texas. And, I believe, a little bit in Atlanta. And in the Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte, North Carolina, area. ### Google is sort of "semi-pausing" even in Kansas City. 03-21-17: "Google Fiber reportedly cancels hundreds of installations in Kansas City" https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/21/15009694/google-fiber-kansas-city-cancellations 08-3017: "Kansas City Was First to Embrace Google Fiber, Now Its Broadband Future is 'TBD'" https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/08/30/1845239/kansas-city-was-first-to-embrace-google-fiber-now-its-broadband-future-is-tbd I'm not sure why we should care. We should know by now that the private sector acts in the interest of shareholders, not the community. 3:46:01: Vice Mayor Kniss: Interesting. That's four years ago, now?


9

3:46:05: Jim Fleming: Right. 3:46:05: Vice Mayor Kniss: Five years ago? Yeah. Anyhow. So, with that, we have two people from the public. I have Bob Smith and Richard Brand. And, Bob Harrington, could I encourage you to say a word or two? Would you be willing? 3:46:20: Bob Harrington: (unamplified) Sure. 3:46:21: Vice Mayor Kniss: Good. So, Bob's been involved with this for a long time. Also was one of the experiments in -- I think, in the Community Center area. Oh, what is it now? Eight years ago? Ten years ago? ### Palo Alto's FTTH Trial began in 2001 and was terminated (for what I think were bad reasons) in 2005. So it started 16 years ago and ended 12 years ago. Yeah. OK, let's start with Bob Smith. Greetings. 3:46:42: Bob Smith: Greetings. Bob Smith. Greer Road in Palo Alto. I don't share all of the assumptions that have been common here with the City. A couple of -- just to state that -- a couple of assumptions I've been making. One, that the amount of bandwidth a family of four in Palo Alto presently needs to sort of get the best of the Internet -- to be able to access it and get everything that is reasonable for them to be getting -- is about 150 megabits a second down speed -- download speed. ### Who gets to decide what's "reasonable"? And, by the way, what about upload speed? Comcast today offers speeds over 200. ### That's an "up to" speed, and when lots of people are trying to use the Internet at the same time, nobody gets Comcast's "up to" speeds. Although most people buy lower-priced tiers than that. So, what that really says is, that our current incumbent companies are doing a better job -- if my assumption is plausible -- are doing a better job than we think they are. ### In Longmont, CO, the city offers 1-Gbps symmetrical residential Internet service for $49.95 per month (to "charter members" -- residences that sign up within 3 months of its availability). https://www.longmontcolorado.gov/departments/departments-e-m/longmont-power-communications/nextlight-broadband/rates-and-services-gig-promo The build-out is nearly done. https://www.longmontcolorado.gov/departments/departments-e-m/longmont-power-communications/nextlight-broadband/construction-progress-and-service-availability-copy-3508 Take rate exceeds 50 percent. What's unreasonable about that? We keep talking about fiber -- has been the constant word. I'm glad we're starting to talk about wireless. But the constant word has been the necessity -- the utter imperative character -- of fiber. And fiber is just another method of transmission -- like coax, like wireless. ### No. Fiber is a medium (not a method) of transmission -- the only transmission medium capable of 10-Gbps speeds today for residential FTTP (e.g., in Chattanooga and Salisbury) and exponentially-increasing speeds for the foreseeable future. And I think we've given that too much attention. And we've given -- recently -- these high speeds -- like a gigabit -- too much attention, when I don't think the Internet really needs it today. It will. But it doesn't today. The other thing that I find myself in disagreement about is the whole idea of a fiber overbuild with existing incumbents. Which has


10

been the basic thread here for 20 years. We want to build something to compete with the cable company and the phone company. And the fact is, it may well not be economically possible. ### It's not a "fact" that it won't be possible. So, bringing to this FTTN -- a new letter on the end of that -- proposal, I don't really see this does much. Because if we build the thing, we will need somebody to come in and to do something for it. And we should have that as the focus. Who's going to want to come in and make that kind of investment? The easy part is the FTTN, I think. The hard part is all the things that Google had such a hard time doing, in the last several years. And the places where the failures will occur. So, I think you're really headed kind of in the wrong direction with the FTTN. Which, if you -- Of course, this is just about -- thinking about it, and planning it, and so on. But you're going to be spending the money on this. And then, if a few months or years, we'll be back here talking about building the thing. And I don't have a lot of faith that it's really going to help us. Thank you. 3:49:44: Vice Mayor Kniss: Thanks for coming. Richard Brand. And then Bob Harrington. 3:49:49: Richard Brand: Yeah. Good evening, Council members. How much time to I have? This is a very complex issue. Do I have three minutes? 3:49:56: Vice Mayor Kniss: You have three minutes, right. 3:49:56: Richard Brand: OK. I am a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee. I've been a member for three or four years. I think most of you know my credentials in terms of fiber optics. Eric and I worked on fiber optics 15 years ago, right? We were doing innovative stuff. This is a City of innovation. "FTTN" stands for "fiber to nowhere." And I'll tell you why. I worked as a -- I was a technology leader for Nortel Networks, after I left National. And went on -- fiber optics was my area. And I went to the ITU-T meetings. I went ti -- 'cause Nortel was doing 4G. In fact, they were a leader in 4G until they went bankrupt. Also, I was doing GPON. And now we have XGPON. Which is what AT&T is talking about. ### Talk is cheap. AT&T plans to test XGS-PON technology -- and software-defined networks -- but when will it deploy them? 06-29-17: "AT&T plans 10 Gbps fiber field trial" https://www.rcrwireless.com/20170629/carriers/att-plans-10-gpbs-fiber-field-trial-tag4 I agree with Bob, but I disagree with his comment. The media -- fiber media -- is unlike wireless. You know, wireless is a shared network. It's like a piece of pie. And you cut up the slices. OK, Soupy Sales got the whole pie in his face, right? The neighborhoods get the pie sliced up into -- multiple issues. So, you say, I got 100 gigabits of bandwidth. Well, you know, that gets sliced up into a thousand slices, and pretty soon, it's limited. Wireless does NOT do this. And I'm talking about either fixed wireless -- still shared -- or cellular. So, 5G, we worked on antennas at Nortel Networks for 5G. The patents were sold off. 5G has its place. But fiber really is the ultimate solution. By God, Liz, you know this. You've heard this so many times from your husband. The fact is that if we're going to be an innovative, leadership City, we need to push this program. I think staff has given up. ### I think Brand means that he thinks staff has given up on citywide municipal FTTP. We've had a lot of meetings. I think that you're saying fiber-to-the-node is the easy way out. You know what happened? We'd have fiber-to-the-home here in Palo Alto if SBC, which then became AT&T, went ahead with the projects that they did, along with Verizon and BellSouth. Verizon did FiOS. It's recognized as the best Internet connection in the U.S. ### Verizon's first FiOS deployments used BPON, which is no longer the best technology. Later deployments used GPON. But so do lots of municipal networks, e.g., Chattanooga, Longmont, Sandy, etc. Some municipal networks, e.g., Chattanooga and Salisbury, offer 10-Gbps, which is better than FiOS. AT&T decided -- oh, they were sold by their marketing people -- fiber-to-the-node. And they went XDSL. Well, now we know how AT&T is doing with DSL, because Comcast is outselling them. Fiber-to-the-node is a dead end. And I'm telling you, don't let them do this. I don't want to work on fiber-to-the-node. If that's the way we go, then I'm out. Thank you.


11

3:52:32: Vice Mayor Kniss: Thanks, Richard. Bob Harrington. Both Richard and Bob have been on the Advisory Committee, for, I think, a number of years now. ### The first members of CAC were appointed on 02-18-13. 3:52:43: Bob Harrington: Yes. I'm Bob Harrington. I've been on various advisory committees for fiber since 2001. And started interest in fiber in 1999, when we had an opportunity to get fiber into our neighborhood as a test. The test was successful. The fiber was -- decided -- they called it a success and stopped our fiber access. And then -- that was -- that hurt. Fiber, in my mind -- as a non-technically-adept guy -- is the backhaul. And we need a ton of backhaul. ### The term "backhaul" is usually used to distinguish one part of the network from another. For example, cell phones use wireless to link to towers but then the backhaul is fiber. In the case of FTTP, fiber is the everythinghaul. We especially need a ton of backhaul in Palo Alto, California. You know, is the fiber-to-the-node the answer? It makes some sense to me. The part I really like about it is, it's affordable. The Fiber Fund was mentioned, without that number. The number is north of $25 million now, in our Reserve. So we've got the capital on hand. Provided by users. This is not tax money. This isn't any budget from the City. This money that users have provided to our Fiber Fund, enabling us to make some sort of wise investment. Some sort of wise investment is needed. Time is still on our side. Google's likely to come back and want to go from -- essentially -- nodes like we might be putting in. And maybe out with wireless from there. I wouldn't count on Google, however. You know, Google -- my faith in Google being cooperative with the City government is very low ebb. ### Yes. The other providers are -- have the reputation that -- the industry group of telecommunications is the least-liked industry group in America. And the companies that are providing services are the least-liked companies in America. We need to find some way to get independent of that in Palo Alto. ### The exception to this observation is that municipal FTTP providers are often among the most-liked telecom providers in America. 3:54:55: Vice Mayor Kniss: Thanks a lot. And our last speaker, I think, is -- is it Mike Francis? 3:55:01: Mike Francois: (unamplified) Mike Francois. 3:55:01: Vice Mayor Kniss: Do I have the name right? Yes. Greetings. 3:55:06: Mike Francois: Hello, there. My name is Mike Francois. I work for AT&T. And we put in a lot of fiber. In fact, we're doing a lot of San Francisco, San Jose. SBC is pushing it. They have a guy who's pushing cell towers, I'm sure you know about the cell tower thing. Fiber is cheap, you know. It's not as expensive. Copper is a little more forgiving. You know, when you have power outages, the phone still works, on the copper line. You know. ### It's a point. When you have FTTP, if you want the connection to work during a power outage, you need battery back-up. With DSL, when there's a power outage, the central office can continue to power a phone, but not a computer. And fiber -- a piece of fiber like this [holds up his index finger] could probably carry 40,000 regular telephone lines.


12

### One fiber (with a core diameter of 8-10 microns, and a cladded diameter of 125 microns) has a bandwidth-distance product of at least 30 THz * km. The phone company thinks a phone line requires only 64 kbps of bandwidth. So, 40,000 phone lines would require only 2.56 Gbps, One fiber could carry orders of magnitude more information than that, with the right electronics. One cut, and all those people are gone. ### It's a point. FTTP networks should be designed with redundancy so that, in most cases, if a fiber is cut, messages can still get through, using another fiber on another route. And all those people, in an emergency, are depending on the fiber guy. If you want to do it yourself, you're going to have to have people on call 24 / 7. In case they get cut. When the poles get hit. Or something happens in the ground. They got to be there. It's easy. It's small. You know. In other countries, they use bigger fibers more (indicating perhaps 2.5-inch diameter). Six inches around or so. You know. ### I don't believe it. A fiber optic cable having an outside diameter of less than one inch can have 864 fiber strands. But, if it's related to any -- if you hook up fiber-to-the-node, it's great. You know, that's fine. You get it there fast. Everybody gets all this fast speed. Everybody wants to go faster. Faster, faster, faster. But the problem is, it it's hooked to any cell towers, that's a problem. If you study cell towers, which AT&T is pushing -- and I work for them -- bad thing. The radiation it gives off. You guys have studied it. It is BAD. if you're going to be the leader in this, you have too many intelligent people that sit up there, and that surround you, not to research this. If you're going to be the leader, from the grass roots city, do it the right way. If the radiation is coming up, you don't want it. Make them change the radiation levels. They have gone up. People can communicate more, but the radiation goes up. There's a reason why they keep electricity away from schools. There's a reason why you keep them away from the crowds. Protect yourself. You know. Demand that they do it the right way. 'Cause they CAN do it. Thank you. 3:57:22: Vice Mayor Kniss: I want to just ask a question or two, and then go to the rest of my colleagues. My recollection is, we currently have about 42 miles of fiber laid. Am I correct? And we laid that in the late '90s. And that fund now is -- I think Bob just said -- south of $28 million. ### I think Vice Mayor Kniss didn't intend to say "south." ### According to the 2Q17 Utilities Quarterly Report, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57459 dated 05-03-17, the Fiber Optic Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund was expected to have $22,245,000, as of the end of FY 2017 (06-30-17). The 3Q17 Utilities Quarterly Report hasn't been published yet. At least it hasn't been published here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/reports/default.asp Chances are good that the Fund won't increase by almost $6 million in a single quarter. ### A 04-03-13 staff report projected how well the dark fiber would do financially. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33583 It predicted that the Fiber Fund would be $28,419,000 by 2018. But the projection didn't take into account that Council would authorize staff to spend $5 million on dark fiber network upgrades. It would be great if Council could direct staff to produce a sequel document, showing financial projections to 2023 or so. 3:57:46: Jim Fleming: It's approximately $28 million. 3:57:49: Vice Mayor Kniss: So -- So, we've done will with that. I think. And that has made -- it's made a big difference. The comment I would make is, that money, as I recall, could only be used very narrowly. This is not anything we could pull out and put in the General Fund and use for some other expense. So, as we talk about it tonight, I think that's one of the things I would keep in mind. Is -- you know, just -- what do we have on hand? 3:58:24: City Attorney Stump: Sure. So, just to clarify. This fund is not governed by the Constitutional -- narrow Constitutional requirements


13

that apply traditionally to the gas and electric funds and the water funds, for example. Because the fiber program is not a utility. The City does not have a monopoly. ### Apparently, City Attorney Stump is saying that the California Constitution says that in order for a service to be considered a utility, it must be a monopoly. But Wikipedia says, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility "The term utility can also refer to the set of services provided by these organizations consumed by the public: electricity, natural gas, water, sewage, telephone, and transportation. Broadband internet services (both fixed-line and mobile) are increasingly being included within the definition." On 10-18-10, Council, in effect, said fiber was a utility when it voted on 10-18-10 to expand the duties of the UAC to include overseeing the fiber utility, So, for most purposes, you can think of fiber as a utility. But for the purpose of understanding how the California Constitution restricts the use of utility funds, you can't. And it's not a resource that citizens are, in fact, re- -- you know, required to obtain for basic life, health, and safety. It is not governed by those requirements in that narrow way. And the City does have a greater level of flexibility about how to use those funds. 3:59:01: Vice Mayor Kniss: Good. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. OK. I see lights from Council Member DuBois, Council Member Filseth, and Council Member Tanaka. I don't know if they're quite in that order, but I think close. Tom. 3:59:19: Council Member DuBois: Thanks. And, good to see you guys back. [laughs] It's been a while. A couple of questions. So, what is the plan to develop the business case for fiber-to-the-node? Like, how are we going to go about doing that? 3:59:37: Jim Fleming: It would include a definition of fiber expansion objectives and the project scope, including services and applications the network could support. It would identify the business models, and the preferred business model, including evaluating public-private partnership opportunities. Identifying fiber network technologies, and the preferred technology. Doing cost-benefit analyses, financing options, and return-on-investment projections. An implementation plan would also be done. It would include operational resources, and cost to execute the preferred business model. And confirming buy-in from the community. 4:00:20: Council Member DuBois: OK. But what is the process we would use to create it? Just internally generate it? 4:00:26: Jonathan Reichental: Now -- (to Fleming) Go ahead. 4:00:27: Jim Fleming: (to Reichental) Go ahead. 4:00:28: Jonathan Reichental: Ah -- We would want to seek expert advice. There -- We have some ideas internally, and we would solicit a lot of ideas internally. But we would seek a firm that would help us look at options. That would help us explore what has worked in other cities in the United States. We'd add sort of the -- both the advantages and challenges of the Palo Alto community in doing it. And, together with the variety of business models would be the potential designs. Because they accompany the business models very closely. 4:01:08: Council Member DuBois: So, that's kind of my next question, which is -- 'cause you call out an engineering firm. You know, why start with an engineering firm? Do we -- You know, how soon do we need an engineering firm, I guess is the question? 4:01:24:


14

Jim Fleming: Well, I think that -- kind of a chicken-and-egg. Do the business case, and then do a preliminary design based on the business case. And there's a -- At this point, there's a lot of unknowns that -- in relation to the business case. And I think that's the real reason -- is to -- what problem are we trying to solve here? By building a network? And, you know, we've speculated, to some extent, that it can improve safety communication. It would perhaps provide a communication platform for smart grid and smart city applications that are coming forward in the future. And also, it would create licensing opportunities for dark fiber. Perhaps for the cellular industry. We have a basic business model now that works really well. We've got this $28 million Reserve. And it would be an opportunity to expand on that. And the wireless carriers are going to need fiber for backhaul. And that's another aspect of it. Also, too, the business case would determine, is there a legitimate last-mile partnership opportunity? The last mile in a network is the most expensive part. To get to individual -- or, to "pass" individual premises. So, I'm not sure if that answers your question. But ... ### It seems to me that the most important reason for doing "FTTN" should be to make FTTP easier to do later. What could a business plan say about that? All these other reasons -- it MIGHT improve safety communication, it MIGHT provide a platform for smart grid, it MIGHT create licensing opportunities for dark fiber -- are just gravy. Don't let the tail wag the dog. 4:02:51: Council Member DuBois: Yeah. No. I think it gets there. 4:02:53: Jonathan Reichental: I did want -- Could I -- Would you mind if I added a little bit, just to ... 4:02:56: Council Member DuBois: Sure. 4:02:56: Jonathan Reichental: ... to what Jim said? A part of doing both the business models and the conceptual designs is to be efficient, too. ### Even more important than being efficient is being effective. Because it seemed, as we went through the different committees, prior to this, that doing a business model, coming back, getting some guidance, going away, doing some design, coming back -- really doubles -- or extends -- the effort. It would be really helpful, when we come back to you, should you choose this direction, that we can tell you, here are the different business models, here are the trade-offs between the design. And then we can get a -- sort of a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on a particular design and go straight for that. So, I think, key to this was efficiency. 4:03:36: Council Member DuBois. OK. So, it's almost two years ago, I think, we approved almost $700,000 for project management work. ### Yes, $684,000, on 11-30-15. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50105 Is that money still allocated in the budget? Still approved? 4:03:52: Jonathan Reichental: For the individual? For a person, for three years? Yes. We can still use that. 4:03:55: Council Member DuBois: So, that already has Council approval. 4:03:58: Jonathan Reichental: Yes. I clarified that last time. Yes. ### When was "last time"?


15

### I worry about whether staff understands or agrees with what Council wants this position to do. Apparently, staff originally thought the person hired should be just a gofer to keep Google Fiber (GF) happy. After GF "paused," staff "paused" its hiring process too. But I think what Council wanted all along was someone with more expertise than staff currently has to guide the City's FTTP vision. 4:04:00: Council Member DuBois: OK. Um. Yeah, so we've been hearing about, I guess, AT&T Fiber for a couple years now. I'm still not sure I can order it. I'm not sure how much it costs. I don't think it's really available. ### Right. You know, Google got a new CFO, who really pulled the company to really focus on a lot of its core businesses. And, you know, this is one of the ones that's been publicly announced that Google's really shifting its focus. And I think when that happened, a lot of the competitors also slowed. I think AT&T has dramatically slowed their roll-out. They seemed a lot more motivated when Google was coming to Palo Alto. We've discussed before that really focusing on speed -- it's kind of a red herring. This really isn't a policy decision about speed. It's really a policy discussion about who owns the physical infrastructure. Whether it's public or private. ### I think it's about both. When, in 1999, the City put out an RFP for a telecommunications infrastructure that could provide a speed of at least 9600 bps, that was a dumb idea, because it was too slow, even for 1999. A municipal telecom network has to have sufficient speed to be competitive with the incumbents. To me, that means FTTP. And if it's private -- if it's owned by a monopolistic company -- you know, are we going to continue to have bad customer service, or pay exorbitant rates? City-owned infrastructure provides the City an opportunity to help its residents have great service and great pricing. ### And, I would argue, great speed. I don't think that compromising on speed makes municipal telecom any easier. And -- So, I think that's really the policy discussion we're focused on. In general, the US is behind a lot of the parts of the world. ### Right. As Jonathan mentioned. ### I don't think Reichental mentioned this. He said Etisalat was doing experiments with a sort of pre-formal-specification 5G which ran at 36 Gbps. That's only one other part of the world, and it's not a deployed product. The US, I think, now, over 200 cities have some publicly-owned broadband service. ### According to Broadband Communities Magazine's interactive database of FTTP networks, http://www.bbpmag.com/search.php There are 191 municipal networks and 19 PPPs. (It doesn't count dark fiber networks, and it doesn't count networks that provide services to municipal facilities but not to business and/or residential premises.) ### According to Muninetworks, https://muninetworks.org/communitymap there are more than 295 municipal FTTP networks, of which 95 reach most or all of the community. There are another 77 "cable" networks that reach most or all of the community. And since Google's pulled out, San Francisco and San Jose have both started moving plans for their own municipally-owned fiber. ### I haven't found any evidence that San Jose is doing this. So, I do think there are cities right in California that we can learn from, and steal ideas from. ### Right. I think there are also cities in the United States but not in California that we can learn from and steal ideas from, although their state laws are different.


16

Staff's recommending this fiber-to-the-node approach. It would expand our dark fiber out of just the commercial areas into the residential areas. ### I'm uncomfortable with this description. Does it mean that this new "dark fiber" will be constructed just like the dark fiber in the City's existing dark fiber network? Note that none of the City's existing dark fiber "passes" premises. So CTC says that the City's existing dark fiber network won't be of that much use to an entity that wants to deploy FTTP. The City's dark fiber access point "DB" is about a tenth of a mile from my house in Midtown. (See page 45 of this 2014 RFP for a map of the dark fiber network.) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/42930 But it doesn't really make FTTP more feasible for me. (Would it kill the City to post a map of the dark fiber network in an easily-findable place, and then update it regularly?) ### Also, does it mean that the new "dark fiber" will it be leased to customers just like the dark fiber in the City's existing dark fiber network, e.g., at the same rates? And then we would -- through this business plan process -- figure out how we connect to homes. Through a public-private partnership, or -- It think even exploring -- the full FTTP is included in the motion. 4:06:21: There are a lot of questions about how big that network would be. We talk about the "last mile." That's really shorthand. So, does FTTN literally stop on major streets, a mile from homes? Does it go down streets, and it's really the last 50 feet? Which is a much different problem. That's what we need to figure out -- and, I think, in a business plan analysis. ### One way staff could have addressed this in the staff report would have been to say how many nodes FTTN would provide fiber to. Staff must have had some idea, in order to have come up with its cost estimate. At the 1-13-17 CAC meeting, Dave Yuan said there might be 300 nodes (and therefore about 100 premises per node). At the 4-13-17 CAC meeting, Andrew Kau started a discussion assuming there would be 100 nodes (and therefore about 300 premises per node). (For this information, I'm relying on my personal notes. The official minutes of these meetings didn't say anything about it. And there are no videos.) By comparison, there are about 100 dark fiber access points. ### Note that Google Fiber was proposing to deploy citywide FTTP in Palo Alto using only two "nodes" -- both in Mountain View. I don't know if that tells you anything about the usefulness of FTTN nodes for FTTP. On the other hand, the City's 05-07-03 staff report proposed using 100 nodes, each supporting up to 288 premises. (Apparently, in those days, they didn't think there were 3,000 premises in Palo Alto.) I do worry that the -- that we're still -- I don't know -- not moving forward quickly enough, with kind of an inspired vision on this. And I do think we need focus. And we need to start to move quicker if we're going to do this. ### Hear, hear! 4:07:07: And so, as I thought about tonight, I kind of boiled it down to four points. Decision points. And it echoes what the staff did. But we maybe can provide a little focus. [1] So, what business model should be pursue? This is kind of number one. [2] And what are the next steps to really create a fundable strategy and a construction plan? [3] Who should lead the effort? Like, how do we manage this thing? [4] And what can be done to impact construction costs? You know, we did issue an RFI recently. It wasn't clear that we learned anything from that. I hope we can start to leverage information as we go along. You know, it does seem like there are some creative financing options available, and that should be a key part of this business plan. And we have over $25 million in a Fund. Most cities don't have that. I think we could probably bond that money, and include future revenue for dark fiber in neighborhoods as well as dark fiber to residences. And, potentially, fund most of this without any public money.


17

### When Council Member DuBois says "public money," I assume he means tax money. The money in the Fiber Fund came from ratepayers. I don't know whether it's sometimes called public money. We're also talking about a lot of smart grid projects. So I think it's feasible that Utilities funds could pay portions of this that would be used for smart grid projects. ### Absolutely. And so, I think we really need some financial expertise applied. Soon. 4:08:40: As I said, when we do this analysis, I'd really like to see some sensitivity analysis. Like, if we spent a little more money to extend deeper into the neighborhoods, what's the ROI on that? 'Cause I don't think it's going to be an either-or kind of analysis. And so, the staff report mentioned $11 [million] to $15 million. What would we get if we spent $20 million? Would it be worth it? I think that's kind of an important question. ### ROI might be misleading for FTTN. If you deploy FTTN, you won't get any FTTP revenues until you deploy FTTP. So the only ROI you'll get is from the tail-wagging-the-dog ancillary goals of FTTN. I expressed concerns at Policy & Services. I'll express them again about public outreach and marketplace interest. It was in the report here. I don't -- absolutely do not think we should ask the public if they're willing to pay several thousand dollars directly for a connection. I don't know of any city where that's worked. ### It's working in Ammon, ID. The city was divided into "local improvement districts" (LIDs). The city required at least a 50 percent take rate in a LID before building anything. All the cost of the infrastructure was paid for by subscribers up-front (or the equivalent as pledged monthly payments). So far, it's worked out to be about $3,000 per subscriber. http://www.postregister.com/articles/featured-news-daily-email-west/2017/01/31/first-ammon-fiber-district-goes-live# ### The UTOPIA network in Utah originally required no up-front connection fee, but it has had its financial difficulties over the years, so now one way to connect is pay an up-front connection fee of $2,750. http://www.utopianet.org/faq/ ### I absolutely agree that the City shouldn't just ask residents if they want to pay an up-front fee that "could range from $800 to $5,000 or more." http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59071 ### If the City can figure out how to finance FTTP without an up-front connection fee, great. But I don't want the City to reject an up-front connection as a possibility and then claim that FTTP is not feasible financially. Note that a connection fee wouldn't necessarily have to pay for all of the infrastructure deployment cost. We don't ask residents if they want to pay $5,000 to repave the section of road in front of their house. ### In 2010, the City considered the possibility of shifting the responsibility for sidewalk maintenance to property owners. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/19701 (But I don't think it happened.) ### When utilities are undergrounded, residences pay for new connections from the street, which can run to $5,000 or so. (It wasn't always so, but it is now.) The property owners within a proposed underground district get to vote on whether they want to be undergrounded, but it's only an advisory vote. And if the district is actually undergrounded, property owners don't get a choice about whether they have to pay. I think we're going to amortize this somehow. And almost every city has a subscription model. So, you would pay a monthly fee, and we'd recoup the constructions costs. So, I really urge us to just drop the user financing option and discuss it no further. ### OK, as long as staff doesn't claim that it makes FTTP infeasible. The other thing with public outreach is, we really need to think about that messaging. San Francisco's spending several million dollars just on their communication plan. I'm not suggesting we do that, but that's how important it is. We will get pushback from incumbents. We need to explain the benefits to residents -- the benefits to the City. And so it's a real communications challenge. I do


18

think we should, you know, put up some kind of outreach to determine market interest. And there are ways we can do that. But until we know what the business model is, I don't think we should be throwing out kind of high price points. I'm very interested in a discussion of kind of revenue models, with 5G providers and others. ### If SB 649 passes, it could seriously limit these revenues. http://www.citymb.info/home/showdocument?id=29844 I think that was the other part missing from the report, is -- this is not just an expense, this is a potential revenue opportunity for the City. And a lot of my interest is -- I really think it could be a money-maker for the City, the way the dark fiber fund has been. ### The conventional wisdom has long been that a municipality shouldn't look at municipal FTTP as a way of making money for other projects but as a way of serving the community. 4:11:04: So that was kind of -- Sorry to talk so long, but -- So, those are kind of my first two points -- [1] the business model and [2] kind of the thing about the funding strategy. The third one was really, you know, who should lead the effort. You know, I'm glad to get some of the clarification. You know, reading the staff report and looking at an engineering consultant. It really seems to me what need is a financial and business consultant. Almost like a management consultant. And, ideally, it's somebody who has built a network. And, you know, engineering should follow along, but I'm concerned about the business strategy decision. I really think some -- like, an external consultant could help us here. So, you know, we authorized that money. It's still there. I think we should move forward and use it. You know. And then the last point I want to get to is, what can be done to reduce costs? So, again, two years ago, I talked about a dig-once-string-once kind of ordinance. A lot of the focus was on dig-once. I do think we should also look at how we can leverage costs on our City-owned poles. So if somebody's stringing fiber, that the City could take advantage of that. The real focus, kind of, whether it's a large-scale project or small projects, is, how can we lower our City's costs to put conduit into the neighborhoods. So, I'd really like to see us complete that project. San Francisco -- before moving forward, they passed a microtrenching ordinance. Again, that dramatically reduces the cost assumptions. I'd like -- I'd really like to see us pursue microtrenching. ### I'm skeptical, but, OK, let staff document whether microtrenching might be a problem over the life cycle of the network. And the other thing that was very creative, I thought -- San Francisco passed one of the first laws for multi-unit dwellings -- ### Also called "multiple-dwelling units." (MDUs.) multi-unit buildings, rather -- commercial or residential. ### Also called "multiple occupancy buildings." ### 12-20-16: "San Francisco Passes Ordinance: Tenants Have ISP Choice at Last" https://muninetworks.org/content/san-francisco-passes-ordinance-tenants-have-isp-choice-last To allow ISPs to use existing wiring. ### The San Francisco ordinance says, https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4737899&GUID=3BDE5875-91C0-4B4B-BD05-A1F8B1C80F54 "(a) No property owner shall interfere with the right of an occupant to obtain communications services from the communications services provider of the occupant’s choice. (b) A property owner interferes with the occupant’s choice of communications services provider by, among other things, refusing to allow a communications services provider to install the facilities and equipment necessary to provide communications services or use any existing wiring to provide communications services ..." ### In other words, one of the things the ordinance does is to give a communications provider the right to install new fiber wiring in a building that didn't used to have it. So, some of the incumbents have been using wiring in apartment buildings as a way to keep out competition. And San Francisco basically said you can't do that. And that dramatically lowers the cost of bringing broadband into apartment buildings and office buildings.


19

So, at a high level, you know, staff, Policy & Services, UAC -- we all agreed that Option 2 was the way to go. ### Sadly. And so, I actually emailed a motion, which I will put out there for discussion. I know it's early, but just as a reaction point. It's largely the same as the staff motion. And I'd love to get feedback from staff. The -- One of the tweaks was in part "A" -- that we hire a "management consultant to develop the business case, funding plans." And then -- and also "engage an engineering firm." The second point is word-for-word from the staff recommendation. And the third point was just to have -- "return to Council with Ordinances that will lower the City's construction costs...." ### I haven't seen Council Member DuBois' emailed version of the motion. But the 04-21-17 draft minutes say "C. Return expediently to Council with Ordinances that will lower the City's FTTN construction costs..." On the video, DuBois didn't say "FTTN" here. And I think it's inappropriate. We want ways of lowering FTTP construction costs too. ### I think staff should also be thinking about ways other than just ordinances to lower construction costs. For example, staff fears that ALL drops might have to be undergrounded because SOME easements are privately-owned. That makes no sense. And these are "such as." So they are example. But, again, the real focus here is to not hamstring ourselves and have, you know, higher construction than we need. Um. So, that's my motion. 4:14:42: Council Member Fine: I'll second that. 4:14:43: Tom DuBois: Great. Thank you. So, I've talked for quite a while. I hope it's clear. I may ask to talk again if there are questions that come up in the discussion. The only thing I want to say again is, we need to also think about the revenue piece of this. This is not just an expense. That's it. 4:15:02: Vice Mayor Kniss: OK. Thank you. A good start. And, Adrian, do you want to speak to your second? 4:15:05: Council Member Fine: Thank you. So, as many have mentioned, this is something that's been floating around the City's radar for ten, maybe twenty years now. I think we're at a bit of an inflection point, where we have to choose whether to do something or not. And I'm supporting this motion because I think Council Member DuBois has set it up pretty well, in terms of making the business and financial case, to figure out whether we would do that. I think he highlighted a few of the main areas. There's the business case about what kind of network would we operate, who's going to manage that within the City, how do we pay for it, what revenue opportunities are there. I completely agree -- there's some kind of topographic problem here, about how much delivery are we doing and where. And that gets to the question of, is it just going down El Camino, or is it really going down little neighborhood roads. And what does that mean for folks. And then finally, there's some policy stuff, around lowering our costs of digging and constructing this service, as well as who can run their services on it. I think this motion speaks to most of those concerns, and will come back to us with another decision point if we want to invest some of this money. I just had a quick sidebar with the Mayor ### In the public meetings of deliberative bodies such as Council, how appropriate are "sidebars" (which the public doesn't get to hear, and which aren't recorded on the video)? that we do this, you know -- or, sorry, yeah, the acting Mayor -- that we have this Fiber Fund sitting there. And, you know, we would like to use it. This seems like an appropriate purpose for it. A couple quick questions. I was trying to play devil's advocate with myself, and I guess the two questions that came to my mind. So, one, how much rush do we have around this, versus the incumbents? What's, you know, worst case for the City of Palo Alto as an operator here? When could somebody else come to market?


20

4:16:46: Jonathan Reichental: I'll make an attempt at the answer. Well, so, Comcast does offer gigabit today. ### Comcast's "gigabit" product offers "up to" 1 Gbps down but "up to" only 35 Mbps up. So, in the up direction, it really isn't "gigabit." And we have the pricing on that. I think it's $120 per month for -- if you sign for a year and -- Sorry. $110 a month if you sign for a year, $120 if you don't have any contract. AT&T tell us they will come in January with their fiber -- um -- solution. ### I suspect that AT&T's "fiber -- um -- solution" won't really be FTTP. Also, AT&T in Palo Alto has a history of missing its promised deployment dates. And then, we're anticipating the mobile companies will come with varying speeds of 5G, as that starts to roll out about 2020. So, there will be at least two incumbents offering gigabit within 18 months. With the promise of several more, 18 months after. So, the City, potentially, is -- as I said in my opening comments -- a third, fourth, or fifth provider at that point. So that is -- has inherent risks to it. 4:17:42: Council Member Fine: OK. So then --- I mean, given some of the comments here, too, we have a need to act quickly or get out of the market. And that speaks to kind of my second question, which -- On Option 3, you had a number of items that we could pursue to make this an easier process for these other operators. Right? I don't know if this is the right way of phrasing this. One, why wouldn't we -- or why haven't we -- done those streamlinings already? And, two, if we do decide to go in as our own operator, is there anything -- and this is maybe to the City Attorney -- is there anything we can legally -- perhaps morally -- do to make it harder for our competitors? 4:18:24: [inaudible reaction from staff] 4:18:32: Council Member Fine: I mean, I'm just asking. Because if we can make it easier for these operators, why haven't we done it? And if we can make it easier, can we make it harder? 4:18:39: Jim Fleming: I think what's developed over the last 3-4 years, particularly when Google decided to enter into this industry, was, one of the complaints that the incumbents have is how difficult it is to get access to rights-of-way and pole attachments and permitting and inspections -- kind of nuts-and-bolts stuff. And recommendations -- In fact, the recommendation from our consultant -- and not just to us but to all cities -- is to work a little bit better to streamline processes, so it will incentivize the incumbents to do their upgrades. And one of the primary motives that Google had, in terms of moving forward, was, we'll build if you make it -- not easy for us to build, but if you make it less difficult to get access to rights-of-way and poles and so forth. So, that's the school of thought about it. Right now, our City processes are very good, in terms of dealing with this. But, you know, there hasn't been any kind of large-scale build. Google would have been a large-scale build. And it would have been very, very complicated, for a variety of reasons. One, in particular, in Palo Alto, in that we co-own the poles with AT&T. And there would have been a lot of work around making the poles ready to accommodate a new attacher. And the expense of that. And just the time to do that. And also the level of disruption, in terms of doing all that make-ready work. You know, one number is roughly 30 percent of the poles in Palo Alto would have had to be replaced. ### The 09-28-15 staff report http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49073 says the City has 5,931 poles. It says 35-foot poles (and, presumably, shorter poles) MIGHT have to be replaced because they're too short. But that's only 659 poles, or about 11 percent of poles. I don't think the 09-28-15 staff report selected exactly which of 5,931 poles would be used for FTTP, and which of THOSE would have to be replaced. By the way, I talked with someone who works for Santa Clara's utility, Silicon Valley Power, who suggested using a crossbar at the telecom level, rather than adding more height, to accommodate multiple telecom infrastructures. Is that a possibility? Poles also have to be replaced when they're too old and deteriorated. Average lifetime might be 40 years. We've known for 20 years, more or less, that we wanted to do FTTP. So, if we'd


21

been planning ahead, we could have decided that each pole replaced because of age would be replaced with a pole that was tall enough for FTTP. But I'm told that nobody thought to do that until just last year. A lot of them are in backyard easements. They were too short. And so forth. So, think about, you know, the amount of disruption that would have occurred to replace those. So -- But in terms of our regular City processes, they're fine. But if you -- The thought is, if you want to attract another builder -- an overbuilder -- to come in and take on the incumbents, streamline your processes to some extent, to incentivize them to come to your community. That's what Kansas City did. You know. They streamlined their processes. And that's what attracted Google to build in Kansas City. 4:21:11: Council Member Fine: OK. So, then, I guess, the question would be, maybe, this is something, if we move forward with this, for the business consultant to look at. But -- If we were to go to the extreme end of that policy, right? Really streamlining it, making it as easy as possible. And figure out what are the benefits and impacts there. Both that -- I would encourage my colleagues to support this. And I may have a few more questions in another round. 4:21:33: Vice Mayor Kniss: OK. Thank you. Eric, and then Greg Tanaka. 4:21:39: Council Member Filseth: OK. Thank you. So, I actually wanted to ask a question about Option 1. But it's really between Option 1 and Option 2. Which is -- If I understand it right, the difference between Option 2 and Option 1 is, one builds to the [air-quotes] "neighborhood," right? And the other continues on from that point to your house. And so, it's not really a mile, right? I mean, I think sort of Tom was getting at this. But is it 50 feet, 100 feet, or something like that? Realistically? 4:22:11: Jonathan Reichental: It's all over the place. I mean, the "last mile" is a metaphor. ### Surely this response is unhelpful. If there were 300 FTTN nodes, then each would serve about 100 premises. Consider, for example, that there are 95 premises in the area bounded by Ross Road, Moreno Avenue, Louis Road, and Oregon Expressway -- an area of about 800 feet by 1200 feet. If you put a node in the center of that area, then all premises might be within 1,000 feet of it. (I'm not saying that I know for sure that this is a typical neighborhood.) If there were 100 FTTN nodes, then each would serve about 300 premises. And the maximum distance from the node to a premises in a typical case might be more like 1,700 feet. ### It's not immediately clear how the length of the metaphorical "last mile" affects cost. The number of premises served by a node affects the number of fiber strands in the "passing" fiber optic cables. But most of the cost of installing the "passing" fiber optic cable is labor, and most of the labor is independent of the number of strands in the cable. ### Remember that Google Fiber was going to deploy FTTP in Palo Alto with only two nodes (which weren't even in Palo Alto.) 4:22:14: Council Member Filseth: OK. 4:22:14: Jonathan Reichental: The last part of the network. 4:22:16: Council Member Filseth: OK. So, it could be some distance, or it could be pretty short. 4:22:19: Jonathan Reichental: It could be very close. It could be about a mile or so, yeah.


22

### For the Google Fiber design in Palo Alto, the maximum distance from a premises to the node that serves it would have been several miles That's not a problem for the electronics. 4:22:22: Council Member Filseth: OK. So, if I look at the estimated cost of these, for Option 1, which goes all the way to everybody's house, it's $75 million. ### The 09-28-15 staff report estimates $77.6 million (for a 72 percent take rate). Council asked for more information in support of that estimate, but staff said CTC said that information was proprietary. Option 2 is maybe $15 million. So, am I right in thinking that, to get from the last mile, you know, is $60 million? ### That's the best case. Worst case, FTTN would add NO value to the FTTP effort, and the cost for the "last mile" would remain $77.6 million. (Or whatever a properly-vetted FTTP estimate would be.) That's not counting the fact that labor costs for FTTP will continue to rise, so the later it's built, the more it will cost. It's also assuming that FTTN doesn't actually get in the way of future FTTP (which might happen if FTTP were not designed first, before deploying FTTN.) I mean, is that -- is that -- am I reading that right? 4:22:47: Jonathan Reichental: It's the most expensive piece. But you may ... 4:22:49: [Reichental and Filseth talk over each other] ### Staff should be aware that talking over a Council member is impolite. 4:22:51: Council Member Filseth: But that's the cost difference? It's laying fiber to the ... ### Not exactly. FTTN proposes to bring fiber to some nodes, and possibly provide some cabinets at the nodes, and that's it. So FTTP would have to provide the fiber infrastructure that "passes" premises and connects to the node (including providing splitters if PON is used), provide a central office, put electronics in the central office, put electronics in the cabinets at the nodes, put electronics at each premises that wants to be connected, and install a fiber drop for each premises that wants to be connected. 4:22:52: Jonathan Reichental: Yes. ### Again, staff should not be interrupting a Council member in mid-sentence. 4:22:53: Jim Fleming: I mean, the last mile is the most expensive part. 4:22:57: Council Member Filseth: [nods] 4:22:57: Jim Fleming: And the "last mile" is kind of a term of art. You know, there's aerial construction in some neighborhoods. There's underground in others. 4:23:05:


23

Council Member Filseth: OK. 4:23:05: Jim Fleming: So it would be very different. It depends upon the neighborhood and the street conditions and so forth. 4:23:12: Council Member Filseth: OK. So -- I mean, I don't think anybody's seriously arguing in favor of Option 1 here. ### Sadly. And I think we're probably going to put it completely to bed tonight. But it seems to me -- it seems like -- I mean, the reason -- the challenge with Option 1 is that, as you point out, you know, there may be much better and more efficient ways of solving the last mile problem than putting in fiber. ### Unicorns may exist after all. But don't count on it. A network based on wireless MIGHT be less expensive, but it certainly wouldn't be better. And if we chose to proceed with Option 1, you know, the chances are -- there's a substantial risk that, you know, that we're going to be left with a $60 million Commodore Amiga [laughs] right? ### No! Dead wrong! If the City deploys citywide municipal FTTP, that network will be capable of providing state-of-the-art wireline connections for decades. (To remain state-of-the-art, the electronics will have to be upgraded, say, every seven years or so. But the fiber infrastructure won't have to be upgraded at all.) ### I don't know why Council Member Filseth thought Commodore Amiga was a good comparison. 07-23-15: "The Amiga turns 30 -- 'Nobody had ever designed a personal computer this way'" https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/the-amiga-turns-30-nobody-had-ever-designed-a-personal-computer-this-way/ And so, I think, you know, we're not going to do that. So, the interesting one, to me, is Option 2 versus Option 3. Right? And I think, you know, we've sort of been discussing, you know, what's the motivation to do this. And it's not obvious to me -- although I think, you know, discussion on this -- that there -- it's not obvious to me that the City ought to be in the broadband -- in the residential broadband business. Just for the sake of the City being in it. Right? ### Right, but advocates aren't saying that. I mean, at some level, you look at this and go -- boy, why would the City want to compete with AT&T and Comcast and all these other folks? Right? It seems to me that the -- it's not so much a reason to be in it as there's, you know -- as there's a reason to avoid not being in it, under some scenarios. Right? Which is -- IF the economics evolve such that it can only support one broadband provider. OK? Because it's SO expensive to lay the infrastructure. Right? Only one person can do it. Right? And everybody else has to pay rent to them. Right? ### Wrong. IF broadband became an absolute monopoly (i.e., if one provider had a 100 percent market share), the monopolist would have the option of not renting its network out to any other provider at any price. Then the possibility is there that the City's broadband infrastructure -- You know, we might be beholden for that to a single monopoly which was not benevolent. OK? ### Worse, the City might not have any "broadband infrastructure." And some of the companies we've discussed -- and well-known cable companies, and so forth -- have developed a well-deserved reputation for not being benevolent. Right? And so, it seems to me that the reason to consider Option 2 is -- IF we think that that scenario is a realistic possibility, that's one that we want to avoid as a City. But IF we think that the economics are going to evolve, such that there are a half dozen viable competitors to deliver broadband, through whatever combination of technologies, then, you know, my inclination would be to look pretty seriously at Option 3. Right?


24

### Up to now, wired telecom has been a natural monopoly. (The fact that there's usually both a telephone company and a cable company in a community is due to the fact that, in the old days, the phone network couldn't do TV and the cable network couldn't do phone. But that's no longer true.) Now that table stakes for wireless is a ton of wired fiber backhaul, telecom in general is starting to look like a natural monopoly. I mean, I don't -- I mean if several private companies are vying to deliver high-quality service -- broadband services to Palo Alto residents, you know. I mean, there's other stuff that we could do. Right? And, you know, there's other ways that we could use, you know, portions of that $28 million. Of which we've discussed earlier this evening. Right? ### Regardless of what might be technically legal, it's immoral to raid the Fiber Fund for non-fiber projects. So, that would be my sort of inclination. So, I like Council Member DuBois' suggestion. Right? I think it's probably worth spending a little more money and time to, you know, see a couple more cards on the table. But if we think that there's going to be a half-dozen gigabit broadband suppliers, I think we ought to not rule out Option 3. Right? 'Cause, other than avoiding the non-benevolent monopoly scenario, it isn't obvious to me why -- and maybe there's other reasons, but -- why the City would want to be competing in such a, you know, cut-throat market with the private sector. 4:27:20: Jonathan Reichental: I can make some -- So, excellent points. One thing I would say is, if you look across the U.S. landscape, most markets have one provider. And it's more common -- it -- and then there's another that have two. You don't really see three. A fourth is really unusual. So, most of America is supplied by two -- three, tops -- major players. One of the dynamics that's worth sharing, that, as time passes, sometimes gets lost, is -- Four years ago, when I was invited to help explore options here, there was no gigabit offering in Palo Alto. And I could sit here and hear the frustration with Council that -- how could we be the birthplace of Silicon Valley -- and the Heart -- and not have gigabit? Now, when I sit with you, four years later, we have two providers that will do it at world-class level. ### Let's recap. AT&T says it will have something next year. (Last year, it said it would have something by the end of last year, but it lied.) Comcast's Gigabit Pro might cost $300 per month plus $1,000 up-front, but there are lots of constraints on its availability. Comcast has "soft launched" its DOCSIS 3.1 product, which features an upload speed of "up to" 35 Mbps. None of these products will be available citywide. To me, that's not "gigabit" at a "world-class level." ### Google did a lot of advertising to convince folks that they wanted a "gigabit" [per second]. That was both a blessing and a curse. What folks should want is a connection that can deliver exponentially increasing speeds over the next 40 years. So -- We might have had a third, had Google followed through. And so, the dynamics, in my view, have changed considerably in four years. And certainly we weren't talking about 5G. So, the debate has to evolve, too. I think that's right. Thanks. 4:28:28: Council Member Fine: Council Member Tanaka. 4:28:33: Council Member Tanaka: So, I'm finding all this discussion really quite interesting. I think kind of my basic take is that, despite -- Well, it's basically that so little has happened, despite so much time and so much effort. I mean, it's incredible. I think we -- It's been decades that we've been talking about this. ### Yes. On 08-05-96, when Council authorized spending money to start the dark fiber network, it hoped that someone would do FTTP later. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-archive/1996/19960805.html That was 21 years ago. And it's been very difficult. I think the first thing that we have to -- In order to really move this forward, I think the first thing we have to figure out is, what do we -- what is our goal? And so, I'm going to propose a goal, for what we should do. Which is, I think we should try to make sure that Palo Alto has the fastest, cheapest broadband that we possibly can. And I think most people would probably generally agree with that. ### OK. It should also support user privacy, net neutrality, etc.


25

Now, I was looking at this PBS article, that's fairly recent, and it talked about how that -- "Even though the Internet was invented in the United States, Americans pay the most in the world for broadband access." ### 04-26-15: "This is how Internet speed and price in the U.S. compares to the rest of the world" http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/internet-u-s-compare-globally-hint-slower-expensive/ (So the article is relevant, but not that recent.) That's actually true. Now, I've worked with some colleagues from South Korea or from Hong Kong. And they have blazing fast Internet. For much, much less. So, they get almost 10x amount for maybe half the rate. And we're going, well, what's going on? So, people say, it's because Hong Kong is super-dense, or because Seoul is super-dense. That's partially true. But the main reason why it's super-cheap is because of competition. ### That's overly simplistic. In South Korea, the national government compels deployers of FTTP infrastructure to offer open access to retail ISPs at reasonable prices. Because in South Korea, there's not just two ISPs. So, like, to my house, there's two ISPs. There's AT&T and Comcast. I just looked it up. ### I don't know what was involved in just looking it up. A more rigorous inquiry might yield more information. What about upload speeds? What about pricing? So, Comcast, the fastest I can get today is 200 megabit. Not a gigabit. 200 megabit. AT&T -- the fastest it can go to my house right now is 50 megabit. To my office, which is on El Camino in Palo Alto, there's only one provider. And that's AT&T. ### Very interesting. Some people think Comcast is available everywhere in Palo Alto. But apparently it's not. And that goes 20 megabit. So, maybe one day we'll get one gigabit. But we're not there yet. This is -- I'm talking about today. Maybe next, it will just suddenly go to one gigabit. But don't know. But, really, the crux of the issue that we have here -- And, you know, I think all these options are definitely well considered. But the crux of the issue here is that there's not competition. We have a duopoly at best. And, depending on where you are and -- You know, I just happen to live in an old part of Palo Alto. So maybe the wires aren't as good. ### I live in Midtown, and AT&T's fastest speed to my house is 768 kilobits per second down, and even slower up. But there's just not much competition. Versus other parts of the world, which creates incredible competition. I think -- I think that the -- And so, I think the first question is why does South Korea -- why does Hong Kong -- have incredible competition, where you have eight to ten -- a tremendous number of people -- vying for their business, not just two. So that's the fundamental question we should be asking ourselves. Like, why in Palo Alto we would have only one or two competitors, versus in other parts of the world, they have a ton of competitors. And I think -- So, I've actually looked at this issue quite closely, and the -- kind of the main driver for this is a concept called "open access." So, what "open access" means is that the first person to lay the fiber to the house or -- And for this discussion, I'll be technology-agnostic, because it might be fixed wireless. It might be, you know, point-to-point lasers. It might be fiber. Who knows what it is. But it doesn't really matter. ### In the past, the City has wasted a lot of time trying to be technology-agnostic. For example, 09-25-06 RFP called for bids on a "Citywide Ultra-High-Speed Broadband System." http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/cityclerk-reports/documents/060914rfpbroadbandno15.pdf "Ultra-high-speed" was defined then as 100 Mbps symmetric. We now know that it was too slow. We should know by now that we want a technology capable of state-of-the art speeds over the next 40 years. That's fiber. So, the basic idea is, "open access" is, if you -- the person that lays the infrastructure, whatever it might be, basically needs to make it open to other people. So any ISP can use it. And so, that's why, in Hong Kong or South Korea, you get, like, you know, dozens of competitors. It's because -- it must be "open." It must be open to anyone. 4:32:19: So, then comes the question of, why the heck would someone do this, then? Why would AT&T or Comcast lay the fiber, if they have to give it open to everyone else? Well, there's two reasons. First reason is, they get a subsidy. OK. So, the reason -- So, I actually don't believe that Palo Alto is necessarily really good at laying fiber. Or maintaining fiber. Or maintaining the infrastructure.


26

### Upon what evidence is this opinion based? Palo Alto runs its own dark fiber network, which requires maintaining fiber infrastructure. When cities build municipal FTTP networks, they typically contract with firms that specialize in deploying fiber infrastructure. Why wouldn't the City be good at contracting to do that? ### Palo Alto runs its own municipal electric, gas, water, and wastewater utilities, and that requires being good at deploying and maintaining infrastructures. I'm actually kind of a little bit with Council Member Filseth on this. I think that what's -- what we're better at is creating an environment -- a competitive environment -- that hopefully would encourage a ton of competitors to come in here -- hopefully by the dozens -- to provide services to our businesses and residents at a really low price. ### Upon what evidence is this opinion based? When has the City done such a thing before? When has any American city done this? How many "competitors" would actually deploy FTTP infrastructure? (I don't think it would be "a ton.") (How many infrastructureless ISP would show up to use the FTTP infrastructure deployed by others is a different question.) And so, the basic idea of "open access" is that -- you know, we have a $28 million Fiber Fund. ### I don't think so. See above. There's about 20,000 parcels. ### Why propose building FTTP by the parcel? Everybody knows that FTTP is less expensive when you "pass" lots of premises in one coordinated build. ### I think Palo Alto has about 30,000 premises -- including both residences and businesses. I wish there were a publicly-available staff document that provides more details. So that works out to be $1,400 per parcel. ### Why should a parcel that has an apartment complex get no more than a parcel that has a single-family home? ### Does this approach result in citywide FTTP? I see no reason to assume so. So let's say -- Suppose we subsidize the installation of some sort of high-speed Internet -- whatever -- fiber, laser, whatever you want to use -- to a parcel. In exchange for the subsidy -- Right? ### Would the City have a say about what technology was appropriate? For example, a fixed wireless system or point-to-point free-space laser system might require an ongoing tree-trimming service. Who provides that? To actually subsidized AT&T or Comcast or whoever wants to go there first, they must leave the access open. ### I don't think AT&T or Comcast would participate. AT&T says it has an "open access" strategy. http://about.att.com/story/xgs_pon_broadband_field_trial.html But they don't mean they'd allow their infrastructure to be used by competitive ISPs. https://www.att.com/Common/merger/files/pdf/open-access.pdf ### In 2010, Google initially thought that Google Fiber might offer open access to competitive ISPs. https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.html But later it abandoned that idea. https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/what-google-fiber-says-about-tech-policy-fiber-rings-fit-deregulatory-hands/ And what I mean -- And the way they do it, in terms of open access, is, basically -- it's not like, you know, some other ISP could come in and use it for free. What happens is, there's an auction. Right? ### Is there a document somewhere that says how this "auction" would work? Would the City have to administer the auction? How frequently? So, basically, whoever pays the highest, gets access.


27

### The way "open access" works in Ammon, ID, and the UTOPIA network in Utah, any number of ISPs can have access to a given premises simultaneously. So, it's not like Comcast or AT&T doesn't get paid for this. They will get paid for it. In fact, they get the highest bid on it. ### Does the end user get to choose between only a) the entity that put in the fiber infrastructure and b) the ISP that bid the highest? If so, that's a misfeature. But what it means is that there's competition suddenly. So, maybe not at the physical layer. Somebody's doing it. They get a subsidy from Palo Alto. Maybe from our Fiber Fund. And then, there's competition. That means AT&T, or Sonic, or, you know, some guy in a garage can provide Internet service. To any Palo Alto resident. By just paying the access fee. And this is what -- If you look at other parts of the world, which has intense competition for Internet service, this is what they've done. ### NO, they haven't done exactly this. They've mandated open access. You know, we are blessed here to have 42 miles of fiber, ### CTC says the existing dark fiber network doesn't provide much of a start towards doing citywide FTTP. a $28 million Fiber Fund. And what we could say -- condition for gaining access to our dark fiber loop, for getting access to a subsidy for laying the high-speed Internet to the parcel, you get money, you get access to the node -- or whatever -- you know, the nearest access point is. But in exchange, you have to keep it open. You have to now enable competitors to come in. And I believe if we set up a competitive environment, what this will do is, this will encourage a lot of ISPs to provide services to Palo Alto. It defrays some of their capital costs. ### The way "open access" works in Ammon or UTOPIA, the is NO capital cost to the infrastructureless retail ISPs, only an ongoing monthly charge. Because what happens with Internet access, or -- during this broadband roll-out -- is that it gets cheaper and cheaper, the more people do it. So, if, like, 90 percent of the people do it, it gets way cheap. If it gets 15 percent, it's pretty expensive. ### One way the 09-28-15 staff report could have quantified this is to report a cost-per-premises-passed and a cost-per-premises-connected. For example, a 08-08-17 staff report for Fort Collins, CO, estimates a cost-per-premises-passed of $984 (including a 15 percent contingency) and a cost-per-premises-connected of $592. http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=show_related&vid=72&dt=SUMMARY+AGENDA&rid=August+8%2C+2017 So, according to the Fort Collins estimate, if the take rate were 90 percent, the total cost per connected premises would be $592 + $984/0.90 = $1,685. But if the take rate were 15 percent, the total cost per connected premises would be $592 + $984/0.15 = $7,192. So what this does is, it acts as a catalyst to get more, more installations of high-speed Internet. And, by doing that, it actually makes it cheaper. So, I think the right thing is actually what Council Member Filseth actually said, which is -- we don't -- I don't know -- I think Option 3 is probably the right thing. ### Option 3 didn't have anything about requiring "open access" or having auctions. On the other hand, Option 1 mentioned "open access" explicitly. I don't think we should build or maintain it ourselves. I don't think we're necessarily good at that, as a City. I think it's better to encourage everyone and their uncle to come in as an ISP -- all right -- some enterprising ISP to come in as an ISP provider. And have open access going, so that we get this faster and sooner than everyone else, ### Palo Alto definitely wouldn't be the first. at an economic rate. So, I think that -- despite the fact that I do like Option 1 and Option 2 in terms of the basic concept, I just don't think we're going to be very good at it. I don't think that it's going to be very cost-effective. And I think we should go with what other cities have done, that have created really dirt-cheap high-speed Internet, which is open access. ### In South Korea, it was the national government, not "cities," that mandated open access. In both Ammon and UTOPIA, the municipality built the infrastructure (both fiber and electronics) upon which "open access" depends.


28

Versus us trying to build it ourselves. I definitely don't think we should make it harder for people to come in here to provide access to high-speed broadband. So, I think that -- I think that rather us spending more money trying to find a business case, let's use what works. Let's use what Hong Kong has done. Let's use what Seoul has done. ### Again, in South Korea, the national government mandated "open access." Let's use what cities that have been able to get these like dirt-ball low prices for gigabit Ethernet going. And let's create real competition. Let's not have a duopoly. Let's not have -- like, I have a monopoly in my office. I have no choice, but 20 megabit. That's it. Unless I do satellite, or something funky like that. But there's no choice. And, I think, if we, you know, take advantage of the fact that we have this Fiber Fund, and 42 miles of fiber, and create this open access model -- which is similar to what Council Member DuBois was talking about, but a little bit more so, where, basically, you must give physical access to that fiber. Or whatever that connection is. This creates real competition. Right? This allows just about anyone to be an ISP. So, I hope my Council members will take this into consideration. Because I think that we've had this discussion for decades -- ever since I've been in Palo Alto, and I've been here for a while now. And people have been here longer, have been telling me about this -- this -- goal, that we've never really achieved. And I think the fundamental problem is the business model. So, I think the open access business model is one we should go with. Which is actually kind of Option 3, but maybe a little bit of a spin, in terms of -- of -- you know, a little bit of what Council Member DuBois talked about. A little bit about what I talked about, in terms of subsidizing it. But I think this is the right direction for Palo Alto. And I think this is proven. This has worked. Versus, let's try to figure something funky out. ### "Open access" has worked (so far) in Ammon, ID. But there's an up-front connect fee of about $3,000. And the city owns all of the fiber infrastructure. ### "Open access" has worked in UTOPIA. But there's an up-front fee of about $2,750. And the cities own all of the fiber infrastructure. ### The conventional wisdom has been that the cost to the customer for Internet service will be higher in a municipal network that offers open access to ISPs than in a municipal network where the municipality provides the service, because there are more mouths to feed. The conventional wisdom is that municipal FTTP networks don't need competition to offer great service at reasonable prices; it's something they do because municipalities are motivated to be of service to their communities. 4:38:40: I actually like what Council Member Filseth said. But he didn't make a motion yet. I can make a motion, too, if you -- I could make a substitute motion, too, if that -- ### Because a Council member can't make a substitute motion if a substitute motion is the motion currently under consideration, it's rude to make a substitute motion if an amendment would suffice. 4:38:50: City Manger Keene: Could I make a comment? 4:38:52: Vice Mayor Kniss: (unamplified and inaudible) 5:38:57: Vice Mayor Kniss: So, Karen and -- or Cory and then Karen, or Karen and then Cory -- one way or the other. 4:39:05: Council Member Wolbach: So, I just heard the City Manager say he wanted to weigh in, and I will give him a chance to do that, in -- by setting up two questions, and turning those questions over to staff. The first question is, how transferable is the money in the Fiber Fund? Can it be used for other things, or must it be used for fiber? And also -- Or, must it be used for telecommunications purposes? So, that's my first question. 4:39:32: City Attorney Stump: So, we looked at this issue, that -- as I think I stated earlier -- the Fiber Fund is not a closed enterprise fund, in


29

the same way that the City's other utilities are. So, we have looked at questions about using those funds on communication-related activities, and have found that that meets legal requirements. If there are other proposals, then we would look at those in detail as well. 4:40:00: Council Member Wolbach: OK. And I asked because Council Member Filseth's, you know, pointed to, you know, there are a lot of things we could use money on. And we mentioned some of them earlier. And I was just not clear on whether the things we talked about earlier tonight were the kinds of things this money could be used for. I think -- It sounds like it's an open question. So, my next question -- this will turn probably more over to the City Manager -- before an amendment or substitute motion is proposed -- and it may be -- would Option 2 preclude the open access business model that Council Member Tanaka just discussed? 4:40:45: City Manager Keene: (unamplified) I don't know that it PRECLUDES it. 4:40:47: Council Member Wolbach: Or, more importantly, would this motion enable us to explore that, or would an amendment be required in order for any further discussion of this model to be conducted? 4:40:56: [multiple staff members start to speak] 4:41:00: Jim Fleming: I'll start. Option 2 would NOT preclude an "open access" model. In fact, one of the reasons for the business case is to look at the different types of models, including an "open access" model. 4:41:13: [silence as staff huddles] 4:41:42: Council Member Wolbach: It looks like staff is huddling on this issue. I mean, look, here's where I'm coming from. I'm intrigued by -- I'm generally supportive of the motion. I was planning on -- to support it. I'm intrigued by what Council Member Tanaka just discussed. And if that can be fit into this with no amendments, great. I'm curious ... 4:42:03: City Manager Keene: So -- So -- 4:42:03: Council Member Wolbach: ... what staff's thoughts are in response to what Council Member Tanaka just discussed. 4:42:07: City Manager Keene: If I can just sort of jump in. I'm way out of my league here, upon this. I think, number one, the staff's response to Option number 2 -- about being "open access" -- is a little bit easier to answer, since this is a network that we're talking about the City designing itself. Right? And providing it. ### That's true of the "open access" mentioned in Option 1. It's NOT true of Council Member Tanaka's "open access" idea. So, our ability to set the requirements, or how it's going to be used, are within our purview. I don't know if you had a chance to look at the authority that a local entity would have to a private telecom to REQUIRE "open access," or whether -- I mean, there's some companies that may CHOOSE to be doing that on their own.


30

### I can't think of any example of this. Google Fiber thought about it and then decided not to do it. But I would just wonder to what extent the FCC is really a big player in this, in national policy, in the United States, in comparison to these other countries. ### Don't look to the United States federal government to mandate open access any time soon. ### When BTOP was handing out stimulus money, there was an open access requirement. https://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/Interconnection_Nondiscrimination_11_10_10_FINAL.pdf The incumbents chose not to participate. https://www2.ntia.doc.gov/infrastructure 4:43:09: Council Member Wolbach: (unamplified) OK. That's ** (amplified) Excuse me. That's, for me, one of the questions. Right? You know, would we be able to, you know, do less of the FTTN layout, but incentivize others to do it, and require the "open access" of whatever technology they lay, rather than laying it ourselves. Again, potentially, in pursuit of an "open access" model. Or would federal or state law limit our ability to do that? Which would then lead us back to the kinds of -- the other kinds of FTTN models that we have been previously conceiving of? So, if there's a way to a discussion or exploration of open access, including checking on what our legal rights are as a local municipality, within this motion, I think that would be interesting, and I'd encourage it. 4:44:18: Vice Mayor Kniss: Council Member Tana- -- Um, Council Member Filseth. And then Tanaka. 4:44:23: Council Member Filseth: Yeah, that's sort of what I was wondering. I'd like to hear Tom respond to this, too. But what I was -- I mean, what I was sort of thinking, as Greg was talking here, was -- Yeah. I mean, Tom's motion -- right? -- is basically to convene, you know, an assessment group to go assess feasibil- -- technical feasibility and business models -- right? -- for basically a fiber infrastructure that doesn't go all the way to the home. Right? And what Council Member Tanaka has suggested seems to me like a business model. Right? And I wonder if there's an avenue, as Cory suggested -- right? -- which is, you know, maybe this is one of the business cases that a consulting team could consider, as they look at options like this. Right? Because, I don't -- I mean, you've asked some questions about legal -- about regulatory environment, and so forth, that I don't know the answers to, and so forth. But the end in mind -- I agree with Greg that IF we can have an environment with multiple -- and more than one -- or ideally more than two -- you know, private entities competing to deliver high-quality broadband, that's the environment that you'd like. Right? ### Not necessarily. If a municipality is motivated to provide great service on its municipal FTTP network, just because that's what municipalities do, then that's one way -- perhaps the best way -- to get great service. If you want to get great service from private-sector entities that aren't inherently motivated to provide great service, then, conceivably, competition can provide an extrinsic motivation. As opposed to being tied to a single monopoly that you don't have any control over. Now, your suggestion is that it IS a monopoly, be we've got control over it. Which I think ends up with the same thing. Right? So, that's what I was sort of wondering, is, I'd like to hear -- Greg's going to talk, but I'd like to hear Tom's thoughts on whether those things actually make sense with a larger strategy. 4:46:08: Vice Mayor Kniss: Tom, why don't you go first. This is your motion. And before we get to a substitute or something, is -- do you have a way you could tweak it? 4:46:18: Council Member DuBois: So, you know, it's a very complicated issue. I mean, if ... 4:46:22: Vice Mayor Kniss: It is.


31

4:46:22: Council Member DuBois: If some of the new Council members haven't seen some of the reports that were done in the last two years, you should probably take a look through those. Open access has definitely been a business model we've been looking at for quite a while. I just want to say I've been trying to order gigabyte [sic] fiber for the last 60 minutes. ### He meant "gigabit [per second] fiber." ### I Googled "site:xfinity.com 'palo alto' gigabit" and got 6 hits. Two had "gigabit" but were missing "Palo Alto," although it said "call us for more information." Two had "Palo Alto" but were missing "gigabit." One, from 2012, was about IPv6, not gigabit availability. One http://forums.xfinity.com/t5/Your-Home-Network/Gigabit-Internet-Speed/td-p/2793606/page/5 contained a user inquiry, dated 08-23-17, 9:07 pm, from rsmithjr asking how he could find out. In a 8-25-17, 7:31 pm, follow-up, rsmithjr says he called, and gigabit is available in his area, but Comcast had to install fiber to his home, which confused him, because DOCSIS 3.1 doesn't require fiber. Perhaps this is an indication of what a "soft launch" looks like. Perhaps it's Gigabit Pro (which is more expensive). (Anyhow, DuBois wouldn't have found this item on 08-21-17.) I can't find it anywhere. [laughs] Comcast says "business-class service" -- it seems to be the way to go. But ... 4:46:46: Jonathan Reichental: I wish I had it **. 4:46:46: Council Member DuBois: Sonic has some that's very address-dependent, as far as I can tell -- where you can get it. ### I Googled "site:sonic.com 'palo alto' gigabit" and got 2 hits. One was just about taxes. The other https://www.sonic.com/gigabit had "gigabit" but was missing "Palo Alto." However, it had a way of inquiring about a specific address. I found out that service to my house is not yet available. I have the impression that Sonic hasn't deployed its own fiber infrastructure in Palo Alto, so it would have to use AT&T infrastructure, and AT&T hasn't deployed fiber infrastructure in Palo Alto. Just some response to some of the comments I heard. So, Council Member Filseth, you know, the City does have a lot of assets. We own these poles. It's a very valuable asset. I just really think we should figure out how to leverage it to the benefit of the City. And the high Option 1 cost was a complete build-out, with expensive construction techniques, to everywhere. So, you know, I'm not sure, again, the $10 [million] to $15 million for fiber-to-the-node -- I'm not sure the difference there -- you know, at $60 million for the last bit -- I think it depends on what kind of coverage we're going to have throughout the City. So, "open access," I think, is one business model among many. I think it's on staff's radar, and it would be part of this business case analysis in Option 2. I do think -- you know, again, if you look at "open access" in the US, it threatens the incumbents. They're not -- They're not necessarily going to adopt it. I don't think we can just, you know, offer Comcast money to build an "open access" network for Palo Alto. That would threaten their business in the rest of the United States. We did ask staff to talk to Google about a subsidized build-out, because Google was moving forward with that in Huntsville, Alabama. ### Various people mean various things by the term "open access." In Huntsville, it apparently means that the city first deploys fiber infrastructure that passes all premises. (And Palo Alto City staff is claiming that's too expensive for Palo Alto to do.) And then Google leases that infrastructure from the city and installs drops and electronics and provides services. But, in theory, the same fiber infrastructure that the city deployed could be leased by service providers other than Google. 08-08-17: "Google Fiber could cause concerns in Huntsville." http://www.alreporter.com/2017/08/08/google-fiber-cause-concerns-huntsville/ With this approach, the drop to any premises could only be used by the ISP that installed it, which I think is a bad idea. I like the kind of "open access" where the wholesaler (the city) provides not only the fiber passing infrastructure but also the drops and electronics, and then all of that infrastructure can be used by any ISP. ### The "co-build that Palo Alto was talking about with Google was a completely different idea. And so, it is something that we've explored. I believe San Francisco is working on kind of a hybrid approach. I think it's basically a franchise model, where the city would own the


32

fiber and the conduit. There would be a network management company that would own the electronics and manage ISPs. And there would be several ISPs. So, it's kind of partially "open access." And then the city would have the ability, if those ISPs don't perform, to replace them with other ISPs. So they kind of ensure performance. And I think that's another model that we should explore. I think that could work. And it's a way to start down more of an "open access" path. But I would say, I think, we have been laying fiber and conduit for some time. I think that's something the City can do. And I think we minimize our risks through this business plan by just having the City lease out that resource -- be it on poles or in the ground. And then have these companies compete, you know, for consumer business. But, again, I think it takes some creativity, it takes some financial engineering. And that's the point of my motion, is to really -- Let's do that, and see where we get. We keep waiting. We keep saying there's all this competition. The competition keeps waiting, to see what the City's going to do. And, you know, we pay far more for far worse bandwidth than most of the world. 4:49:49: Vice Mayor Kniss?: [inaudible] 4:49:55: Council Member Tanaka: Yeah. So, I think that -- in terms of regulatory. So, this is a pretty simple matter, in that what we're saying is, OK, for a subsidy, and for the fiber access to the Palo Alto fiber, here are the conditions of the contract. And it could be done on a parcel by parcel basis. ### I don't know that this is being done anywhere. So, not a gigantic contrast just for Comcast, or just for AT&T. It's if Tom DuBois signs up for AT&T, AT&T could get a subsidy to drive that fiber to your house. Get the $1,400 for your parcel. In exchange, any other ISP in the future that wants to get access to Tom DuBois' fiber to his house could get access. As part of this auction process. Right? So that's typically how it works. So, the business model I'm talking about is not a new business model. It's one that cities around the world have been using. So, I know, I think we can use a lot of creativity. But, I think, let's use a proven business model. ### If it's not being used anywhere, it's not proven. One that's proven to get competition. Lot's of competition. 'Cause that's the only way we're going to get better service and lower prices. ### Again, competition is necessary to compel the private sector to act in the public interest, but not to compel the municipality to act in the public interest. ### Maybe this is off-topic, but remember when the California Legislature thought that competition was all you needed assure low electric rates for consumers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis The result was the California Energy Crisis. I think, fundamentally. And so, I largely agree with what you have here. Except the fact that I think if we sink our money in Option 2, extending the fiber, I think that is not as good as using the money for a subsidy, to actually get ISPs to provide fiber to the different parcels. And so, I think that what I'd like to do is to offer a friendly amendment that I'd like you to consider, which is, instead of just Option 2, consider Option 3, and an "open access" business model. Because I think what we want to do here is -- I think the goal should be clear, which is, we want the fastest, cheapest Internet in Palo Alto possible. And, really, the only way we could do it -- unless you want to subsidize the hell out of this -- is to get competition. Right? ### No. I don't think so. Council Member Tanaka is probably assuming that there's no way for the City by itself to pay for citywide municipal FTTP, but Council hasn't yet seen a staff report that considers in detail all the financial possibilities -- revenue bonds, the existing Fiber Fund, the utilities that need a smart grid service, user financing (connection fees), etc., not to mention building out in phases. To get lots and lots of competition. So you've got to make it very easy and very compelling for people to put Internet here. One of the easiest ways to do that is to lower the cost of doing it. Right? So, we have a $28 million Fiber Fund. Let's use that to do some subsidies. Incentivize people. And if they want a subsidy, if they want access to our fiber, it's got to be "open access." What are you saying, Vice Mayor?


33

4:52:31: Council Member DuBois: So, ... 4:52:31: Vice Mayor Kniss: I said it didn't sound like an amendment to me. 4:52:34: Council Member DuBois: Yeah. So, just to be clear, Greg, I don't think we're that far apart. To me, Option 3 is "do nothing." And enable the private ... 4:52:43: Council Member Tanaka: Well, no, not so much "do nothing" ... 4:52:44: Council Member DuBois: Well, that's the way it's written. It enables private networks. They have redundant networks right now. ### I think Council Member DuBois means that the incumbents have disjoint networks. A "redundant" network usually mean a network where there's more than one path for getting a message from point A to point B, so if one path is cut, the message can still get through. They don't work with each other. It's not the same as Hong Kong or Korea, ... 4:52:52: Council Member Tanaka: Well, I guess ... 4:52:52: Council Member DuBois: ... which, if you look at those structures, they're not multiple private networks. So, again, I actually think Option 2 captures what you want, which is to leave open the business case. And, you know, whether this subsidy is used for a small ISP, to offer service, or it's to pay somebody to build a network, part of that business case is, well, who owns that network. And how do they work together. But I think that's all part of Option 2. 4:53:26: Council Member Tanaka: You know, one of the speakers said something: "FTTN" stands for "fiber-to-nowhere." And that's what I worry about. Is that we build this, and, unless there's a -- ISP is going to do the last mile, to the -- to someone's parcel, it's not going to matter. 4:53:41: Council Member DuBois: Right. And that's why ... 4:53:41: Council Member Tanaka: ** With most of the "open access" models I've seen, basically, requires a direct connection to your house, before they get the subsidy. They can't just go halfway and get a subsidy. They have to actually light it up. 4:53:53: Council Member DuBois: Right. But they're connecting to their own network, all the way. 4:53:58:


34

Council Member Tanaka: They could connect to our network. ### I thought the Tanaka model was saying that the City wouldn't have a FTTP network. It doesn't -- For us, it shouldn't matter who they connect to. What we want is -- What we want is, we want action. Right? We want something to happen. 4:54:07: Council Member DuBois: So, again, I think ... 4:54:08: Vice Mayor Kniss: So, ... 4:54:08: Council Member DuBois: ... I think we're open to the business model. But the issue -- It DOES matter which network, because AT&T is not going to let some third party use their private network, all the way up. 4:54:20: Vice Mayor Kniss: So ** So, guys, wait a minute. Because we're debating back and forth here. ### So, is Vice Mayor Kniss saying that debating back and forth is always bad? Tom, are you accepting this suggestion that's been made by Council Member Tanaka? 4:54:32: Council Member DuBois: No. I think I'd like to see it as a separate ... 4:54:35: Vice Mayor Kniss: OK. 4:54:35: Council Member DuBois: ... amendment. 4:34:36: Vice Mayor Kniss: Because, if not, then you need to make it into a -- I don't know what you're going to call it. A different motion. A different amendment. But it's -- the -- that that which is in red is not being accepted. Correct? ### Posterity doesn't get to see "that which is in red." 4:54:49: Council Member DuBois: But I would say that my original motion includes "open access." 4:54:53: Vice Mayor Kniss: Right. 4:54:53: Council Member DuBois: Just to be clear.


35

4:54:54: Vice Mayor Kniss: Right. OK. So, can you take that out? And, Greg, do you want to try something different? 4:55:02: Council Member Tanaka: OK. So, I'll propose that "B" and "C" stay -- because I think those are generally good ideas. I would say that for "A," -- I'll say ... 4:55:20: Vice Mayor Kniss: So this is a new motion? 4:55:23: Council Member Tanaka: We can make a new motion. Sure. 4:55:25: Vice Mayor Kniss: You're making a new motion? 4:55:26: Council Member Tanaka: Yeah. So, I'll copy "B" and "C." Because I think those are probably good ideas. But, option "A," ### "A", "B", and "C" aren't "options." The intent of Council Member DuBois' motion is to include ALL of them. I think it needs to revolve around "open access." And I -- it could be the Option 2. But it's more likely Option 3. And the -- the -- um -- the basic premise here is, we use the Fiber Fund to help subsidize the build-out to the last mile. To parcels. As well as the "open access" -- I'm sorry. The open -- the fiber loop -- to incentivize ISPs to provide high-speed Internet to the City. And I think it still includes ** about the business case ** ### Council Member Tanaka is apparently quoting from Council Member DuBois' part A, but is reading too fast to be understood. I still think it needs all of that. But I think the main difference here is that it may not be just a pure Option 2. It may not be doing fiber-to-the-node. It may be just Option 3 plus everything else that's said that's on this. On "A." Because I think, to do fiber-to-the-node, for the sake of doing fiber-to-the-node, without having an ISP who's going to finish it, is kind of like what one of the speakers said, which is "fiber-to-nowhere." And that worries me. It means we spend $15 million, and we're like ... 4:56:44: Vice Mayor Kniss: So, Greg, get the -- get your motion out. Because I want to see if there's a second. 4:56:49: Council Member Tanaka: OK. 4:55:50: [silence, as staff types something to display the substitute motion on the screen] 4:56:54: Vice Mayor Kniss: Is that it? There? 4:56:56: Council Member Tanaka: I tell you, why don't you go to "A" and copy. That's some good language -- Let's copy some of the stuff from "A." So, I think, let's copy everything from -- yup -- there you go.


36

4:57:04: [silence, as staff tries to display the substitute motion on the screen] 4:57:12: Council Member Tanaka: OK, it's ... 4:57:12: [silence] 4:57:17: Council Member Tanaka: So, I think -- develop a business case using the Fiber Fund, plus the fiber -- the existing fiber, to basically incentivize the ISPs to provide the last mile connection, using an "open access" business model, engage in -- So I think the rest of it seems fine to me. ### The substitute motion in the official draft minutes of Council's 08-21-17 meeting don't say exactly this. Whatever. 4:57:38: Council Member Tanaka: And it may be parts of Option 2 and parts of Option 3. But it's -- the main part is to use a proven business model, that other cities have done. ### I believe no other city anywhere has done this exactly. Certainly no staff reported has documented it. 4:57:49: Vice Mayor Kniss: OK. 4:57:50: City Manager Keene: Could I ask a question? I'm trying to help clarify. Yeah. 4:57:56: Vice Mayor Kniss: That's what I'm asking for. Is there a second? 4:58:00: Council Member Holman: (unamplified) Well, Jim's maybe going to ... 4:58:02: City Manager Keene: (unamplified) (inaudible) 4:58:04: Vice Mayor Kniss: Yeah. No, I don't see a second, Greg. Good try, but I don't see a second. 4:58:12: Council Member Holman: (unamplified) Well, (amplified) I would second, with some clarification. I actually think -- I would have seconded your earlier amendment to Tom's motion. ### No formal amendment was proposed. (A "friendly amendment" is not an amendment.) Could you scroll up to the original "A"? Please. I guess **. So, the -- I wish I could see them both at once. Both the "A"s at once. Is that possible?


37

4:58:43: City Manager Keene: Tom's motion does not -- I don't even read it -- the way it's worded right now -- as precluding a study of "open access" as part of the alternatives in a business case. What it does do, of course, is anticipate a fiber-to-the-node approach. 4:59:03: Council Member Holman: Um hum. Yeah. And I think that's what Council Member Tanaka is trying to get away from as a foregone conclusion. Do I understand correctly? Yeah. Ah. So, ah, I did second this, as much for discussion as anything else, and getting some clarification. I think if this is going to go, I think it has some issues in it, too, because it also references, you know, "engage and engineering firm to design fiber-to-the-node network, including an expansion option to build citywide fiber-to-the-premises network." So, yeah. Um. So, I think -- You know, as Council Member DuBois said earlier, this is really complex and complicated. But I think if, in the next-to-the-last line of Tanaka's substitute motion -- I think if we take out the "firm to design a" -- I think you don't just -- You just need "a network," right? Just sort of take out the "FTTN." OK? On the next-to-the-last line. No, no, no. Just take out "FTTN." That's all. And on the last line -- I'm OK with leaving -- including an expansion OPTION for the FTTP network. That's good. Right? 5:00:38: Council Member Tanaka: (unamplified) Which one? 5:00:38: Council Member Holman: The last part of the last sentence. That's fine. That's fine. Yeah. So, with this, I would second this. 5:00:47: Council Member Tanaka: (unamplified) Actually, ** with "C," actually. Actually -- so "C" [points to Council Member Holman's screen] ** 5:00:52: Council Member Holman: Oh, yeah. "C" also needs the -- FTTN -- City's construction costs. ### Yes. I believe even Council Member DuBois (the maker of the original motion) didn't want to limit the cost-reducing ideas to justFTTN. Actually it might not be -- City's -- might not be -- It might be somebody else's construction cost. So, the word "City's" comes out. 5:01:10: City Manager Keene: So, I'm trying to understand the logic here. With -- The Fiber Fund has roughly $28 million. So, roughly, this would suggest that we could look at using up to the full $28 million, to essentially try to incentivize private companies, including the two main ones here, to take a subsidy in exchange for making, basically, their monopoly of the moment "open access." That's what the concept is. I mean, one, are there a proliferation of American cities who are doing this? ### No. I don't think so. I mean, I'm just concerned that both FCC regulations, and the culture, and the way the market has been carved up in this country makes this a challenging situation. We'd be happy to look -- do a little more research on this, as an option, if -- even separate from whether this motion passes -- and two is there. Because -- I mean, Council Member Tanaka's concern is, at this point, the fiber-to-the-node direction in Option number 2 doesn't answer the last mile question. And how that's going to happen. That being said, I think the recommendation on the business case anticipates doing enough analysis that gives you a better picture as to whether that happens or not. And I wouldn't wonder if you -- That seems to me, I'm sorry to say, a better next stage motion -- that even ancillary could ask us to look at, you know, is there some potential viability to an incentive-based system that would close that last mile? I mean, that's sort of what -- 5:03:10:


38

Vice Mayor Kniss: So, we have a new motion. And, Greg, have you spoken to your motion? 5:03:16: Council Member Tanaka: Um, I think I did. But we're not the first American city to do this. Chattanooga, a few other cities, have done this as well. So, I might be thinking of the wrong -- But if you Google it, there's a few other cities ... ### I think no American cities have done exactly this. 5:03:28: City Manager Keene: Chattanooga has spent a whole bunch of money basically building a city network. ### Right. Chattanooga built all of its FTTP infrastructure. It didn't entice the private sector to build (and pay for) any of it. It got a $111.6 million grant to build out some smart grid stuff on top of the FTTP network. But that grant didn't pay for any of the FTTP network itself. Mostly, Chattanooga provides all of its own retail services. But I learned recently that, in addition to this retail model, they also do some other models, including open access. See this video of the 06-27-17 Loveland City Council meeting, at 3:14:28: https://loveland.viebit.com/player.php?hash=AodddHknygBJ# ### Several municipal networks in the U.S. do open access of various kinds. https://muninetworks.org/content/open-access But I believe none use Tanaka's model. 5:03:31: Council Member Tanaka: Well, maybe not, then. But I did read up about a few others that have done it. So, we would not be the first. I know that. ### No, we WOULD be the first. But we were -- And, certainly, in the world. There's -- a lot of cities have done this. ### I doubt it. Open access, yes. The Tanaka model, no. 5:03:41: Vice Mayor Kniss: So, Karen, do you want to speak to your second? 5:03:44: Council Member Holman: Just a little bit. You know, I -- I appreciate all the work that's been done on this. I don't think we're, you know, throwing that out, by any means. But I think -- I think the substitute motion gives a little bit more latitude in what we want to consider than does the original motion. Including -- not limited to but including -- the option Council Member Tanaka was proposing and talking about. 5:04:12: Jonathan Reichental: [Could] I ask a couple of clarifying questions? One of the concerns I have -- Well, one is a point, and a question. "A" looks a little bit like work we've already done. 5:04:21: City Manager Keene: (unamplified) Yes. 5:04:21: Jonathan Reichental: So, we know the answer to -- We've sort of designed a network. It's $78 million.


39

### If staff had actually designed a network, then when Council asked to see the details of that design, staff should have handed them over. Instead, staff said CTC said the details were proprietary to CTC. That's crazy! CTC can't be allowed to own and keep secret the proprietary details of the City's design. I think the $77.6 million estimate in the 09-28-17 staff report is based on rules of thumb, that CTC claims to own and that CTC wants to keep secret, so that they can generate estimates without having to do designs more easily than their competitors. So I'm not sure -- That actually takes us back. We've actually gone to the market and looked for business partners to operate it, too, and we didn't get any viable plans for it. ### The RFI was pretty non-specific about what it was asking for. It wasn't asking only for entities that wanted to operate a network that would be built by the City. So, I'm concerned that you'd send us off to do something we've done already. The other question I have is -- just so I understand -- is the point that the City would subsidize a company like AT&T to bring high-speed Internet to a house that they wouldn't be typically bringing it to, to incentivize them? ### That would be dumb, of course. 5:05:00: Vice Mayor Kniss: Unless you want to go on, Jonathan, at this point, I think we have sufficient information that I'm going to ask that we vote. We could be debating this for another hour, and it's after eleven. ### Who's fault is it that it's after eleven? According to the agenda, http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59056 the FTTP item was scheduled to start at 9:15 pm, and apparently it actually started later than that. (It was scheduled to take 90 minutes, and it actually took 103 minutes.) The Mayor and Vice Mayor participate in the scheduling of items. I think FTTP is important enough to have been scheduled as the only action item of a Council meeting. 5:05:10: Council Member Tanaka: Vice Mayor, can I respond to his questions first? 5:05:13: Vice Mayor Kniss: The what? 5:05:14: Council Member Tanaka: Can I respond to his questions? 5:05:15: Vice Mayor Kniss: No. I'm just going to have us vote. Otherwise, we're debating back and forth. So, with that, would you vote on the board? Either, at this point, you are voting for the substitute motion, which has to be voted on before we can vote on the regular motion. So, you're now voting on the substitute motion. OK, so, that loses on a 6-2, with Council Members Holman and Tanaka voting yes. ### And Mayor Scharff absent. . So, with that, the substitute motion has failed. And could we vote on the main motion? Can we erase the lights? OK. So, you're now voting on the main motion, which I'm not going to read all over again, because we've now seen it for about an hour and a half. So, I think it's time to vote. Somebody hasn't voted. 5:06:25: [laughter] 5:05:28:


40

Vice Mayor Kniss: OK. And, once again, this passes on a 6-2 vote. The Mayor is missing. And we have noes from Council Members Tanaka and Holman. Thank you so much. I know we could have gone on with this for a long time. Many of us have expertise in this. But I think it's time that we move forward in some direction. And I know that, Jonathan, you'll keep us informed. Greg, I hear your concerns. I know where you would have headed on this. But I think that the direction we're headed in is actually going to be -- at least it's going to get us in a direction. I think, Jonathan, that we'll give us a lot more information. OK. 5:07:22:


1

Carnahan, David

From: Cheryl Lilienstein <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 12:05 PMSubject: Urgent: Danger of inaccurate vote counting California !

Dear Friends, We have a problem: a bill is due to be voted on (possibly Thursday) by the California Senate which could seriously undermine the accuracy of vote counting audit processes. I urge you to take action and alert your friends, too! A hand counted audit of 1% of randomly selected precincts is the gold standard for ensuring that all votes are counted as cast. We need your help to get AB 840 out of the Senate voting lineup, and back into the Elections Committee so that section 15360 can be removed, because it CHANGES present law and is not a valid 1% audit. It might make things easier for elections officials, but it is NOT a valid audit of the final vote count. Please contact the California Elections Committee with this message: Subject AB 840 Regarding AB 840: Please strike the entirely NEW section 15360 from AB 840, which changes existing election audit law. The intent of the EXISTING audit law is to ensure the accuracy of the FINAL vote tally. Presently ALL votes in the randomly selected precincts must be counted in the mandated audit of 1% randomly selected precincts. The change made by Section 15360 is not in compliance with the intent of existing law, because it only audits votes canvassed (counted) on election day, ("ballots canvassed in the semifinal official canvass") and eliminates auditing the counting processes for valid ballots arriving by mail after election day. Thus it DOES NOT evaluate whether vote counting procedures are accurate in the days following the election, when MILLIONS of ballots are still arriving by mail. Just as Volkswagen can program their diesel cars to look like they are emission‐free while being tested, so can election counting systems be so programmed. The section 15360 has no place in our state. As we know, many efforts to hack US elections systems were made in 2016 and no doubt there will be more, especially when the door is left open! If this passes, Californians will not be able to have confidence that the mechanism of democracy is secure. Please remove section 15360. Here are the contacts:

Anthony Rendon (Speaker) (916) 319-2063


2

Marc Berman (Chair of Elections Committee): (916) 319-2024 Mathew Harper (Vice Chair): (916) 319-2074 Ian C. Calderon: (916) 319-2057 Evan Low: (916) 319-2028 Kevin Mullin: (916) 319-2022 Jim Patterson: (916) 319-2023 Shirley Weber: (916) 319-2079 You should also write to the committee secretary: [email protected] The subject line should read: AB 840 thank you in advance for taking this action! Please let me know if you were successful. Sincerely, Cheryl Here is the link to the bill, see section 15360 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB840 Here are recent articles regarding problems in the 2016 election: hacking attempts, and various exploits that have yet to be investigated but were noticed…

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/russia-election-hacking.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article170006067.html


1

Carnahan, David

From: Palo Alto Free Press <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 12:06 PMTo: Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Keene, James; Council, City; Watson, Ron; Perron,

Zachary; Bullerjahn, Rich; Philip, Brian; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reifschneider, James; Keith, Claudia; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lum, Patty; Jay Boyarsky; Stump, Molly; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: Your heads are in the sand on

the issue of racial profiling in Palo Alto. In fact, all of you are in denial and bottom line racists.

Sent from my iPhone

STOP TASERS FROM BEING INTRODUCED TO OUR JAILS

Coath!on for J115tic;,1 and AccOWJ1abmty - SV De-Bug -July 7, 2017

ICOUNblL1 MEETING

9 11 l l 1 [ ] Placed Before Meeting f..-r'Received at Meeting

The Santa Clara County Sheriff has proposed that Tasers be introduced in our jails. lasers are a deadly weapon and are

almost always used on unarmed people and should be banned.

As the San Jpse Mir&UQ' News editorial gn May 19. 2017 stated, ~The Board of Supervisors should take special note of the

lisk of Taser use on people who are mentally ill, because a stun gun shock that may just temporarily disable a healthy person

may be lethal to someone who is taking medication. A 2015 study found that nearly 50% of the inmates in the County's main

jail and Elwood facility in Milpitas have a mental illness, and an estimated 650 inmates receive some kind of psychotropic

drug on a daily basis.~

Not only are individuals with mental health concerns and prescription drug users more vulnerable to the lethal risk of Tasers,

but also individuals with heart issues and other physical limitations are equally vulnerable. We believe .21st CenWQ' Policing

(a Department of Justice framework on how to improve police and community relations) is moving away from the notion that

more weapons means more safety for officers, prison guards and those incarcerated. 21st Century Policing alternatives

embrace, among other progressive reforms, crisis intervention training, rapport buffding and de-escalation skill building, all of

which run contrary to the use of deadly Tasers.

The costs of Tasers, their initial purchase, replacement and repair, training and litigation expenses can run into the hundreds

of thousands of dollars each year for the County. For the time period 2015-2016, the San Jose Police Department spent

$319,368 for the purchase ofTasers. On July 12, 2013, the City of San Jose lost a lawsuit involving the death of Steve

Salinas, who died as a result of the San Jose Police deploying Tasers. A federal jury returned a verdict of $1,000,000 in

damages to the Salinas Family. We believe that any monies proposed for the purchase of Tasers should instead be spent on

treatment for inmates, and to convert our jails from violent caged facilities to places of compassion and humanity.

According to Irutb not Tasers. an organization that monitors Taser use in North America, more then 1.000 deaths have

resulted from the use of Tasers by law enforcement. Even members of law enforcement have recognized the lethal nature of

Tasers.

Former Newark, California Police Chief Ray Samuels, in making a decision not to purchase Tasers said the following, "What

scared me about the weapon is that you can deploy it absolutely within the manufacturer's recommendation and there is still

the possibility of an unintended reaction. I can't imagine a worse circumstance than to have a death attributed to a Taser in a

situation that didn't justify deadly force. It's not a risk I'm will ing to take."

In the past, Jaw enforcement officers (trainees) were encouraged to submit to a Taser blast under very controlled

circumstances, with spotters on a mat, with eye goggles, and limiting the Taser blast to an area on the back below the neck.

The leading law enforcement think tank, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has said, "Agencies shO\lfd be aware

that exposure to ECW (Taser) application during training could result in injury to personnel and is not recommended." Many

law enforcement agencies who formerly allowed their officers to voluntarily be exposed to Taser blasts during training

exercises, have ended such a practice because of serious and career ending injuries to healthy officers, and subsequent

lawsuits filed by these same injured officers.

If Tasers are considered too dangerous to use on healthy officers during very tightly controlled training exercises, then

certainly Tasers are not safe to use on inmates who suffer from a wide variety of mental and physical conditions that make

them particularly vulnerable to injury and death from a Taser blast.

The Sheriffs position that policy can be drafted to ensure that Tasers can be safely used on unarmed inmates, doesn't match

the reality of the unpredictable and lethal nature of Tasers, and the fact that when used on unarmed individuals Tasers are an

inherently dangerous weapon.

In other words, you can't create a safe policy for the use of an inherently unsafe weapon (Tasers) when used on unarmed

individuals, any more then you can create a safe policy for inmates who wish to smoke an inherently dangerous product like

cigarettes.

Given the recent guilty verdicts of three Santa Clara County Correctlonal Officers in the brutal murder of Michael T¥J'ee. and

all of the other problems and controversies surrounding inmate abuse in our County Jails, the last thing we need to do is

introduce Tasers into our jails.

About the Authors:

Richard Konda is the Executive Director of the Asian Law Alliance and the Chairperson of the Coalition for Justice and Accountability.

Aram James is a retired Santa Clara County Deputy Pubfic Defender, a member of the Coalition for Justice and Accountability and a co

founder of the Albert Cobarrubias justice Proiect.

Illustration by Adrian Avita