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

04/11/2011 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet

reproduction in a given week.

"

"'-

.. ~ ••• ~ •• - •• ~ •• ~.-. ~ .. "ov.o •• oov" ........ I v· .. ·""···fi);"fb-H;;:,~ ij;5"~ ··I vw.".

~'~lHfor11jiaJ'~ej~(ng to .R1G,e thc")'dkaHne :Hy(troiysis ~Y~ry,e

II r-11

Bill Advances to Senate, Approval Expected ,

Taken/rom the i~[ay /3, 20/0, edition o/the I\;[emoriai Business Journal

MEETING

Sacramento - Last week the California State Assembly unanimously approved A. 8. 2283, which would ' amend the state's Health and Safety code to change the definition of cremation to include alkaline ' hydrolysis, a "chemical dissolution process using heat, high pressure water, and potassium hydroxide to hydrolyze human tissue and the consumable container."

Introduced by Assemblyman Jeff Miller. the bill has been advanced to the state senate for consideration. If approved, California would join Frorida, Maine and Oregon as states that have taken legislative action to permit the process for the general pUblic. A number of other states, including Minnesota and Colorado, permit the practice for institutional procedures, such as the disposition of cadavers at medical and veterinary schools. Meantime, a number of states are having the conversation about amending their laws to 'include the process in their approved methods of disposition of human remains. Some states argue that while the process isn't officially "legal" in their states for public consumption, it isn't illegal either. Meaning a business could test the waters and seek to install a facility following the licensing and permit process currently on the books.

The California bill also instructs the state's Cemetery and Funeral Bureau to adopt regulations for the safe operation of alkaline hydrolysis chambers no later than July 1, 2011.

Robert J. Achermann, executive director of the Calitornia Funeral Directors Association, which supported the bill, noted that there is no opposition to the A.B. 2283 and he does not expect there to be any problem getting the bill through the state senate and signed by the governor. '

"The association has had meetings with Miller's office about some of the technical issues about how you define the process," Achetmann said. "( think most funeral directors believe this is something that wiJI generate consumer interest as an alternative to traditi'onal cremation." Another consideration in the state - cemeteries in California, especially near the major metropolitan areas, are running short on space.

Supporters calr alkaline hydrolysis~which is also referred to a~' 15i<i~cL~m.§.t{Qn~Resomation or water resolution, a "greeiier,iaItemative to traditional cremation. The process itself reportedly uses about less than 20 percent of the energy used for a cremation. Further, C02 emissions are reduced by nearly 90 percent and the process avoids putting mercury and other harmful contaminants into the atmosphere.

Basically, a body is placed into a stainless steel container with potassium hydroxide (a fonn of lye) and heated to more than'300 degrees F. Turbulence is used to accelerate the dissolving of flesh and soft ' , tissue. Usually the process takes, on average, about three or fdur hours. What's left is a sterile liquid substance containing amino acids, peptides, sugars and salts that are purportedly environmentally friendly and can be washed down the drain. The remaining bone fragments are whiter in appearance than those that arc crernated, The bones arc then pulverizeJ into a tine white, ash-like substance and call h~ returned to the family ,

... ',~~A""""''''''''''' .................. ~ .. ,>..,I." ""'_"''LJ&'LJ ........ 'V"'· ......... • ... U' ... I ................... 'OJ .......... ...., ............ •• .. b .. '" ......... -- ~ .... - ~ -.-~--- ___ _

"f "ill totdrffll;t:~.:.rt: no di~\:h:lrg..,; i:s:;u',::;, it is a prOI;t;:>:, that has lH.;t.:n Ils..:d in Europc.::(lf :;Ont...: tiut:," i\chcrmann said. "But bdng California the t:nvironmt:nt is always at the ton::front."

'I

'AsSt;m~lYJ11artMiller W~$ approached with the idea by a funeral director, Chris Miller (no relation), . owner of Thomas Mille:is;Mortuary in the assemblyman's home district of Corona. Chris Miller also approacfledthestateassp~iation to lobby to have the law changed.

, Eye on the Process

The forward progress in Calitornia has turned a spotlight on the process as a whole. The technology evolved out of necessity in Europe as the high volume of cremation in densely populated areas compelled nations to put limits on the emissions. The first application of alkaline hydrolysis to be used for processing human remains in the United States took place in 1998 at the University of Florida, Gainesville, to dispose of medical school cadavers. The second system, also for institutional purposes, was in 2005 at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Currently; there are no funeral homes offering alkaline hydrolysis as a means of disposing of human remains in the United States. The first commercial application ofthe process is scheduled to be installed this summer by Matthews International, which partnered with a Scottish finn, Resomation Ltd. in2008. The location of the unit, pending final approvals of the necessary pennits, is at the Anderson-McQueen Family Tribute Center in st. Petersburg, Fla., which will be a showcase for the use and application of bio-cremation for the public.

According to Steve Schaal, division manager for sales and marketing of Matthews Cremation, Apopka, Fla:, the opening of the facility is just a few months away. "The emission test data and technical solution are in the hands of the local St. Petersburg Waste Water authorities," he said. "We believe we've thoroughly answered every technical requirement and anticipate approvals within the next few months. Because it's the first in the world within a funeral home, we're going where no other company has gone."

Matthews and BioSAFE Engineering, Brownsburg, Ind., are two of just a handful of finns in the United States to offer the equipment. Another competitor, Cycled Life, Denver, unveiled its prototype vessel this month. Transition Science, a Toronto-based company is the licensed distributor of Resomation in Canada. That country's ·first bio-cremation system is currently being installed in Toronto. '

A Significant Investment

\-Vhere alkaline hydrolysis accelerates the decomposition process, there is not likely to be much acceleration inthe legislative pace even as a number of states are currently discussing the process. However, once the conversation advances past the legal hurdles (no small task especially if you are talking about introducing any liquid remains into a sanitary sewer system), getting into the alkaline hydrolysis business is not an inexpensive investment. Equipment ranges in price from $200,000 to :S400,000, which is about J to 5 times the cost of a traditional cremation retort.

However, the alkaline hydrolysis chambers may offer savings in other areas. In California, for example, funeral homes or crematories investing in the technology would not be required to acquire air emission permits, which is an expensive, time·consuming process, Achennann said. Manufacturers suggest that the alkaline hydrolysis vessel offers lower maintenance than a traditional retort, which has to be n:brickcd after so many hours.

" j." ) I i

'.

':1..ith :\Ltnll';\\':; lll~muf~icillrjng buth trac!diull;i1 crl'll1:ttiunrctorb and bio-cremation \L':';scl~;., ~;Ch:l;tl " : ; . (:ommentCd &tl thcmali;tenance issue. "Since there is no rcfi'actory, there ",muld be none of these costs

li)r floors, walls or ceiling," he said, adding that since the interior is nil stainless sted, the occasional bath rinse is required.

"The biggest maintenance we initially see is the door seal, which would be monitored and replaced probably once per year with an annual inspection," Schaal said. "The material cost is probably less than $50 so we view this as a direct saving to owners/operators."

David Nixon, Nixon Consulting, Chatham, Ill., said that the technology is stilI too new to have a solid compilation of data. "A traditional retort will have to rebrick after so many hours," he said. "But we don't know what the long-term picture is. Until a history of data is developed, maintenance of the alkaline hydrolysis chambers is speculative. Five or 10 years down the road we will find out what the maintenance issues are."

Maine and Oregon revised their crematory and licensing rules in late 2009. So far, neither state has a working facility nor is one planned. "1 don't think any are in the formative phase," said Sally Belanger, executive director of the Maine Funeral Directors Association, "Word of such activities would travel fast through Maine," she added. Last fall Maine revised its definition of cremation to include "The technical process, using direct flame and heat, or other process, that reduces human remains to bone fragments. The reduction takes place through heat and evaporation, or through other processes, including, but not limited to, chemical dissolution."

More than 60 percent of the deaths per year in Oregon are cremated. Mark Stehn, executive director of the Oregon Funeral Directors Association, said the association did support last year's effort amend ORS 692 which allows the state's Mortuary & Cemetery Board to license new and emerging technology, ifit meets the permit requirement within the county. .

To the north, Jewell Steffensen, executive secretary of the Washington State Funeral Directors Association, said that a process to review changes to the law to allow alkaline hydrolysis is underWay. Steffensen said a letter was sent to the Department of Licensing, Funeral & Cemetery Division by Matthews International asking what type of requirements would be needed in order to have a unit installed in a funeral home in Washington. "In April the board members met for their regular meeting in which I attended," Steffensen said. "They moved to fonn a committee with stakeholders to review what changes, if any, to the Revised Code of Washington and/or the Washington Administrative Code would be needed to regulate the bio-cremation sy'stem. All of them felt that this would eventually pass."

Neither the National F:,uneral Directors Association nor the International Cemetery, Cremation & Funeral AssOciatiort1iave adopted a po Sftionon the alkaline hydrolysis process. "We see it as another disposition option from which families may choose, in addition to earth burial, entombment in a mausoleum or cremation," said Jessica Koth, NFDA public relations manager. "The only challenge that might exist for an inclividual or family that wants to select alkaline hydrolysis for themselves or a loved one is availability - it is not something that is generally available to consumers.'

Koth added that ~ encourages further study of the alkaline hydrolysis process to fully understand its impact on the environment and the health and safety of funeral professionals and communities.

However, the Cremation Association of North America has recognized alkaline hydrolysis as a fonn of disposition that is similar to cremation and is including it as a variant of the cremation process. "Our recently revised Model Cremation Law speaks of the 'mechanical and/or thennal or other dissolution

http://www.rifda.org/grcen-funcrals/2170-califomia-secking-to-ridc-thc-alkaline-hydrolysis-... 2/1/2011

I'T(ice::;:: 111:11 H,.'ducc;; lJlll11311 rcmaim: to bOlle fl-agrm:nts: \\']]ich is ccrlaildy inclucies ,tlblmc LydH":.:;,,;," saiel John Ross, CANA executive dircctor',"Furthcr, the application of heat remains a faclnr gi veil tlwt: . the solution is heated to 400 dcgrcesF,"

As fur the legislative process in California, Achennann said the legislature will adjourn Aug. 31. After that the governor has 39 days to sign the bills on his desk, so the outcome will be known by late September,ifnot sooner.

Despite California taking care of the leg work in preparation of the new technology, Dan Isard, president of The Foresight Companies, Phoenix, said alkaline hydrolysis is "at least 10 years away from the real world. The investment is huge and ultimately the consumer is going to pay for it," he said. "Very few eco-consumers are goingto pay 400 to 600 percent more for alkaline hydrolysis rather than a cremation. State law allowing it and conS1,Jmers and professionals understanding it is a long way away, if it ever comes to be."

Preparing for the Next Wave

As individuals live more environmentally conscious lives, the more likely these feelings will continue into how they are remembered with baby boomers once again leading the charge. The development of the alkaline hydrolysis process comes on the.heels of a move toward burial in "green" cemeteries where the bodies are not embalmed and a buried in a biodegradable container such as a wicker basket and lowered into the ground.

"Green proponents will get laws passed to permit alkaline hydrolysis, I mean, who would dare argue against'being green?" asked Mike K.ubllsak, Kubasak Associates, Mesquite, Nev. He commented on what he called an amazing tum of events over the last 40 years. "In tl),e 1970s, cremation was being pushed by some people because they saw earth burial as a threat to the environment," he said. "Now, it's cremation,or fossil-fuel cremation being touted as the threat to the environment"

With only about 10 percent of the United States even legally allowed to offer alkaline hydrolysis, the best thing that a funeral director can do, in the words of one funeral director, is keep your ear to the ground.

"The reason that I keep my ear to the ground, and lmayhave to keep it there a long time, is I don't want to be too quick to discount any new idea, because you hate to make the mistakes of the past like when it came to cremation," said John Williams, funeral director with Farley Funeral Homes and Crematory, with locations in Venice, North Port and Englewood, Fla. Williams, who is also president of the Florida' Funeral Directors Association, said that for a long time as consumer interest in cremation was growing, the funeral profession "kept their heads in the sand for so long, [and] really kind of missed the opportunity to embrace what people wanted and master it, perfect it and dQright by people."

Nixon agrees. "Funeral directors can'tabdi~ate their duty to be knowledgeable and informed like they did with cremation," he said. "It is kind of like the green movement, if funeral directors aren't at least infonned or aware they will be passed by."

According to Joe Sehee, executive director of the Green Burial Council, Santa Fe, N.M., funeral directors need to be able to present these offerings to the public and stand behind whatever is being purported. "We shouldn't be judging," Sehee said. "That was the mistake that was made trying to diminish cremation as being a less than decent fonn of disposition. It didn't do families or the funeral service community any good. That is why I think that green burial is being treated with kid gloves to

.. http://,vww . nfda.orgl green-funerals/21 7 O-cali fomia-seeking-to-ride-the-alkaliric-hydroI ysis-.:~ 2/1120 I 1

I

I \ \.1 \ I il \,

il \

lHLUVll<U l'UlII;;,<U LlUI;;I",lUl;:) ,,,""UI", 1 ClllUIlI \...UIUVlllHl .:;Jt;t:I\Ulg LV "lUI;; lilt; i-\IKilllIll;; nYUlvly .•• · ragl;;.J VI U

.!' .. _some degn.:e. {fthc markt:twants this, it is going to get it:,;o we shouldn't stand in the way of it."

Alkaline hydrolysis otTers the same service options as with traditional burial or flame base cremation. Schaal noted that meaningful and appropriate services must remain front and ~enter in the educational process. "We see bio-cremation offering the same platform for creative services but the education will remain in the hands of the funeral professional," he said. "With bio~technology, it will not consume a traditional casket (burial or cremation) so the requirement of a specially made 'rental insert' is necessary. Matthews has designed a stainless steel insert that fits into any rental casket that will allow for visitation and can go directly from the rental into the Bio cremator."

~ -, -

Curt Rostad, executive director of the Indiana Funeral Directors Association, said he could only assume that the memorialization component will be identical. "Those funeral directors that have done a good job showing that cremation is not 'instead of a funeral 'will do a good job with hydrolysis too."

To illustrate his point, Rostad recalled a newspaper article he saw where a funeral director commented on the effect of the recession on the funeral business. The funeral director said: "Some people can't afford a funeral so they are choosing cremation." Said Rostad, "That's the guy that is in trouble regardless of the process used."

Williams said he is not sure whether alkaline hydrolysis is going to have a mainstream appeal or will become a kind of a boutique way to appeal to a niche of folks. Regardless, he said funeral directors need to learn from the mistakes made when cremation was starting to gain in popularity and have the conversation with any interested families.

"Funeral service forgot to include as part of the story where the memorialization process plays into it," Williams said. "They got fixated on the actual disposition and not what leads up to it. The meaning and the value was never on the table during the discussion."

Williams said that some funeral homes will make the investment in alkaline hydrolysis right off the bat and he will be watching very closely. "A lot of our efforts and energies will continue to go into talking about the meaning arid the value of the funeral and memorialization," Williams said. "\Ve'll put more of our eggs in that basket than we are in the actual process of crematory vs. bio-cremation."

First Ones in the Pool

The first ones in the pool to offer alkaline hydrolysis will be setting the bar on pri~ing - taking into account the size of their investment, the likely number of families interested in the process and competition, among other factors. Nixon believes that the early entrants into the market should adopt high-end pricing, considering the risks associated with cremation (fire or water) are higher than for earth burial. "They are going to have to recoup the initialirivestment," he said. "If operators are smart they will charge accordingly and try to recoup their investment. It is going to take quite a while to get a return on investment of that magnitude. I think you price it high to start with, especially if you are the only one in the area. "

Rostad sees little choice for funeral homes that invest in the technology other than to base initial pricing on costs. "Right now, the major cost is in equipment," he said. "1 understand [the number] of man hours required [for the process] is similar and the cost of gas vs. chemicals is within a few dollars of each other. [f public acceptance of the process grows and the units become more mass produced, we can ex peet the cost to eventually come down so maybe the costs will be comparable."

1'HIUUIl<l1.lUUC1<l1 LlUt;l,,;lVl:; r\:;:;V~H111UI1I \...iillWrIlla ,)Ct:Klng LO ttH.1C Ule 1\IKallne ttyoroIY... l~agc 0 or 0

• •. • ~.-~, .. ~...... • • "r

But therein lies the rt:al question: What It:vcl of public {iccCiJtancc. will this method reccivi:!'? Rostad j believes that alkaline hydrolysis will have a public relations or public perception issue. '·'-I've heard it rcferred to as the 'yuck' tactor," he said. "Cremation has a historical basis. Even though much of that history has a negative context, that has largely been overcome and it is widely accepted here and abroad. Some even view the return of the elements back to nature in the fonn of fire to be spiritual or comforting.

"But hydrolysis has no history while flame is acceptable to a lot of people," Rostad continued. "It's a little harder to put into acceptable tenninology that their loved one is going to being dissolved and put down the drain, or as some suggest, recycled as fertilizer."

Robert Fells, external chief operating officer and general counsel for ICCF A, concurred with Rostad's point. "If the proponents want this method to advance, they should develop an accurate summary of what happens," Fells said. "Even with traditional cremation, consumers are not necessarily aware of the 'pulverizing' part. I think consumer disclosure would be key where alkaline hydrolysis is offered. Providers could be running a risk of potential liability by not disclosing how the process works. In other words, 'I didn't know you were going to do that to Mom!'"

Nixon said that funeral homes not interested in the alkaline hydrolysis would describe the process much differently than those who are. "The people who don't have a unit will combat a competitor with a unit, they will be using the word 'flush' in reference to the liquid remains going down the drain," he said .

. "The idea of flushing grandma down the drain isn't a pretty picture."

Brad Crain, president ofBioSAFE Engineering, knows what to expect from opponents of the process. "Naysayers will make it sound pretty gruesome," Crain said. "We're returning organic components of the' body back to the ecosystem just like nature intended. Ashes to ashes - we're accelerating the natural decomposition."

Schaal said he views alkaline hydrolysis as a fonn of cremation. "But instead of the catalyst being nature or propane fuel, the catalyst is 95 percent water with 5 percent potassium hydroxide .

. "We're providing our funeral professionals an option for the cremation consumer who wants a more environmental process that lowers greenhouse gases, lowers the use of natural resources, t!tc.," Schaal added. "I think it's fascinating that at least in my 20-plus years in funeral service, we're talking about providing a service that is actually relevant in today's market. Nonnally we are several steps behind the consumer but with this opportunity, we are step in step."

Schaal said that in Matthews' consumer research completed last fall, the overwhelming majority recognizes thatin order to be environmentally driven - it comes with a price. "\Ve See this bio­cremation service coming with a premium oyer traditional flame because of the capital investment. In our research, we found the tipping point for the consumer who would pay a premium for a 'direct cremation' was at roughly +$500. They made it clear that the environmental advantages must be spelled out within the education so that they can justifY needing to spend more. If the environmental advantages are + 1 0 percent but the cost is +50 percent, the.math doesn't work. \Ve need to remain respectful with the expectations."

! ! 'I) I !

Minor. Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Loran Harding [loran.harding@stanfordalumnLorg] Sunday, March 27, 2011 11 :47 PM andreas.borgeas@fresno.gov Utility Advisor Committee Report on 3-31-11

Sunday, March 27, 2011

District 2 City Councilman Andreas Borgeas Fresno, Ca.

QtlYOf PALO AtlO~eA CITY CLERK'SUFFICE

n APR -S PH 5: 05

Mr. Borgeas- On Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 9:30 AM the Utility Advisory Committee will present its final report and recommendations to the City Council. To try to get you to listen to them and ignore me, the Committee has agreed to appear en mass before you while I, as a member of the public, will get but three minutes to speak. They are now rehearsing for their presentation and establishing their "talking points". They noted at their final meeting on Feb. 9, 2011 that the Council "didn't ask many questions" when they made their water meter recommendation to you in July, 2010, and they are fervently hoping you don't ask many questions this time either. You should have many questions for them this time, and for the Mayor and City Manager. The grand jury very well may.

The UAC meetings are public meetings. I attended nine consecutive meetings of the Utility Commission in 2006, the only member of the public who did. I appeared before the Council three times then and got two letters published in the Fresno Bee about the stunning 62.5% utility rate hike that was proposed and that the Council adopted in Jan. 2007. I hold a B.A. degree in Biological Sciences from Stanford University, an MBA degree in Finance and Business Environment from the University of Oregon, I passed the Certified Public Accountant exam in 1987, and I hold an M.S. degree in Taxation from California State University, East Bay. I am retired from the Executive Office of GMAC in New York, and I was a. GS-9 Revenue Agent with the IRS in San Jose, Calif.

From January, 2009 to Feb. 9, 2011, a period of two years, I attended every single meeting of the Utility Advisory Committee, the only member of the public who did. The Committee has met the second Wednesday of each month on the third floor of City Hall from 6 PM to 9 PM. I may have missed the first meeting in Jan., 2010. There have been serious problems getting these public meetings noticed in the Fresno Bee. I spoke for my allowed two or three minutes of public comment after every meeting. Several members of the UAC missed various meetings. I never missed one.

In July, 2009 the UAC recommended the installation of water meters, and fees associated with this, and tiered water rates which could be imposed in case of drought, and then drought surcharges which could be imposed when the tiered rates caused customers to reduce their water use, and all of this was adopted after the Prop. 218 process played out.

In its report to the council on March 31, 2011, the UAC will recommend rate hikes for Water, Wastewater Management, Solid Waste and Community Sanitation for Fresno reSidents over the next five years. The first of these hikes, if adopted, will be imposed in September, 2011. The hikes will amount to roughly 3% per year in total for five years. They will raise my utility bill by about $12 per month in total after five years. I get a senior discount now and my monthly bill is

1

$71.82. Mayor Swearengin told the Department of Public Utilities that she wanted to see an annual increase in utility rates this time of 2-3% per year, so the UAC will recommend an increase of 3% per year.'

Due to weighting, the total rate hike will be 3% per year, but the annual rate hike for the Water Division will be almost 9%! The annual rate hike for Wastewater Treatment (sewer) will be 2.65% and there will be an annual DECREASE per year of 3% for Solid Waste. A large reserve was discovered in Solid Waste allowing this decrease. That is wonderful, but it masks the huge annual increase in Water.

Top staff from each DPU division made rate-model presentations to the UAC at each meeting, or the consultants they hire did. Some of these consultants have been hired by Fresno's DPU for many years. They travel up and down California recommending utility rate hikes, and, as cities gladly adopt these, Fresno moves lower on the chart in the power point presentations. So, "see here, Fresno now has lower rates than these cities, making hikes necessary", go the presentations by the consultants to the UAC.

Let me discuss now a huge issue that you should note carefully in the UAC report of March 31, 2011. This issue is my central disagreement with the report which you will receive on 3-31. I am not alone. In an unusual move, one member of the UAC, Sarah Velasquez, has written a separate report and she too disagrees with the rest of the UAC on this, and other, matters. I hope you will read her report and the entire report.

Here's the big issue: The WATER Division, to get more recycled water into its "portfolio", wants the WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Division to spend $172 million over the next five years to install "purple pipe" in the ground all over Fresno to deliver non-potable (non-drinkable) water to school playgrounds, median islands, golf courses and parks. That is 17% of a BILLION dollars that Fresno does not have. Bonds will have to be sold to pay for it and the residents of Fresno will have to pay all of that back, with interest, in their utility bills. Fresno currently recycles almost all of its wastewater treatment plant effluent by cleaning it up to a certain level, sending some of it out through canals to farms to use on non-edible crops, and lets the rest precolate into basins. You notice that we don't send any down the San Joaquin River, which was dry until recently.

BUT Fresno does not currently, does NOT, clean up our effluent to the (still non-potable) standard that would be required to put it in the proposed "purple pipe" discussed above. Improvements would have to be made to our wastewater treatment plant to get the recycled water up to this standard. That is true despite a statement in your utility bill in$ert for January, 2011 saying that

"Wastewater Management PRODUCES several by-products from your wastewater, including: Water: recycled water that CAN BE reused for non-potable uses such as the irrigation of parks, schools, median strips and golf courses".

Not yet, it doesn't, despite the use of the present tense of the verb "to produce" here. I guess somebody in the DPU was "confused" when they wrote that. They were confused because on the front side of that insert it talks about the water Fresno recycles and then it says "WITH ADDITIONAL TREATMENT, recycled water can become a valuable resource- used in place of potable water for non-potable applications such as freeway landscaping, nurseries, industrial applications, etc- thus preserving our higher quality water for essential uses".

Stephen Hogg, the manager of the Wastewater Management Division appeared before the 2

UAC twice in the fall of 2010. He discussed many things, but he and the UAC spent maybe 60 seconds on the topic of the purple pipe project. He did not make it a huge priority. He did not say it is something we really need to do. Mr. Hogg is one of the most knowledgeable people on the City's staff. He is a GEM of an employee. It is the WATER Division that says they need the separate $172 million of pipe to distribute the (as yet unavailable, higher-grade) recycled water. The thinking is that if you have this NON-POTABLE water to put on golf courses, etc., you are not using POTABLE water for that purpose, as IS the practice now. That, in effect, increases the supply of potable water.

This non-potable water, by the way, if Fresno were to produce it, must be used carefully. Where it IS used, signs must be posted, e.g. on golf courses, warning people not to inhale the spray. I believe it is produced and distributed in Orange Co. Calif.

Note this: In its February, 2011 utility bill insert, the DPU says

"The Water Division supplies over 50 BILLION gallons of water to Fresno residents every year".

The City Council should ask the DPU how many gallons per year of new, improved but non­potable recycled water it will distribute through the new $172 million system of purple pipe, if it is built. Then calculate what percent of 50 billion gallons of potable water would be saved if we built the purple pipe system and improved the wastewater treatment plant to produce its non-potable water. Then ask if it is worth spending $172 MILLION NOW to save that percentage of our potable water. I think the result will be laughable.

So what is driving this project? Mr. Hogg told the UAC that there is a requirement in California law that cities recycle 20% of their effluent by 2020. He left it at that. "What does that mean"?, the Council should ask the DPU and Mayor and City Manager. We "recycle" almost all of our effluent now, in one way or another. We appear to me to be recycling 100% of our effluent now! We don't send treated effluent down a river. We clean it up TO SOME EXTENT, send some of it down canals to farms, and let the rest percolate in basins. Does the State requirement mean we must make 20% of our effluent DRINKABLE by 2020? If so, producing the non-potable recycled water for the $172 million purple pipe system won't meet that mandate. The City Council should direct the City Attorney to determine what exactly the "20% by 2020" rule really means. (Mr. Hogg can pOint out the requirement in the law). Then, after the City Attorney does that, the Council should ask itself how producing some non-potable water for the proposed purple pipe system, which we do not currently produce, helps us meet that mandate. Maybe the mandate means we have to produce some POTABLE water from our effluent and some of the higher grade, but still non-potable, water. The requirement is murky at best.

Beyond the issue of what the mandate really is, there is its timing. Mr. Hogg told the UAC that it would take three years to install the purple pipe system. If so, why would Fresno install it in the 2011-2016 time frame (this upcoming utility rate cycle)? Presumably, another UAC will convene in 2016 to set the next five years of utility rates. THAT UAC could recommend, and the Council could adopt, the installation of the purple pipe system beginning in 2017. With three years needed to install, 'it could easily be completed by 2020.

Water recycling requirements may very well change in California between now and 2016- five years from now. And, as I am about to demonstrate, the technology of water recycling may also change. With the budget crisis facing the City of Fresno, I do not believe that the Council should approve a project costing seventeen percent of a BILLION dollars when it is unclear if it will even

3

meet a 2020 State mandate, especially when it can be built from 2017-2020 and meet some 2020 mandate. We don't know what the mandate is, and whatever it is, we can start in 2017 and meet it by the due date of 2020. And on top of all that, new technology is coming along which might make our $172 million of purple pipe a complete waste of money.

Thankfully, this project can be "excised out of the plans of the Wastewater Management Division (upgrade to the wastewater treatment plant to produce the improved but still non­potable water and the laying of miles of purple pipe) and of the Water Division WITHOUT interferring with their other planned projects. The Council can simply delete it. If you do, the annual rate increase for the Wastewater Management Division would then be something less that the proposed 2.65%, perhaps 2.00%. Doing that won't make a big difference in utility bills over the next five years, but everything I have told you above should still cause you to delay this project. It does not make sense to jump the gun by five years on this and risk wasting $172 million! That would make the $15 million mistake with the Met, the $4.5 million mistake with Granite Park, the millions wasted on the parking garage and the millions wasted on the Grizzlies contract look like nothing. We are talking about a HUGE piece of money here!!!! You should require that the Mayor, City Manager and DPU really convince you that this expenditure is vital to make and to make at this time. I do not believe that it is. I think it would be a mistake.

As you will learn on Thursday, the UAC recommends closing down 30 wells in southeast Fresno that are polluted with trichloropropane, a carcinogen. I asked City Manager Scott and DPU Director Ramirez at a UAC meeting in the fall of 2010 if they were going to sue the ago interests who polluted the aquifer with the soil fumigant DD, a contaminant of which is TCP. They assured me that the City would be taking legal action. Now that the wells are going to be shut down, instead of being cleaned up, why would the City still not sue the polluters? It should, in view of what shutting down the wells requires. See next paragraph.

Instead of cleaning up the 30 wells, the UAC will recommend the construction of a new surface water treatment plant in southeast Fresno. It will rely on Kings River water. I suggest that if the Council approves that project that it also move soon to contract for that water. There is a risk that other communities to the southeast of Fresno could contract for it first.

Technology to clean up the 30 polluted wells in SE Fresno could have cost $10 million per well- activated charcoal and ultraviolet light, and more to maintain the technology. So a potential $300 million. I asked Rene Ramirez what a new SWTP in SE Fresno would cost instead, and he said he did not know. But (me has to think it could cost $300 million. The Council should ask about and follow up on legal action to recover that from the polluters.

The UAC will also recommend an expansion of the surface water treatment plant in northeast Fresno. This uses Friant-Kern Canal water from Millerton Lake. Someone told me that it can also get Kings River water through the Enterprise Canal (?).

The UAC will also recommend the construction of the 'ring pipe" around Fresno, a means of conveying potable water all over Fresno.

I agree with the need for the new surface water treatment plant in SE Fresno, for the expansion of the SWTP in NE fresno, and for the building of the ring pipe.

Now for some technology developments that could render the $172 million purple pipe project a huge waste of money. First, in April, 2010 James Crook, PhD, wrote a report on the

4

direct potable reuse of water in California. He led all water recycling programs at the California Department of Public Health for 15 years. His report is "'35 pp. long. I shall provide you with URLs for it in an email tomorrow. If you google "James Crook direct potable reuse of water 2010" you will find his report. It is faSCinating. Please take a look at it. In direct potable reuse, the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant is taken all the way up to the potable, or drinkable, standard. This is curently done only in Namibia. Dr. Crook says that two things need to be done to make it possible in California.

1) The division of oversight responsibilty between the Calif. Dept. of Public Health and the California Department of Water Resources would have to be agreed upon.

2) A means of determining, in real time, what pathogens and other "constituents of concern" are in water emerging from a direct potable reuse plant must be found. That technology does not currently exist. I have suggested in emails I shall next send to you that Stanford's Bio-X program might be up to the task, given enough money. The California and U.S. EPAs might be logical sources of funding. The City of Fresno should urge them to provide the funding to Stanford or whoever else is best suited to the task.

If direct potable reuse becomes feasible in California, or is even mandated, the purple pipe to distribute non-potable water would become redundant. We would be taking ALL of our effluent all the way up to the potable standard. It appears quite possible to me that direct potable reuse could be possible or required by 2020, nine years from now.

Now another technological development that the Council should be aware of when considering the $172 million purple pipe project: In the spring of 2010, Stanford announced that researchers there had made a breakthrough in wastewater treatment plant technology. Google "stanford rocket science and wastewater treatment" to see the article. They change the mix of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria to produce far more methane, which is burned to power the plant. They also add a rocket motor, literally, to burn nitrous oxide produced by all such plants. NO is 300 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than C02, so it is very important not to let it go out of a plant in the effluent. It is harmful to pregnant women. Given the energy boost from more methane and the reduction of NO, I can easily see how the federal and/or State EPA could mandate this technology upon Fresno. If that happens, we could face a huge dollar outlay to modify our wastewater treatment plant.

We should save our $172 million- i.e., hold our fire- to move to direct potable reuse of our effluent and/or to modify our wastewater treatment plant if and when they are mandated. Either of those could occur in the next five years. Given THAT, and the fact that we can wait five years before installing the purple pipe system if it is still required by 2020, in 2016, the Mayor, City Manager and/or City Council should excise the expensive purple pipe system out of the UAC's recommendations. It should be shelved. It is the sheer scale of this possible mistake that is so impressive. Doing the project now would create jobs, true enough. Every construction company in the Central Valley is going to bid on it. They all know about it. But the City of Fresno is not a WPA. We can't print money to create jobs, or to buy votes.

Let me tell the Council about a ridiculous little discussion that took place at the UAC after I objected a couple of times to the purple pipe project. Two members said they met with Stephen Hogg and he told them that if we don't build (or are not building) the purple pipe project that the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for this area could deny Fresno an expansion

5

permit for its wastewater treatment plant, halting growth in Fresno. At least, there is a real danger of that happening, they said. They sounded like a couple of fifth graders. I told the UAC that I did not believe it. Then I framed it as a legal question for the City Attorney to research: "Do the Regional Water Quality Control Boards in California have the legal authority to deny an expansion permit to a city's wastewater treatment plant because the city is not building a separate distribution system of pipes to distribute non-potable recycled water?"

We know that the "20% by 2020" rule, whatever it really requires, won't be enforceable until, well, 2020. We can wait and CAREFULLY determine what is required of us, and see what the other 449 cities in California are going to do, and then, in 2017, if we MUST, under the law at that time, go ahead and spend a big piece of a billion dollars on purple pipe in Fresno. To do this project right now just does not pass the "smell test". There is something funny about it.

Beyond all of this, I feel that a 9% rate hike for water every year for the next five years is pretty steep. In around 2005 I got a little article published in the Bee warning of ground subsidence in Fresno from our overdrafting the aquifer. Geology instructor Craig Poole at FCC told his students in 2002, including me, that Fresno got ALL of its water (at that time) from groundwater and that the aquifer had dropped 60 feet since 1940. The DPU's February, 2011 bill insert says that "Fresno's water table has dropped over 100 feet in the last 80 years". It also says that "82% of Fresno's water comes from groundwater" and that "18% comes from surface water". So I can agree that we need to use more surface water and less groundwater. The Bee published an article 1V2004 showing that in west Fresno Co., before the California Aquaduct and the Delta-Mendota Canal were built 1V1960, there had been 30 feet of ground subsidence in places due to the farmers overpumping the groundwater(!) We don't want that or any percentage of that subsidence to happen under our homes in Fresno.

One more point on technology: last year Stanford announced the development of a bacterial filter for water that electrocutes bacteria as the water passes through, instead of filtering them out. When you filter them, they clog up the filter- "biofouling". It can filter water 80,000 times faster than current filters. One just lets the water drop through the filter, no (expensive) pumping necessary. The filter consists of silver nanowires through which a mild current is passing. Stephen Hogg told me that such a filter could be used at our plant and apparently it would be a big benefit at our SWTPs. Google "electrified nanofilter at Stanford" to read about it. Perhaps this development will help make direct potable reuse of effluent from a wastewater treatment plant practical in California. More reason to hold up on the $172 million purplepipe project.

At the UAC, re the purple pipe project, this sequence of comments occurred: "The technology on this will change" (she had read my emails), another member: "I think we should see the need for this project in writing" and, a third member: "I think we all agree we need this". Those three comments in about 15 seconds, in that order. I could hardly believe it.

More tomorrow, laying the groundwork for my 180-second appearance before you all on Thursday.

Mr. Loran W. Harding

Fresno, Ca.

loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org

6

4 101 Alma, Palo Alto, apt. 701 CA 94301 248-1842

, Palo Alto City Council.

B .. '·.':.'''' """"''V'V'.''''''.ISoL;. .-11 I. a.. II &1 .. "-11

~:1 ~-~-/I rI.1\~.lXT Placed Before Meeting I [ J ReceIved at Meeting

Ap r i 1 5, 20 11

I want to urge you please to postpone cutting employees' health insurance until you have ascertained your true goal. Is it to not pay the employees so much, or is it to not pay so much in insurance?

If the employees cost too much, cutting health insurance is no savings; you still lose the 7.6w % federal payroll tax that accompanies cash wages, and survival medical care the low paid workers must use, but can't pay for, falls on the community. or on the hospital, to be shifted to the rest of us--lots more than 3%. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

With employees who make more than $80,000 a year, you still pay 7.65% on salary up to the payroll tax maximum, but cutting health benefits instead of salary is even less efficient in terms of meeting your goals. You want to be nice to them so you pay what many of us think is too much, but the health insurance is the only compensation they get 100% of; they pay 22% in federal tax on the cash wages, and they have to pay their outrageous health bills, because they have property to put a lien on, which the poor do not. They would be far, far better off taking a 10%, or 15%, or whatever salary cut would garner the savings you want.

Don't take my word for it. Preferential tax treatment of employer provided health insurance but not health insurance you pay for out of pocket has been deliberately set up so the unions will force big companies to give part of their compensation as health insurance.

Let me tell you about 10%. My husband was an engineer for NASA his entire career and we've been insured by Government Employees Health Association, high option, for over 50 years. We pay 10% of retirement toward it, $400. per month, but on top of that we pay deductibles, copayments and "coinsurance" which is 10% of whatever the bill is, and the sky's the limit on the bill. Last year one of El Camino Hospital's bills was $1250, and we couldn't pay it all, because my husband's caregivers ran $5,000 a month. They sent it to the collection agency, Teamworks, which has progressively less pleasant collectors. When I told the last one my husband had died, the guy said "Did he have an Estate? We can collect from the Estate." Incidentally, we had some similar bills from Stanford, and Stanford just forgave them outright, for which I'm very grateful.

If your goal is to save money on health care, what you need is single payer. Health insurance company CEOs make as much as $37 million a year, and added to what they keep for themselves outright is the overhead cost--about 25% in all-- of adding a superfluo·us marketing business to an industry that costs plenty all on its own. Single payer is a consumers' union which negotiates discounts from what health services would cost if they were to be paid for only by the propertied class, by adding the contributions of the multitude to purchase many, many more units. Private insurance is a perversion of the concept. The brokers negotiate the discounts but don't increase the pool, so the providers get no more and the employers get no savings. But-the cities could band together and demand that the federal government provide single payer brokerage.

Stephanie Munoz

Minor, Beth

From: Richard Placone [rcplacone@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 2:09 PM

To: Keene, James

Cc: Council, City

Subject: WI FI Service

Jim,

CITY Of PALO 'LTD CITY ClERK'S~FFIC~A , I APR -5 . Plfs: 05

Page 1 of 1

Now that the resident who has been providing "free" Internet connection service to the city for 17 years, has rescinded his threat to cut off the city virtually without notice, I hope you will seek another service that is a proper, regular relationship and not one that involves a resident who can then hold us over the barrel if the city sets a policy with which that person disagrees. This was and is an untenable situation that I urge you to correct once and for all Weare not so poor that we cannot afford to pay for a legitimate service. We should never be again be put in a position where any resident can impose such a threat. I would like to hear back from you with your thoughts and plans on this subject.

Many thanks.

Richard C. Placone Chimalus Drive

4/5/2011

Minor, Beth

From:

Sent:

Rita Vrhel [ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net]

Tuesday, April OS, 2011 8:15 PM

To: Stephen Stuart; J Meisner

Page 1 of9

CITY Of PALO ALTO.CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE

11 APR - 6 AM 1: "1

Cc: Joseph Afong; cvadesnlk@aol.com; sbchance@gmail.com; julian@iarchive.com; nash.group@sbcglobal.net; Colleen Crangle at com cast; penny proctor; joe@afong.net; carolyn reese; nanipoppy@aol.com; jakbarta@att.net; km-msm@pacbell.net kristine; hermes.mh@yahoo.com; ariane@gmail.com; schlaUerstudios@yahoo.com; betsyklene@gmail.com; xavier.mamo@gmail.com; vandana100@hotmail.com; linda@lindaseale.com; tantrys@pacbell.net; ktrindade@sbcglobal.net; jlr325@aU.net; info@nocelltowerat1095channing.com; Dolores Bernardo; Judith Fields; Linda Mantiply; John Morris; chuck CROWELL; Council, City

Subject: Re: Preliminary approval for the 1095 Channing tower.

oops; the correct email for the city council is<city.council@citYQfpaloalto.org>

Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM, CEES Medical Case Management & Ergonomic Specialist PO Box 270, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: 650-325-2298 Fax: 650-326-9451

--- On Tue, 4/5/11, Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobaLnet> wrote:

From: Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: Preliminary approval for the 1095 Channing tower To: "Stephen Stuart" <stuart@tech.org>, "J Meisner" <meisner@dslextreme.com> Cc: "Joseph Afong" <jmchan@yahoo.com>, cvadesnik@aol.com, sbchance@gmail.com, julian@iarchive.com, nash.group@sbcglobal.net, "Colleen Crangle at comcast" <colleencrangle@comcast.net>, "penny proctor" <pennyproctor@comcast.net>, joe@afong.net, "carolyn reese" <reesecw@aol.com>, nanipoppy@aol.com, jakbarta@att.net, "km­msm@pacbell.net kristine" <km-msm@pacbell.net>, hermes.mh@yahoo.com, ariane@gmail.com, schlatterstudios@yahoo.com, betsyklene@gmail.com, xavier.mamo@gmail.com, vandana100@hotmail.com, linda@lindaseale.com, tantrys@pacbel1.net, ktrindade@sbcglobal.net, jlr325@att.net, info@nocelltoweratl 095 channing. com, "Dolores Bernardo" <dolores.bernardo@gmai1.com>, partymarty@yahoo.com, "Judith Fields" <judith2468@gmai1.com>, "Linda Mantiply" <lmantiply@gmail.com>, "John Morris" <evergreenwatchgroup@yahoo.com>, "chuck CROWELL" <ckcinghao@yahoo.com>, "city of palo alto" <citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 8:06 PM

Dear John and All

It has been quite a discouraging awakening to the realities of our local political scene and governmental bodies to realize that the cell tower application at 1095 channing has received a conditional permit without even a cursory review of the environmental impact on our neighborhood"by this i mean the potential noise, pollution, presence of hazardous chemical,

4/6/2011

Page 2 of9

backup generations, construction, etc. A potential change in property values after installation were also not considered.

The architectural review board appears to have accepted AT &Ts presentation regarding the necessity of the cell tower as total "truth". AT &Ts presentation was not questioned and an independent analysis/investigation was not requested.

Further we do not know the strength of the 9 panels, whether they are necessary given recent technological advances or who will actually be using them . .i.e. will AT&T or will panels be "rented" to other carriers. Has AT&T approached other carriers and inquired as to renting "space" on their towers?

It seems unconscionable that with new research .studies concluding these towers and even cell phones/ cellular/wireless devices are not the harmless inventions they were once declared to be, that health concerns legally can not be discussed when objecting to cell tower placement.

WHO is conducting longitudinal studies as to the long term effects of exposure to the electromagnetic waves emitted by cell towers/phones on adults and children; those results will be very informative. Just like smoking was once considered safe but then too late for many the truth came out...will this be repeated?

Does the Architectural Review Board and the City Council not care that 1095 Channing is in a residential area, is full of young children and is located within stepping distance from a K-8 school, where pre and post school programs are attended?

I have little sorrow that AT&T is in this predicanlent because of their highly lucrative exclusive (until recently) contract with Apple; AT&T probably did not have the infrastructure to service that contract originally and we know how wireless use has exploded.

AT &Ts approach to solicit religious organizations, swim clubs, ball parks, and others, offer sizable amounts of money and divide neighbor against neighbor is, to me, appalling.

Those of you who attended the information meeting last year, remember how dismissive and arrogant AT&T was to those present.

The Church, meanwhile, has refused to discuss any portion of their contract with AT&T; we have no idea how much is being paid, the length of the contract, or even if the contract contains future provisions for additional cell tower facilities at 1095 Channing (this was hinted at by AT&T).

Every part of Palo Alto appears to be under assault; it is time for us all to stand together and ask the City Council to place a moratorium on cell tower installations, examine and strengthen their policies & procedures related to cell tower/ wireless installations and help Palo Altans prevail against poorly planned and hasty tower or wireless installations.

If you agree with any of what i am saying or have concerns for our oryour neighborhood, please attend the Architectural Review Board meeting Thursday 417 at 8:30 am at 250 Hamilton Ave, 1 st floor, Palo Alto.

This application will also go before the Planning and Transportation Commission on May 4 at 6 pm at the City Hall, same address.

4/6/2011

Page 3 of9

Every Monday the city council meets at the above address; citizens can address their concerns to the city council by speaking at any meeting or by sending letters or emails to the city council of palo alto <citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org>; i urge you to do so, become involved.

If this letter sound dramatic, it is. My little house has been my home since 1985; my daughter and i moved in when she was 4. It is my safe haven and has been a continual source of joy to me; while i can't stop change i do want that change to be considerate and necessary. I do not believe the cell tower at 1095 Channing is either .....

please send this email to your neighbors; please let me now if you want me to delete your name or add others ... thank you

Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM, CEES Medical Case Management & Ergonomic Specialist PO Box 270, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: 650-325-2298 Fax: 650-326-9451

--- On Mon, 3/28/11, J Meisner <meisnel@dslextreme.com>wrote:

From: J Meisner <meisner@dslextreme.com> Subject: Re: Preliminary approval for the 1095 Channing tower To: "Stephen Stuart" <stuart@tech.org> Cc: "Joseph Afong" <jmchan@yahoo.com>, "Rita Vrhel" <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net>, mar _ shan@sbcglobal.net, cvadesnik@aoLcom, sbchance@gmaiLcom, julian@iarchive.com, nash.group@sbcgloba1.net, "Colleen Crangle at comcast" <colleencrangle@comcast.net>, "judy" <jrnmoust@sbcglobal.net>, "penny proctor" <pennyproctor@comcast.net>,joe@afong.net, "carolyn reese" <reesecw@aol.com>, bchancellor@gmai1.com, nanipoppy@ao1.com, jakbarta@att.net, "km­msm@pacbell.net kristine" <km-msm@pacbell.net>, hermesmh@yahoo.com, ariane@gmail.com, schlatterstudios@yahoo.com, betsyklene@gmail.com, xavier.mamo@gmaiLcom, vandana100@hotmail.com, linda@lindaseale.com, tantrys@pacbell.net, ktrindade@sbcgloba1.net, jlr325@att.net, info@nocelltoweratl 095 channing. com, "Dolores· Bernardo" <dolores.bernardo@gmail.com> Date: Monday, March 28,2011,2:02 PM

Stephen:

Thanks for the detailed reply. I may be a little late to the game and thus not aware of the activity that has taken place so far. Glad to hear that this and other lines of argument are being pursued and sorry to hear that the City (or perhaps just the Planning Board)

4/6/2011

appears so unsympathetic. Let me know how I can be of assistance to the group.

BTW, I don't believe I received a copy of your letter -- would you mind forwarding again?

--Jon

On Mon, Mar 28,2011 at 10:00 AM, Stephen Stuart <stuart@tech.org> wrote: ! > It strikes me that since rental of property for income is not related to the I > core religious mission of the church, it might be running afoul of its

> zoning restrictions, not to mention its nonprofit status. Is there someone

I. > in the neighborhood with the expertise to know if this is an argument worth > pursuing?

I Late Friday 3118, I forwarded the letter that we sent to Father Matt in our attempt to get the church to withdraw the request. Please read through it in detail - it makes the case that the application is

I unlawful, and cites the specific ordinances for Land Use, a Conditional Use Permit, Architectural Review, and the arguments against the application in each section. I had that reviewed by the I lawyer that we hired several weeks ago, and his review was that he didn't have much to add.

I Per Joseph's comment below, yes, we need to focus on the law, and that ! means omitting the health arguments. As detailed in our letter to ! Father Matt, we assert that the request is unlawful. While we can't I sue AT&T and the church for making an unlawful request, we can sue the

City for granting it, should it get to that point. In the meantime, we I have to make this point over and over again.

The Planning Department staff clear does not want to decide the issue

I in this regard. They want the Planning and Transportation Committee to have to make any decision regarding the lawfulness of the request. The thing that disappoints me greatly is that regardless of the conditions

I on the approval, they took the position of approving and requiring us . to argue against that approval rather than denying and forcing the applicants to make a stronger case.

I Read the Palo Alto Weekly editorial from 3/18 - it makes a lot of the points we've been advocating: more rigorous proof of need, competent

I independent verification of claims. We introduced Curtis Williams, the

I Planning Director, to Rusty Monroe, widely regarded as the best in the business of helping municipalities write ordinances and do such independent analysis, and Rusty was not even afforded the courtesy of I a follow-up call.

If someone has time to go to City Hall and view the new plans (or, I even better, get a copy, which they will probably try to prevent), we I need to find out:

1- What are the cOlmditions in "approved with conditions"?

4/6/2011

Page 4 of9

- Did the City grant the variance request to exceed the 45' height requirement?

- What did the City request as proof of need? Was any material supplied in response? Did it include statements regarding alternatives considered and why they were rejected?

- Was the application evaluated by an independent third party? Ifit was, what are their credentials and what was their recommendation?

If anyone who has time to research this at the City can do so and report back to the list, I would greatly appreciate it - and I'll forward it to our lawyer.

> Also, I just want to make sure that someone has requested a formal hearing > as stated in the postcard we received from the city. Perhaps the request > should come from everyone here, either jointly or separately.

I sent mail to Kristin on Saturday requesting a hearing.

> Jon Meisner > 1122 Channing Ave.

Stephen

> On Sun, Mar 27,2011 at 10:24 PM, Joseph Afong <jmchan@Yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I wonder whether there is a game plan to fight the cell tower. I think it > > is not useful for us to keep opposing the tower based on ill health effects

> > Since the emission is underthe federal permissible level, federal law > > prohibits the City to consider health effect in its decision making. > > Besides, the AT&T consultant presents his survey in a very professional > > way. If we keep talking aobut health effects, the City really has no choic e > > but to approve the project. We are playing into the hands of AT&T if we > > keep on this track. » > > Any objection on the cell tower has to be on others ground, such as whether > > this cell tower is necessary at all. We have to give the City some reason > > to tum down the project. Has AT&T explore using the other cell towers in > > the neighborhood? Has AT&T explore the use of altrnative technology? Will > > the purchase ofT-Mobile give AT&T other capability? How come Verizon is > > able to provide better coverage without a cell tower in this residential > > neighborhood? Shouldn't AT&T use similar technology as Verizon. I think > > the City needs to ask all these questions before granting AT&T a permit. » > > I don't think this cell tower got as much public attention as the > > Middlefield one at the ice rink and tennis club. We should point out the

4/612011

Page 5 of9

> > church is making a bundle of money at the expanse of the neighborhood. I > > think the "rent" payment for a cell tower like this can be several thousand > > dollars a month. It is easy to see why the church would not want to give u p > > the cell tower. I think the church may back down if the for-profit nature > > of the cell tower gets public attention. How about picketing the church to > > get public attention? This public attention will enabble us to bring to th e > > public attention the inappropriateness of having the cell tower in the > > school associated with the church. » > > Just my thoughts. » » » > > --- On Sat, 3/26/11, Stephen Stuart <stuart@tech.org> wrote: » > > > From: Stephen Stuart <stuart@tech.org> > > > Subject: Preliminary approval for the 1095 Channing tower > > > To: "Rita Vrhel" <ritavrhe1@sbcgloba1.net>, mar shan@sbcglobal.net, > > cvadesnik@aol.com, sbchance@gmail.com, julian@iarchive.com, > > nash.group@sbcglobal.net, "Colleen Crangle at comcast" < > > colleencrangle@comcast.net>, "judy" <jmmoust@sbcglobal.net>, "penny > > proctor" <pennyproctor@comcast.net>, joe@afong.net, "carolyn reese" < > > reesecw@aol.com>, meisner@dslextreme.com, bchancellor@gmail.com, > > nanipoppy@aol.com, jakbarta@att.net; "km-msm@pacbell.net kristine" < > > km-msm@Pacbell.net>, jmchan@yahoo.com, hennesmh@yahoo.com, > > ariane@gmail.com, schlatterstudios@Yahoo.com, betsyklene@gmail.com, > > xavier.mamo@gmail.com, vandana100@hotmai1.com, linda@lindaseale.com, > > tantrys@pacbel1.net, ktrindade@sbcglobal.net, jlr325@att.net, > > info@nocelltoweratl 095 channing. com, "Dolores Bernardo" < > > dolores.bemardo@gmail.com> > > > Date: Saturday, March 26,2011, 1 :21 PM > > > As expected. See attached. Now the > > > fight really starts. »> »> » » » » > > --000eOcd6age8d255a0049f8cf9a2 > Content:..Type: textlhtml; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > It strikes me that since rental of property for income is not related to th= > e core religious mission of the church, it might be running afoul of its zo= > ning restrictions, not to mention its nonprofit status.=AO Is there someone= > in the neighborhood with the expertise to know if this is an argument wort= > h pursuing?=AO <br>

4/6/2011

Page 6 of9

> <br>Also, I just want to make sure that someone has requested a formal hear­> ing as stated in the postcard we received from the city.=AO Perhaps the req= > uest should come from everyone here, either jointly or separate1y.<br><br> > Jon Meisner<br> 1122 Channing Ave.<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On = > Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Joseph Afong <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hreF > =3D"mailto:jmchan@yahoo.com">jmchan@yahoo.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote: <br><blo= > ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: Opt Opt Opt 0.8ex; border-Ie= > ft: 1 px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1 ex;"> > I wonder whether there is a game plan to fight the cell tower. =AOI think i= > t is not useful for us to keep opposing the tower based on ill health effec= > ts. =AOSince the emission is under the federal permissible level, federal 1= > aw prohibits the City to consider health effect in its decision making. =AO= > Besides, the AT &amp;T consultant presents his survey in a very professional= > way. =AOIfwe keep talking aobut health effects, the City really has no ch= > oice but to approve the project. =AOWe are playing into the hands of AT&amp= >;T if we keep on this track.<br> > > <br> > Any objection on tp.e cell tower has to be on others ground, such as whether= > this cell tower is necessary at all. =AOWe have to give the City some reas= > on to tum down the project. =AOHas AT&amp;T explore using the other cell t= > owers in the neighborhood? =AOHas AT &amp;T explore the use of altmative te= > chnology? =AOWill the purchase ofT -Mobile give AT&amp;T other capability? = > =AOHow come Verizon is able to provide better coverage without a cell tower= > in this residential neighborhood? =AOShouldn&#39;t AT &amp;T use similar te= > chnology as Verizon. =AOI think the City needs to ask all these questions b= > efore granting AT&amp;T a permit.<br> > > <br> > I don&#39;t think this cell tower got as much public attention as the Middl= > efie1d one at the ice rink and tennis club. =AOWe should point out the chur= > ch is making a hlmdle of money at the expanse ofthe neighborhood. =AOI thi= > nk the &quot;rent&quot; payment for a cell tower like this can be several t= > housand dollars a month. =AOIt is easy to see why the church would not want= > to give up the cell tower. =AOI think the church may back down if the for-= > profit nature of the cell tower gets public attention. =AOHow about picketi= > ng the church to get public attention? =AOThis public attention will enabbl= > e us to bring to the public attention the inappropriateness of having the c= > ell tower in the school associated with the church.<br> > > <br> > Just my thoughts.<br> > <br> > <br> > <br> > --- On Sat, 3/26/11, Stephen Stuart &It;<a href=3D"mailto:stuart@tech.org">= > stuart@tech.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br> > <br> > &gt; From: Stephen Stuart &It;<a href=3D"mailto:stuart@tech.org">stuart@tec=

4/6/2011

Page 7 of9

> h.org</a>&gt;<br> > &gt; Subject: Preliminary approval for the 1095 Channing tower<br> > &gt; To: &quot;Rita Vrhel&quot; &It;<a href=3D"mailto:ritavrhel@sbcglobal.n= > et">ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net</a>&gt;, <a href=3D"mailto:mar shan@sbcglobaLn= > et">mar shan@sbcglobaLnet</a>, <a href=3D "mailto:cvadesnik@aoLcom">cvades= > nik@ao1.com</a>, <a href=3D"mailto:sbchance@gmail.com">sbchance@gmaiLcom<I= > a>, <a href=3D"mailto:julian@iarchive.com">julian@iarchive.com</a>, <a href= > =3D"mailto:nash.group@sbcglobal.net">nash.group@sbcglobal.net<la>, &quot;Co= > lleen Crangle at comcast&quot; &It;<a href=3D"mailto:colleencrangle@comcast= > .net">colleencrangle@comcast.net</a>&gt;, &quot;judy&quot; &It;<a href=3D"m= > ailto:irnmoust@sbcglobaLnet">jrnmoust@sbcgloba1.net</a>&gt;, &quot;penny pro= > ctor&quot; &It;<a href=3D"mailto:pennyproctor@comcast.net">pennyproctor@com= > cast.net</a>&gt;, <a href=3D"mailto:joe@afong.net">joe@afong.net</a>, &quot= > ;carolyn reese&quot; &It;<a href=3D"mailto:reesecw@aol.com">reesecw@aol.com= > </a>&gt;, <a href=3D"mailto:meisner@dslextreme.com">meisner@dslextreme.com<= > la>, <a href=3D"mailto:bchancellor@gmail.com">bchancellor@gmail.com<1a>, <a= > href=3D"mailto:nanipoppy@aoLcom">nanipoppy@ao1.com</a>, <a href=3D"mailto= > :jakbarta@att.net">jakbarta@att.net</a>, &quot;<a href=3D"mailto:km­msm@pac= > belLnet">km-msm@Pacbell.net</a> kristine&quot; &It;<a href=3D"mailto:km-ms= > m@pacbell.net">km-msm@pacbell.net</a>&gt;, <a href=3D"mailto:jmchan@Yahoo.c= > om">jmchan@yahoo.com</a>, <a href=3D"mailto:hermesmh@yahoo.com">hermesmh@ya= > hoo.com</a>, <a href=3D"mailto:ariane@gmaiLcom">ariane@gmail.com</a>, <a h= > ref=3D "mailto: schlatterstudios@yahoo.com">schlatterstudios@yahoo.com<la>, <= > a href=3D"mailto:betsyklene@gmai1.com">betsyklene@gmai1.com<la>, <a href=3D= > "mailto:xavier.mamo@gmail.com">xavier.mamo@gmaiLcom</a>, <a href=3D"mailto= > :vandana 1 OO@hotmail.com">vandanal OO@hotmail.com</a>, <a href=3D"mailto:lind= > a@lindaseale.com">linda@lindaseale.com</a>, <a href=3D"mailto:tantrys@pacbe= > ll.net">tantrys@pacbell.net</a>, <a href=3 D "mailto: ktrindade@sbcglobal.net"= > >ktrindade@sbcgloba1.net</a>, <a href=3D "mailto :jlr3 25@att.net">j1r325@atl.= > net</a>, <a href=3D "mailto :info@nocelltoweratl 095channing.com ">info@nocellt= > oweratl095channing.com</a>, &quot;Dolores Bemardo&quot; &It;<a href=3D"mai= > lto:dolores.bemardo@gmai1.com">dolores.bemardo@gmail.com<Ia>&gt;<br> >

4/612011

Page 8 of9

> &gt; Date: Saturday, March 26, 2011, 1:21 PM<br> > &gt; As expected. See attached. Now the<br> > &gt; fight really starts.<br> > &gt;<br> > &gt;<br> > <br> > <br> > <br> > <lblockquote></div><br> > > --000eOcd6age8d255a0049f8cf9a2--

4/6/2011

Page 9 of9

Minor, Beth

From: Grider, Donna

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 2:06 PM

To: Minor, Beth

Subject: FW: Item 5 questions

Donna J. Grider, MMC City Clerk City of Palo Alto 650-329-2226

~ Think Before You Print!

From! Williams, Curtis Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 2:05 PM To: Keene, James; Emslie, Steve Cc: Larkin, Donald; Antil, Pamela; Grider, Donna Subject: RE: Item 5 questions

5

Responses to Councilmember Holman's questions are provided below.

-----Original Message-----From: Karen Holman [mailto:kcholman@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 10:57 AM To: Williams, Curtis; Larkin, Donald Cc: Keene, James Subject: Item 5 questions

Good morning.

Item 5 questions:

Page 1 of2

CITY OF PALO ALTO CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE

II APR -~ PH 2: OS

I'~

;;~::COU. Nf;IjMEETING ·f1I'i II

o{ [~aced Before Meeting t~: r ] Received at Meeting

1) The language associated with some of the alternative locations indicate the application of the devices would be "aesthetically inferior". There is no supportive evidence or language that supports those conclusions by the applicant. Can staff please comment.

Staff Response: The wi-fi antenna locations recommended by staff and the Commission are approximately 60 feet above University Avenue, attached to each end of the side railings of the wooden balcony located at the sixth floor. Since the building is a Category II historic resource on the City's local historic inventory, placement of the antennas is subject to historic review (stafflevel) and staff determined that the proposed placement would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation, as they would be very difficult to see from below. AT&T's objective is to provide data service for mobile devices along University Avenue, so that rooftop placement was not found to be feasible due to interference of the transmission. Alternative locations on the building

4/412011

Page 2 of2

faces would necessitate a 90-degree antenna projection from the building, making the antennas more visible and requiring Historic Resources Board level consideration of the antenna compatibility with historic features of the building.

2) While there is typically provision for landlords to enter tenant units for such things as maintenance and inspection, such access (from my awareness) is generally for the direct benefit of the tenant and provision of preserving landlord investment in the property. If the City approves this application as proposed (interior access for installation), are we interfering with tenant rights?

Staff Response: In general, access to the antennas through the l.mits is a private matter between the landlord and the tenants. Approval of the application does not create a right of entry into the units that does not already exist. In this case, AT&T has accepted a condition that requires access to the antenna from public right-of-way (the street) rather than through the apartment units, with the possible exception of once for installation.

Put another way, are we setting a precedent for imposing larger public utility benefit by allowing access to personal living space?

Staff Response: The City is not (and would not be) imposing a requirement that access be taken through personal living space. If the tenant's agreement with the landlord allows for such access, however, that is a private matter. In this case, the Commission added a condition precluding that access for maintenance, which has been accepted by the applicant.

Put yet another way, would the City be within its rights to impose such a condition on a single family home owner, by allowing a provider access to private living space?

Staff Response: The City could not and would not impose a condition that requires an antenna to be placed on private property or accessed through private property unless the owner agreed or an easement existed for such purpose. Again, the Commission has added a condition to preclude such access.

3) Lastly, was staff able to provide peer review to the analysis provided by the applicant as to RF emissions?

Staff Response: A peer review was not required by the Commission, and staff did not require one. Ifthe results were very close to the FCC limits, that may have been considered, but was not because the results showed values that were (at worst case) only 5.7% ofthe legal standards.

Thanks.

Karen

4/412011

Minor, Beth

From: Grider, Donna

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 3:47 PM

To: Minor, Beth

Subject: FW: Council Agenda Item #5: 488 University

Donna J. Grider, MMC City Clerk City of Palo Alto 650-329-2226

~ Think Before You Printl

From: Williams, Curtis Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 3:44 PM To: Keene, James; Emslie, Steve Cc: Grider, Donna; Antil, Pamela; Larkin, Donald -Subject: RE: Council Agenda Item #5: 488 University

Responses to Councilmember Shepherd's questions are provided below.

From: Nancy Shepherd [mailto:nlshep@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, April 04,201111:43 AM To: Keene, James; Emslie, Steve; Williams, Curtis Subject: 488 University

I

Page 1 of~ I

CflYOF PALO ALTO CA - ___ ~'rY~.~~RK '$ OFEICE _-

" APR -4 PM 3: 50

__ COUNCIL MEETING I-&{-'i ... ,1 [I1"'Placed Before Meeting

. [ 1 Received at Meeting

Can staff please explain the practical aspects of using the proposed wireless service AT&T will be providing if Council approves item 5 tonight. The staff report is very comprehensive regarding what, where and how the box will be placed and the range and 3G service support the public can expect from this wireless boost to AT&T mobile coverage penetration. Yet, I still can't figure out how a non-AT&T subscriber using a different service provider will benefit from this installation. Even more basic, can I use my laptop in the proposed service area without charge simply by turning on my computer making it a new public benefit for all wifi users within range, including the residents and businesses?

Staff Response: The wi-fi antennas would allow AT&T service subscribers to receive data support for their mobile devices. Subscribers to other providers may have data support from alternative locations (such as 525 University, where multiple antennas are collocated for other providers). A primary function of the site will offload 3G service, allowing the cell site to adequately service the surrounding nearly square mile area. Customers can get service through their wireless or wireline subscription, or they can subscribe to wi-fi access online, which will work at AT&T hot spots nationwide.

Addition questions regarding 488 University WiFi:

I am assuming that AT&T is only required to work with the building owner which is an LLC. I am also assuming that tenant leases have stipulations that allow the building owner to engage in these types of contracts with

4/412011

5

Page 2 of2

vendors at their discretion. I am also assuming that the LLC will be receiving fees from AT&T for hosting this location. Please advise if my assumptions are inaccurate. This makes me ask that question about public comment from the building tenants regarding this installation. What are their rights to demand that the City deny this request, and is this better handled with the property owns via their lease agreement?

Staff Response: These assumptions are correct. The tenants may certainly participate and may indicate oPPosition tothe request for access through their units, but the ability to actually provide for access is dependent on the nature of the leases, and is a private matter with the landlord. In this case, however, AT&T has agreed to a condition of approval to preclude access for maintenance purposes and perhaps for installation as well.

Thank you,

Nancy Shepherd

Thank you for making this point more descriptive and practical. You can respond to my questions via email or incorporate into the staff presentation this evening.

Nancy Shepherd

4/4/2011

Minor,8eth

From: Byron Jones [byronwjones@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 12:50 PM

To: Info, Plandiv; Council, City

Cc: byronjones@aol.com; 'Julie Morrison'

CITY OF PALO ALTO.CA CITY CtERK"SOFflG£

J I APR -4 Atl 7: 55

Subject: We support proposed cell tower at St. Albert the Great Church !!

To the Members ofthe Palo Alto City Council and Planning Commissions,

Page 1 of 1

I am writing to express my full support ofthe proposal to build a new 50-foot-tall cell tower and nine antennas

at St. Albert the Great Church on Channing Avenue. Wireless phone service is an essential community service, and currently our home at 690 Lincoln Avenue receives little to no coverage from AT&T. Given the limited number of major wireless carriers, and service contract commitments, it !s essential that this leading carrier is enabled to provide service to all members of our community.

Sincerely,

Byron Jones & Julie Morrison 690 Lincoln Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: 650-328-3520

4/4/2011

Page 1 of1

Minor,8eth

From: Michelle Kraus [michellekraus@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:00 AM II APR-4 AM 10: O.

To: 'Jeffrey Jones'; City Attorney

Cc: Council, City

Subject: RE: Ex Parte Communication/Contacts Prior to the Commencement of Item #5 on the City Council Agenda

All, may I take a moment to resend with the specifics.

To The City Attorney of Palo Alto:

Re: AT&T's proposed amendment for Antennae deployment at 488 University Avenue

We, the residents of 488 University Avenue, Palo Alto are writing to make the formal request of the City Attorney to disclose any and all ex parte communications regarding this particular issue involving AT&T prior to any such deliberations and/or prior to the start of said item #5 on this evening's City Council Agenda regarding the Public Hearing: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Record of Land use Action Amending an Existing Conditional Use Permit to Allow the Addition ofTwo Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) Antennas Mounted to the Front Fa<;ade of the Hotel President at 488 University Avenue.

We await your response and look forward to working with you.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Jones and Michelle Kraus

From: Jeffrey Jones [mailto:jeffreyjonesus@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 04,201112:40 AM To: city .attorney@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Michelle Kraus Subject: Ex Parte Communication/Contacts

To the City Attorney of Palo Alto:

We are writing to make the formal request that members of the City Council disclose any and all ex parte communications/contacts with parties before deliberation on the issue is undertaken.

Thanks in advance to you and the City Council.

Best regards,

Jeffrey Jones & Michelle Kraus

4/4/2011

I, ~OUNCIl MEETING

. [ ] Place,d Before Meetin~ . "T' \ '"' , ~ " .An'1. 4 2011 5 " . [ ] Recelved at Meeting CII (OF j"'-\.LU ALttr.JCA ' ., CITY CLERK'S OFFICE

City of Palo Alto II MAR 31 AM 10: I' Wireless Communications

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What are the different types of wireless communications facilities and what do they do?

Commercial mobile radio services (CMRs) fall under the regulatory scope ofthe Federal Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996. The term "CMRs" covers traditional cellular services and newer broadband personal communications services and narrowband PCs as well as wireless point-to­point and point-multipoint services, common carrier microwaves and paging services. The types of CMRs that are of particular interest to Palo Alto currently include:

a) Macrocell (pole and building mOlmted) antenna sites - The most common cellular sites in past and present applications and installations are referred to as "macro" cell sites, which include antenna facilities on poles (hidden or not) and on bUildings. A single directional antenna can typically provide wireless communication service to an area encompassing a l;2-mile radius (a coverage "ring"), though that area may be reduced by topography or other factors. Coverage rings are established with a slight overlap to avoid coverage gaps. Antennas are generally two to four feet tall placed on a pole (monopole, flagpole, inside a steeple, or faux tree, etc.) or mounted on the side or top of a building (see attached photos). Co-axial cable and service equipment is typically located at the pole's base, within a fenced enclosure. In some instances, two or more telecommunications service providers ("carriers") can mount antennas to the same pole (called "collocation") or on a rooftop. On a pole or faux tree, a 10-foot separation is typically needed between each carrier's antenna. Macro sites are generally preferred by carriers over other installations because of their broader coverage area and reduced maintenance for one site rather than many (see discussion ofDAS below).

b) Microcell antenna sites and DAS: Carriers sometimes choose to use a "microcell" antenna arrangement called in lieu of the macrocell antennas. These smaller multiple antenna locations may be appropriate when the firm either has difficulty finding an agreeable property owner on a site adequate to install a pole or building mounted antenna, or when topography limits the coverage of a macrocell installation, or when the microcell installations are less intrusive visually or in a neighborhood than a larger installation. One type of microcell installation, referred to as an Outdoor Distributed Antenna System (DAS), is currently proposed for several locations in Palo Alto. The DAS antennas are typically located on utility poles in public rights-of-way (see attached photos). The poles usually have a height of34 feet above grade (6 feet of the 40 foot pole is located below grade). The DAS generally requires 5 to 15 times the number of antennas as one macrocell antenna to cover the same Yz-mile service area. The coverage rings for each antenna are again situated to provide some overlap to ensure coverage is consistent and calls are not dropped

. in the transition area between DAS locations. Antennas are placed at the top of the utility pole in a single pole or double pole arrangement (see attached photos). Antennas may be shared ("neutral host") by multiple carriers rather than needing installation of separate antennas for each carrier collocating on a macrocell installation. Equipment boxes are needed for each carrier, usually shoe­box size enclosures in the "telecommunications zone" of the pole approximately between 18.5' and 22' above grade. The advantages of the DAS system are that the poles are usually shorter and are existing, and radio frequency (RF) emissions are reduced, while the disadvantages are that the

1

April 4, 2011

number of installations increases and the antennas and equipment boxes can still be visible, depending on the screening of the pole and the design of the antenna.

c) Indoor microcell sites: Microcell antennas may also be provided indoors, generally for a building owner or tenant to serve its company's needs inside the building, including for business customers, such as the wireless service available inside Starbucks locations. The antennas for the data port routers (wireless fidelity service such as requested at 488 University Avenue) are intended for mobile users of wireless service (in contrast to the indoor sites at Starbucks).

2. Why are an extensive number of cell site applications in process or expected in the near future?

Wireless providers are ramping up to address two primary concerns: capacity (particularly for data) and speed (3G and 4G). The extent of data demand for smartphones and tablets is rapidly diminishing the capacity of the wireless system, so most carriers are expanding to increase their ability to provide data services. Palo Alto has unique coverage capacity needs due to the student population, high tech companies in the Stanford Research Park and downtown, and the general high level of tech sophistication in the community. The 4G and other speed upgrades also demanded by customers is further driving requests for new or upgraded installations. Areas of coverage gaps are identified by carriers to determine where new facilities are needed. To satisfy its coverage needs in Palo Alto, for example, AT&T targeted 14 cell tower locations last year before approaching the City with applications and evaluating the DAS alternative. AT&T has since dropped six of the macrocell locations, to be replaced by its DAS proposal for antennas on more than 90 utility poles. Other wireless providers, such as T-Mobile and Verizon, are also expected to approach the City for multiple new installation locations or collocations.

3. What criteria are set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance related to wireless communications facilities?

The City's Comprehensive Plan does not speak directly to wireless communications facilities. Comprehensive Plan Policy B-13, however, notes that the City should: "Support the development of technologically advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries." Other Comprehensive Plan policies are directed in general at protection of visual quality and neighborhood character of the Palo Alto community.

Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter Section 18.42.110 sets forth regulations for wireless communications facilities (WCF) in Palo Alto. The purpose statement specifies that WCFs should blend with existing surroundings and that building mounted WCFs and collocation facilities are preferred and encouraged. Each project is required to meet standard zoning requirements for the district with exceptions considered through the conditional use permit or architectural review processes outlined below. Exceptions include: (1) building mounted WCFs may extend 15 feet beyond the permitted building height in the zone; (2) stand-alone WCFs shall be no taller than 65 feet; and (3) stand-alone WCFs may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. In addition, the design of antennas must: (1) minimize visibility off site and be of "stealth" design; and (2) be architecturally compatible with the existing building (for building mounted antennas). There are also requirements for the associated equipment cabinets and enclosures and for removal of abandoned. equipment.

2

April 4, 2011

4. What review processes are required for each and which departments are involved?

P AMC Section 18.42.11 O(b) describes the review procedures for planning entitlements required for Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs). A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Architectural Review are required for new WCFs, except that no CUP is required for building mounted WCFs that do not exceed the existing building/rooftop screening height, and for collocated facilities (architectural review is still required)., To amend an existing CUP for a location to allow the expansion of a WCF, both a CUP and Architectural Review are required. The CUP process typically involves notice to neighbors, an opportunity to request a hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission, and a final determination by City Council. WCFs must be installed and maintained in accordance with all the City's regulations (Planning, Building, Fire, Public Works, Utilities Departments) and with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations to ensure the WCFs will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. In addition to discretionary review, Building Permits, including associated electrical permits, must be obtained. For installations on utility poles, appropriate approvals from the Utilities Department are required, and Encroachment Permits issued by Public Works may be necessary for work in a public right of way. License agreements may also be required.

5. Can the City require the wireless communications carriers to provide plans for all facilities in the City over some future period, such as one or two years?

The carriers are very guarded with their plans for potential cell sites and generally consider them to be proprietary information. In 2010, City staff was involved in discussions organized by Joint Venture Silicon Valley, involving most of the relevant carriers and staff from the cities of Palo Alto and San Jose. Staff strongly suggested that such plans would be helpful to provide context and to better understand the carriers' needs. To date, only one carrier has met with staff to explain their plans for the next year. Staff does not believe that the industry would put together a map synthesizing the needs of all of the carriers, though.

6. What review timelines are required by state or federal law for City review?

Under federal law, applications for new cell towers (CMRs) must he approved or denied within a 150-day review period. In contrast, applications that involve the collocation of wireless facilities are subject to a 90-day review period. The period of review may be reasonably extended under certain terms, for example if the Director of Planning and Community Environment first determines that the application for a new facility is incomplete, or if the applicant agrees to extend the timeline.

7. What purview does the City have to deny or limit the use of telecommunications facilities?

The City has the ability to regulate aesthetic issues related to telecommunications facilities, including factors such as height and setback. However, under federal law a local agency's wireless siting decisions cannot have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless service or unreasonably discriminating among wireless service providers. If a proposed facility is necessary to eliminate a significant service gap in wireless coverage, and the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed facility is the least intrusive feasible means of reducing the coverage gap, denial of the facility will be considered an effective prohibition. Under federal law the City may not regulate the placement, construction or modification of wireless communications facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, so long as the facilities comply with the FCC regulations concerning such emissions.

3

April 4, 2011

8. What are radiofreguency emissions (RF)?

Electromagnetic radiation consists of waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together (i.e., radiating) through space at the speed of light. Taken together, all forms of electromagnetic energy are referred to as the electromagnetic "spectrum." Radio waves and microwaves emitted by transmitting antennas are one form of electromagnetic energy. They are collectively referred to as "radiofrequency" or "RF" energy or radiation. Extensive information about RF emissions, measurements and standards are available at: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html#Ol. Probably the most important use for RF energy is in providing telecommunications services. Radio and television broadcasting, cellular telephones, personal communications services (PCS), pagers, cordless telephones, business radio, radio communications for police and fire departments, amateur radio, microwave point-to-point links and satellite communications are just a few of the many telecommunications applications of RF energy. Microwave ovens are an example of a non­communication use ofRF energy. Other important non-communication uses ofRF energy include radar and industrial heating and sealing. There are also a number of medical applications of RF energy, such as diathermy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). [source: FCC]

9. What health risks are associated with radio frequency (RF) emissions?

RF energy is a type of non-ionizing radiation, like visible and infrared light. Non-ionizing radiation is . low energy and should not be confused with the high-energy ionizing radiation, which has several

possible biological effects.

The quantity used to measure the rate at which RF energy is actually absorbed in a body is called the "Specific Absorption Rate" or "SAR." It is usually expressed in units of watts per kilogram (W/kg) or milliwatts per gram (mW/g). It is possible for biological effects to result from exposure to RF energy, most commonly heating of tissue by RF, commonly referred to as "thermal" effects. Exposure to very high RF intensities can result in heating of biological tissue and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage in humans could occur ifRF levels were high enough to create heat so excessive that could not be coped with or dissipated by the human body.

At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., levels lower than those that would produce significant heating, the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven. Such effects, if they exist, have been referred to as "non-thermal" effects. Even in studies where certain effects have been found, there has been no determination that such effects constitute a human health hazard. It is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine the generality of such effects and their possible relevance, if any, to human health. In the meantime, standards­setting organizations and government agencies continue to monitor the latest experimental findings to confirm their validity and determine whether changes in safety limits are needed to protect human health.

Studies have shown that environmental levels ofRF energy routinely encountered by the general public are typically far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased body temperature. [source: FCC]

10. What health standards have been established for radiofrequency (RF) emissions?

Exposure standards for radiofrequency energy have been developed by various organizations and countries. These standards recommend safe levels of exposure for both the general public and for workers. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted and used

4

April 4, 2011

recognized safety guidelines for evaluating RF environmental exposure since 1985. Federal health and safety agencies, such as the EPA, FDA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have also been involved in monitoring and investigating issues related to RF exposure.

The FCC guidelines for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields were derived from the recommendations of two expert organizations, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Both the NCRP exposure criteria and the IEEE standard were developed by scientists and engineers after extensive reviews of the scientific literature related to RF biological effects. The exposure guidelines are based on thresholds for known adverse effects, and they are intended to incorporate prudent margins of safety (typically 50 times the threshold level). In adopting the most recent RF exposure guidelines, the FCC consulted with the EPA, FDA, OSHA and NIOSH, and obtained their support for the guidelines that the FCC is using.

In addition, the NCRP and IEEE guidelines for maximum permissible exposure are different for different transmitting frequencies. For devices that only expose part ofthe body, such as mobile phones, different exposure limits are specified. The exposure limits used by the FCC are expressed in terms of SAR, electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. The actual values can be found in either of two informational bulletins available at the FCC Web site (OET Bulletin 56 or OET Bulletin 65)." [source: FCC]

11. Does the City have to allow use of its utility poles and the public right-of-way?

California law permits qualified telephone corporations to install wireless communication facilities within the public right of way, although the City can adopt reasonable time, place and manner regulations for these installations. To minimize neighborhood impacts, the City'S policy is to encourage co-location on existing utility poles, rather than installation of new poles.

12. Must the City allow use of City lands (fire stations, community centers, parks, etc.) for wireless telecommunications facilities? What is the process?

No, the City does not have to provide use of City lands for telecommunications facilities, and may do so on its own terms. City sites, however, are often large enough to accommodate these uses with less visual impact than on other sites. The City may also receive revenue from leasing sites for telecommunications use. There are currently six active leases of City land for wireless telecommunications purposes: two flagpoles on fire station sites, one faux tree on a fire station site, and three ground spaces at the Colorado electric substation site (the antennas are on PG&E antenna towers). The review of such requests is coordinated by the Real Estate Division of the Administrative Services Department. The request is routed to the appropriate departments for review, and is processed by Planning if a use permit or architectural review is required. The lease or license agreement is then provided to Council for its review and approval.

The Palo Alto Municipal Code prohibits commercial for-profit communications facilities in City parks and open space areas.

13. What can the City require in license agreements for use of City utilities/facilities?

The City's master license agreement permits cellular carriers and DAS systems service providers to access and use City utility poles, streetlight poles and conduit facilities in the public rights-of-way and

5

April 4, 2011

public utility easements for the placement of wireless communications facilities. The agreement covers a number of general terms and conditions applicable to the right of service providers to place their facilities in, on and about City-owned and City-controlled facilities, including conditions relating to permit applications, fees and costs, facilities construction, installation, maintenance, repair and relocation, and indemnity, insurance and bonding requirements.

14. What can the City charge for use of City utility poles or City lands?

The City may charge reasonable rates for the use of City owned utility poles and facilities in the public rights-of-way. While rates may be negotiated, they must be competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory. The City may also charge a permit fee for the placement, installation, repair or upgrading oflines poles or antennae. Under California law, these fees may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged.

15. If antennas are mounted on City utility poles, can the City require their removal if other utilities are placed underground?

Upon the formation of an underground utility district, the City can require all above-ground facilities located on utility poles to be relocated underground or elsewhere.

6

April 4, 2011

Distributed Antenna System (single rod) installation in San Francisco

Simulated Distributed Antenna SystemJDAS (double antenna) Installation

8

April 4, 2011

City of Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301

Dear City Council Members,

:5

CITY Of PALO AIJQ. CA CITY CLERK'SOFFlt!

11 APR -4 PH 4: 2'

"COU~f~':~lETING ,,~---j~~~~.

,'. [ aced Before Meeting I ( ] Received at Meeting

lam writing to inform you of Apple's support for a conditional use permit to allow the installation of Wi-Fi antennas at 488 University Avenue.

The proposed antennas represent a mUCh-needed investment in Palo Alto's Wi-Fi infra.structure. The installation will provide high speed Internet access to local citizens and businesses. This improved service will enhance user experiences downtown while providing ongoing benefits to the local economy.

Given the compelling benefits to Palo Alto residents and businesses, Apple respecitully requests your support of this investment in a key community asset.

Sincerely!

~:--._/ ason Lundgaard

Manager, State & Local Government Affairs Apple Inc.

Minor.8eth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Attachments:

I?:I E:I

Jason Lundgaard Olundgaard@apple.com] Monday, April 04, 2011 4:07 PM Council, City Clerk, City Letter of Support - Wi-Fi at 488 University

[Untitled].pdf; ATT17290780.txt

[Untitled].pdf (191 ATT17290780.txt KB) (74 B)

Attached is a support letter for the 488 University Wi-Fi antenna which will be heard this evening. Sorry for the late submittal. Let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jason Lundgaard

Jason Lundgaard Manager, State & Local Government Affairs - West Apple Inc. jlundgaard@apple.com cell: (408) 439-5097 desk: (408) 862-9571

> > > >

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Henry Riggs [hlriggs@comcast.net] Friday, April 01, 2011 12:20 PM Council, City William L. McClure Item E-1 on agenda

Honorable council members,

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE

I tAPR -4 AM 1:55

I'm concerned about the scope of the proposed fee for zoning regulation violations. While this leverage is very helpful for development projects, there is no policy statement or other limitation on using it on non-conforming properties. For example, a large number of residents have converted their garages for family room or in-laws; some older apartment buildings may have marginal (but affordable) units; these and more would be violations. The enforcement of "one or two per year" would constitute an unequal application of law; response only to complaints (our current and unfortunate version of code enforcement) would not only be unequal, it could enable neighborhood strife.

I urge you to ask staff to modify the proposal, either to exclude existing residential structures or to significantly reduce the penalties thereon.

Henry Riggs

1

Page 1 of 1

Minor, Beth CITY OF PALO ALTO. GA

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Wayne Martin [wmartin46@yahoo.com]

Thursday, March 31, 2011 10:29 AM

Council, City

Keene, James; Williams, Curtis

ell V CLERK S OFFICE

l, I APR -t. I;H 1: 55

Subject: Correction To 50-Year Estimate of Public Subsidy For Stanford Go-Passes

Attachments: pa_standford_90_pass_subsidy.doc

Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cc: James Keene, Curtis Williams

Subject: Correction In 50-Year Estimate For Public Subsidy Of Stanford Go-Passes

Elected Municipal Officials:

The short paper recently submitted for your consideration contained a miscalculation in the section that dealt with the 50-year estimate of public subsidy of Caltrain Go-Passes for Stanford. The following text contains that section, with the corrected calculation:

50-Year Public Cost of Caltrain Go-Passes For Stanford

Given the fact that the public is subsidizing Caltrain to provide almost free transportation service to Stanford, what will the cost to the public be for this "public benefit" that Stanford is offering Palo Alto for its Hospital approval?

Again, using the simplest numbers:

Public-Subsidy = ($18M/year-$1.5M/year) * 50 years -= $1.88.

(Note-inflation, and other upward pressures on Caltrain costs-such as increased labor union salary/benefit demands-will likely see this number much larger than suggested here­possibly approaching $2.58 to $3.08)

Please note, that this estimate has had a 3% inflation factor added, but there is little reason to believe that inflation will actually be only 3% over the next fifty years. Obviously, with higher inflation/costs, this public subsidy for Stanford Go-Passes will be much higher.

Note--The correction has been added to the original document, and resubmitted.

Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA

4/412011

Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA· 94301 Cc: James Keene, Curtis Williams

Subject: Caltrain Go-Passes, Palo Alto, the Stanford Hospital and JPA Taxpayers

Elected Municipal Officials:

Stanford's $140M "Mitigation" Offer For Hospital Expansion Approval

Stanford University/Hospital has offered the City of Palo Alto "compensation" to the tune of $140M in hopes of (effectively) buying the approval of the City, needed to expand its hospital. This "compensation package" includes dollars for housing, some health care, and transportation impact mitigation. A significant portion of this "package" is a $92M traffic mitigation component-Caltrain Go-Passes for its employees for the next fifty years, or so.

Ninety-two million dollars ($92M) is clearly a significant amount of money, which begs the question-how will this money be spent, and how will it be a "public benefit" so that it should be considered in this "mitigation package"?

Caltrain Go-Passes

Ridership numbers for Caltrain's 2009-2010 year show about l.IM riders. Considering Caltrain's operating and capital budgets (about $ 130M), the cost-per-rider (one-way) is about $12.00. Caltrain currently charges 12.50 for one-way/six zones service. Based on 50-weeks/5-days-a-week use of the train, this service costs $6,250 a year. Caltrain also offers a monthly pass for $331, which comes to $3,972 year. For larger companies and schools, Caltrain offers the Go-Pass, at $155/employee. (If Caltrain also recovered its asset costs from farebox revenues, the cost-per-ride would be about $20 [+/-]---depending on the amortization period, and the actual cost of assets (land, rolling stock, infrastructure, etc., and actual ridership).

Ifused 52-weeks/2 trips-per-day, the cost-per-ride for a Go-Pass is about 21 cents. For the more typical 50-week/2 trips-per-day use, the cost-per-ride is about 31 cents. The difference between the actual $12/ride cost-for-service and the 20-30 cents charged Go­Pass riders is almost $ 12-paid for by the taxpayers, through county/state/federal grants

Clearly, Caltrain Go-Passes are very, very, under-priced, compared to the cost of providing this service.

Public Benefit of "Go-Passes" For Stanford?

There has been no clear proof of public benefit offered by Stanford, or Palo Alto, to date, to justify this $92M expenditure being a bona fide public benefit. The all-too-often

offered mantra that ''we're taking cars off the road" can only be the rationale for any "public benefit". But so far, no traffic modeling ofthe current University/Hospital has been offered, nor has there been any long-term modeling for the expanded Hospital (and other projected University growth).

With the current $ 155/rider Go-Pass cost, $1.9M a year ($92M over 50-odd years), this comes to about 11,900 Go-Passes. (Of course, with future increased costs, this estimate of Go-Passes is necessarily high. And-if Cal train were to more appropriately price Go­Passes, then the number of Go-Passes that can be purchased with $1.9M a year will be greatly reduced.)

Recently, someone close to the "Friends of Caltrain" published data that Stanford currently purchases about 1 0, 1 00 Go-Passes, at a yearly expense of about $1.5M. So, increasing the yearly expenditure to $1.9M will add about 1,200 passes. However, what does this current, and future, Caltrain ridership mean in terms of taking "cars off the road"?

It seems that Stanford claims that about 3,000+ people actually use their Stanford­provided Go-Passes. How many of these people might carpool, or use other public transportation, if Caltrain were to cease operating is unknown. Certainly any claims that all 3,000+ people would use cars, and that all ofthese cars would clog Palo Alto streets would be impossible to prove--particularly since Highway 280/Sandhill Road is heavily used by Stanford employees/visitors, as is EI Camino Real in Menlo Park.

So, given that Stanford is already spending $1.5M on Go-Passes, the increase to $1.9M in terms of vehicle reduction in Palo Alto, is simply unknowable. At best, it represents about 1,700 (maximum) vehicles that would possibly not use any of the many roads/streets offering access to the Stanford lands.

Lastly, Stanford is not offering any traffic mitigation for Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton, Mountain View-all of which will necessarily see increased traffic due to the Hospital's expansion. Certainly these Cities deserve some compensation also.

Public Subsidy of "Go-Passes" Passed to Stanford

At first blush, the idea of Stanford offering to increase its purchase of Go-Passes seems like a good idea. However, a closer examination of the severe under-pricing of Go­Passes raises a very large "red flag" which should be examined by everyone in Palo Alto-particularly its planning department, and its City Council.

The current Caltrain pricing of Go-Passes is very "deep" shows deep, deep, discounting. Ifthe actual cost-to-provide this service were $ 12/ride-then the Go-Pass subsidy is more than $11.50/ride. This difference is currently being paid by the taxpayers, through the many funds transfer mechanisms conceived by government officials over the years.

So, what does this Go-Pass discount mean to Stanford?

U sing the following simple calculation:

Stanford-Caltrain-Service-Cost= ~3000 riders/day * $24/day * 2S0 days ---= $18M.

(Saturday/Sunday service would increase this $18M number in proportion to the actual Stanford traffic.)

So, Stanford is currently buying about $19M (or more) in Caltrain service for about $1.SM. The taxpayers are paying the difference. Stanford is certainly a beneficiary of this (effective) taxpayer transfer of funds.

The question must now asked: "Would Stanford actually pay the full cost of Caltrain service, if the Go-Passes were terminated?" Isn't it about time to ask Stanford this question?

50-Year Public Cost of Caltrain Go-Passes For Stanford

Given the fact that the public is subsidizing Caltrain to provide almost free transportation service to Stanford, what will the cost to the public be for this "public benefit" that Stanford is offering Palo Alto for its Hospital approval?

Again, using the simplest numbers:

Public-Subsidy = ($18M/year-$l.SM/year) * SO years ~ $1.8B.

(Note----infiation, and other upward pressures on Caltrain costs-such as increased labor union salarylbenefit demands-will likely see this number much larger than suggested here----possibly approaching $2.SB to $3.0B)

Conclusion

While much of this short paper focuses on taxpayers indirectly funding Stanford through Stanford's use of Cal train Go-Passes, the real problem is that Caltrain seems to have developed a business model that assumes that: Taxpayer will contribute over SO percent of the revenue needed to operate this railroad. Clearly, the cost-to-provide-service numbers are constantly climbing-mostly through continually rising laborlbenefit costs. There seems to be little evidence of management activities that parallel the private sector, particularly since the labor contract is outsourced to Amtrak for management-which has little reason to control costs, as Amtrak is itself a recipient of billions of Federal taxpayer dollars.

Caltrain needs to terminate Go-Passes as soon as possible. While Stanford may be the largest recipient of this "largesse" at the moment, offering this steeply discounted fare has clearly costs the taxpayers millions of dollars yearly, and help to put Caltrain in the "red".

One can only wonder what the financial impact on Caltrain would be if 100,000 Go­Passes were sold? Ridership would grow to 100,000 people a day, but the revenue for this 100,000 people would be only $15.5M. This is simply insane. There is no other way to describe Caltrain business practices, where Go-Passes are concerned.

Elected officials should always be reviewing their budgets, the need for infrastructure upgrades in their cities, and their future revenue growth to determine what financial problems are on the horizon. As they do, they should be asking why the taxpayers, that they took an oath to represent, should be subsidizing large, deep-pocket, employers, like Stanford, to the tune of millions of dollars a year providing Go-Passes.

Elected Officials-please consider this matter and discuss it with your VT A and Cal train Board Members. Something needs to be done quickly to stem the never-ending flow of "red-ink" generated by Caltrain management. Given Caltrain's inability to manage its own finances without considerable public subsidy, should terminating this railroad as soon as possible be a top priority for local governments?

Sources: http://www.caltrain.comlabout! statsandreports/Ridership.html http://www.caltrain.comlabout/statsandreports/Comprehensi ve Annual Financial Report s.html http://www.caltrain.comlaboutlstatsandreports/Budgets.html

Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA www.scribd.comlwmartin46 www.twitter.comlwmartin46

Note 1 - Ridership data provided by Caltrain is based on actual counts during "February" of each year. "February" numbers are likely to be higher than "June" numbers, since school is in session. Summer numbers also likely include some tourist traffic, but there is no way to effectively estimate these numbers. As such, yearly ridership estimates based . on February numbers are likely in some error. Additionally, ridership numbers do no align with fiscal data.

Note 2 -- Most estimates of the sort providing herein have much hope of being correct beyond ten years' passage oftime. Estimates for fifty years have little likelihood of being cost to the actual passage of time. It is hard to believe that the City of Palo Alto is allowing Stanford to make claims about its behavior, or costs, that are fifty years in the future.

j~~~jEETING !> r"1-Plac~d Before Meeting .. tr~c4fWidlht Meeting ..

SAVE CALTRAIN WITHOUT ELECTRIFICATION

By Jack Ringham

BACKGROUND For a decade or more Caltrain has claimed that electrification is necessary for major improvements in operations. In 2004 it prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for electrification of the Caltrain Corridor from San Francisco to Gilroy at an estimated cost of $601 to $865 million in 2003 dollars. Funding limitations resulted in indefinite deferral of the project.

Caltrain saw High-Speed Rail (HSR) as a source of funds for electrification and other projects ifHSR shared Caltrain tracks. Caltrain signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the California High-Speed Rail Authority to work cooperatively in planning to share Caltrain's Corridor between San Jose and San Francisco. In 2009 Caltrain updated the electrification EIR to cover San Francisco to San Jose, but excluding the section from San Jose to Gilroy to reduce the capital cost. CHSRA applied for Federal stimulus funds to electrify the Caltrain Corridor claiming (incorrectly) that this would be compatible with future HSR. This funding was never approved and in late 2010 CHSRA decided to begin HSR construction in the Central Valley. Studies·of HSR alignments between the Central Valley and San Francisco were delayed.

Caltrain faces huge deficits in its operating budget with prospects of drastic cuts in service. A "Save Caltrain" movement is underway and seeking a dedicated funding source to augment Caltrain's operating budget. Some are suggesting the Save Caltrain movement should include electrification. They offer few specifics regarding timing and compatibility with the possibility of future HSR on the Caltrain Corridor.

CAL TRAIN OPPORTUNITIES A major opportunity to reduce operating costs and improve service is that train capacity (seats) is not balanced with ridership which varies significantly between peak and off­peak hours. Average capacity utilization in Caltrain's most recent, February 2010 ridership study, was 39 percent. All 90 weekday trains consist of five cars averaging 130 seats per car or 650 seats per train. During the day, passengers per train varies from 61 to 607 or an average of 277 per train. Only nine percent of weekday trains have passenger loads requiring 5 cars. Sixty per cent of the trains could carry their maximum passenger loads with one or two cars.

The way to meet varying passenger demand is to balance cars per train with passenger demand which is highly predictable throughout the day. However, it takes considerable time to uncouple, switch cars, re-couple, reconnect air brake hoses and electrical systems and finally conduct required tests every time a train is reconfigured. This makes it very difficult and costly to balance train size with passenger load.

1

If cars per train could be changed quickly according to predicted passenger load, significant savings would result including: fuel (energy) savings by moving lighter trains; lower labor costs with fewer conductors on shorter trains; need for fewer total cars in the system; reduced locomotive and car maintenance; reduced track maintenance (lighter train loads) and faster acceleration and deceleration resultmg in quicker trip time.

CAL TRAIN'S PROPOSED ELECTRIFICATION This incorporates Electric Multiple Units (EMU) where each passenger car is propelled by its own electric motor and includes electric braking with quick coupling systems which permit quick adjustment of train size according to passenger demand. Therefore it provides an opportunity to achieve all of the benefits cited in the previous paragraph. Also, Caltrain obtained an FRA waiver pennitting it to use light weight EMUs onthe same tracks as heavy freight trains. This can bring additional energy savings plus faster acceleration and deceleration. The latest EIR estimated rolling stock cost for 114 trains per weekday with a fleet of 112 EMUs, each with 100 seats, at $3.93 million each totaling $440 million in 2015 dollars.

The EIR estimates infrastructure cost for electrification at $785 million in 2015 dollars, most of which is for electrical power supply & sub stations and overhead wires with their

. supporting poles and structures. Another item, not included in the EIR, is a Positive Train Control (PTC) safety system, required by 2015, costing an estimated $231 million. Total estimated capital cost for electrification, including PTC, is $1,456 million. Capital funds currently available to Caltrain for electrification are only about $709 million -less than half the requirement.

In addition to its high dollar cost, electrification brings significant adverse environmental . impacts to residential neighborhoods along the Caltrain corridor. These include the visual blight of 40 foot high poles and overhead electric wires plus removal of hundreds of heritage trees. A 2003 arborist study for Caltrain recommended removal of over 1,700 trees on the corridor plus pruning back many more for safe clearance from 25,000 volt electric wires. .

ALTERNATIVES There are lower cost alternatives to electrification with fewer adverse impacts to residents, which will also provide most of the same cost savings and operating benefits as electrification. These should be studied and given serious consideration.

Diesel - Electric locomotives with conventional trailer cars. These should be light weight, fuel efficient, low emissions locomotives with light weight cars and electric instead of air brake systems with quick couplingldecoupling capability.

2

DMUs or Diesel Multiple Units, similar to EMUs with each passenger car having its own diesel- electric power unit and not requiring an external electric source (overhead wires). These would be light weight units with fuel efficient, low emissions diesel engines driving electric traction motors powering the wheels. They would have electric brakes and quick coupling/decoupling systems. Because each unit has its own diesel engine they would weigh slightly more and cost slightly more than an EMU, but would have all other EMU advantages. The principal advantage ofDMUs over EMUs is avoiding the costly external electrification infrastructure.

A system with latest state-of-the-art diesel electric locomotives with light weight passenger cars would probably have rolling stock costs less than an EMU system. A total DMU system would probably have higher rolling stock costs than an EMU system. The costs of these two diesel based systems (as well as some combination of the two) need evaluation.

A diesel - electric or DMU system would avoid most of the $785 million electrification infrastructure cost. PTC costs of $231 million would still be required by 2015 for diesel - electric, DMU or EMU electrification approaches. A non- electrified approach could still achieve most of the claimed electrification benefits for about $600 to $800 million or half the electrification cost and close to the $709 million electrification funding currently available to Caltrain.

It is significant that BART, which is currently a completely electrified system, will construct a 10 mile extension to Pittsburgh and Antioch using DMUs. The $462 million cost is 60 per cent less than extending its 3rd rail electrical system. The DMUs are clean diesel with capacity of 300 to 400 people per 2 car train.

Also, in 2008 the San Diego Sprinter 22 mile light rail commuter system was completed between Oceanside and Escondido. It utilizes 1, or 2 car Siemens DMUs and shares tracks with BNSF freight trains. Cost $484 million.

CONCLUSIONS Even if electrifi~ation funding were fully available now, it would be .imprudent to begin electrification construction on Caltrain's two track system. Although HSR has been delayed on the Peninsula, we don't know It When or How HSR might eventually utilize the Caltrain Corridor. If HSR were to utilize the corridor, most of the two track electrification infrastructure would have to be tom down and replaced to fit a four track HSR system at multiple grade levels. A huge waste.

Instead, Caltrain should study modernized diesel - electric and DMU rolling stock alternatives and give consideration to moving ahead with a greatly improved, but not electrified, system. It is important to recognize that almost 70 per cent of Caltrain's locomotives and passenger cars are over 24 years old, near the end of their 30 year life.

3

-,

) i I

They will need to be replaced within the next few years. $440 million capital funding for rolling stock replacement is available now. An electrified HSR may not corne to the Caltrain corridor for a decade or more, if ever. Any modernized Caltrain diesel equipment placed in service before an electrified HSR might come to the Caltrain corridor could still be utilized with a future electrified HSR. If Caltrain were later to shift to electrified rolling stock, its diesel equipment could be sold.

RECOMMENDATIONS. Caltrain should:

1. Study and develop cost-benefit analyses of modernized diesel based alternatives to electrification.

2. Request the FRA to amend its waiver for light weight, non compliant, rolling stock to include lightweight diesel locomotive/trailer car and DMU alternatives in addition to EMUs

3. Develop a program to replace its aging rolling stock with the most cost-effective system of lightweight, fuel efficient, clean .diesel propulsion systems: diesel electric locomotives and trailer cars, DMUs or a combination of the two.

4

Page 10f2

Minor, Beth

From: Williams, Curtis

Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 6:42 PM t 1 APR -6 At11:~' To: 'kouricd@yahoo.com'

Cc: Rodriguez, Jaime; Keene, James; Council, City

Subject: RE: Too few lanes, one long back up

Ms. Kouric,

The City Manager has asked that I respond to your e-mail to Council. Thank you for your comments and questions about lane reduction projects. In cases where the City has explored lane reductions, such as Arastradero Road or California Avenue, the reductions are evaluated as part of a "Complete Streets" design approach supported by a number of Comprehensive Plan policies. This design approach encourages maximum use by various modes of transportation, including vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. These projects also tend to occur in areas where there are substantial numbers of school children crossing streets or bicycling or walking along them, so safety is likely to be emphasized over vehicle throughput and speed. Staff certainly recognizes that this is not appropriate everywhere throughout Palo Alto. When lane reductions are considered, there is also an extensive traffic analysis to try to forecast any potential impacts and to incorporate mitigation as part of the projects to minimize impacts. Where we can, the projects are set up as "trials" for a year or so to evaluate the impacts and then either approve the project for permanent implementation, modify it in a more acceptable manner, or abandon the project.

In the case of Arastradero Road, the project is being implemented as a one-year trial project so that an evaluation may be conducted. Some of the modifications to the road design were just implemented during the past month, so we are in the process of monitoring the impacts you've identified. We will be holding a community meeting on April 28th and will notify you when the meeting details are confirmed so that you may try to attend and share additional input.

If you have follow-up questions, please contact Jaime Rodriguez, our Chief Transportation Official, at (650) 329-2136 or jaime.rodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org.

Thanks again for your input.

Curtis Williams, Director Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto (650) 329-2321

From: Colleen K [mailto:kouricd@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 9:26 AM To: Council, City Subject: Too few lanes, one long back up

March 27,2011

Palo Alto City Council:

I am very concerned about traffic patterns that reduce lanes to promote walking, nmning, and bicycling. Not everyone is retired having the option of leisurely getting from here to there any way they like. Reducing 4 lane streets to 2 causes one long backup lane - no break in the traffic or the idling or the pollution (i.e. University Ave).

4/6/2011

Page 20f2

What is ironic about this admirable plan is that the same city leaders continue to vote for incredibly dense housing projects that will increase cars on the road ten fold! Alma and Meadow will soon house 57 new homes, over 100 new cars, and how many more Gunn High School students needing to be driven to school on Arastradero Road?

If anything, the roads in Palo Alto should be widened, cleared of parallel parking, provided with street lights on every comer, and large visible street signs installed. Any and all of these improvements should supersede state and federal grant money being used to impair the already limping traffic patterns in Palo Alto.

Thank you. Colleen Kouri Palo Alto

4/6/2011

Minor,8eth

From: dayharshes@aol.com

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 4:39 PM

To: Council, City

Subject: Proposal to Pave Over Main Community Garden Annex

Page 1 ofl

CITY Of PAl,:O ALTOtf:tt' .• A CITY CLERK'S OFFlCu.

Just last Friday (4/1) I was told that the City has a proposal to pave over the annex portion of the Main Community garden to create a drive lane between the Art Center and the Library.

As an annex gardener, I was dismayed to hear this! When I got my plot last year, one of the first things I did was ask about how the planned Main Library renovations would affect the garden. I was told there would be no affect on the garden -- not even the annex.

I would like each of you to consider alternate ways of creating this drive lane -- if you decide to go through with it -rather than destroying our gardens. For most of us at the annex, this is our only chance to dig and plant. For me, it is my only opportunity since I live in a condo.

This matter is particularly timely, as we gardeners are just getting ready to plant. No one wants to spend time, energy and money to only have it all covered up by asphalt. Even waiting til the May 5 Community Meeting is problematic as that is almost too late to get some hot weather vegetables in if we expect them to be productive.

I have also talked with Greg Betts, Director of Community Services. He has provided me with the project engineer's, Karen Bengard, contact information. I believe all of the gardeners at the Main Library site would appreciate being kept "in the loop" in regards to this matter.

Thanks for taking the time to help me. I am thankful that each of you is willing to spend time deciding matters that benefit all of us citizens.

Laura Dayharsh

4/4/2011

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Dear City Leaders,

Geri Mcgilvray [geri@thegrid.net] Wednesday, March 30, 2011 2:50 PM Council, City Keene, James; Williams, Curtis; Bonilla, Robert Midtown speeding

CUY OF PALQ AlTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFF1CE

If MARSI APt It f r

Please help us. We want a speed meter here between Moreno and Marion. There has been nearly Zero traffic calming here for 3 + weeks.

The construction trucks are shaking our houses, the big hybrid buses, the delivery trucks It's 2 pm. It is lawless, without any enforcement . This is all new since November,

2009. The drivers need to know there are houses here on the 2500 block of middlefield.

We are paying our taxes, and, we want to be able to get in and out of our driveways as we have for 40 years.

Yesterday the bus deliberately went through the red light, while a lady stood on the curb with her dog to cross. People run the lights a lot.

It seems like traffic calming is a very important component to the rule if law our city can provide.

Some of us think blossoming trees would help us look like a neighborhood Instead of a row of parking lots. We also see that trash needs to be picked up along this busy shopping area. A LOT of kids come here on their bikes . Tell me what I can do to help.

The speed limit is 25 mph. That would be safe for everyone. We realize it is a benchmark, so safety can be enforced.

Thank you for all the help you have been giving us, and, for meeting with me different times.

Geri Mc Gilvray

we the people, for everyday midtown, middlefield safety and, walkability. Sent from my iPhone

1

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Good evening,

Peter Rosenblum [rosenbl@mac.com] Wednesday, March 30, 2011 9:07 PM Council, City resident of Middlefield Road's traffic concerns

CITY Of pA~o ALlO,CA en!' CLE.l\i\'S OFFICE

11 MAR 3 , AM CJtrl

At a gathering of "We the People" today held at Geri Mc Gilvray's home I expressed my appreciation for the past efforts of the police to enforce traffic calming on Middlefield Rd. When there was police presence, it seemed that the traffic moved more slowly for several days thereafter. We are most appreciative that the police acknowledged the need to enforce the 25 mile per hour speed limit, so that we could avoid the rumblings inside our homes when the cars speed. I encourage the police to continue to have a presence in this area.

On the negative side , it appears that too frequently the drivers have a tremendous need to travel rapidly past our homes and not allow us access to our driveways. There was a time when the drivers would slow down and motion entry and exit from our driveways. It seems that they no longer wish to offer that courtesy, since they are increasing their speed to reach the light at Oregon Expressway. I worry for our safety in this situation plus an additional situation on the sidewalk. Just today I had two experiences which caused me great concern. Two girls at approximately 5:00 PM tonight were crossing Middlefield Road at Marion. I was stopped, in the left hand lane, at the Keep Clear and the girls were approaching the front of my car as a car came barreling along, in the right hand lane in a rush to get to Oregon Expressway. Fortunately the girls did not proceed rapidly enough to be beyond my car when the car came through. Then, this evening, in the dark, three boys came down the street (one on a bike and two on skate boards) .... My husband and I moved aside into someone's driveway to avoid them colliding into us. Because there are so many children walking and riding bikes and skateboards along Middlefield Road, I would hope that safety would be taught in the schools. The girls did not cross at the Oregon Expressway intersection (which most people don't) and the boys were not courteous and traveling the wrong way. I have also had bicyclists come behind me many, many times, without warning. If "vehicles" are operated on the sidewalk, proper safety could be taught by the police, in the schools. I fear that accidents will be inevitable unless students' are alerted to the dangers of their actions. Also, I wish there could be something done about the numerous adults, who also ride recklessly on the sidewalks. Is there anyway that you could suggest that bike riders have horns or bells, giving fair warning to pedestrians? There should be a bicycle lane on Middlefield Road, but obviously that would be too dangerous because of the speeding that often occurs.

I would be happy to discuss any of these issues with you and wonder whether bicycle shops would like to start a campaign for people to use warning devices when riding and passing pedestrians on the sidewalks of Palo Alto.

Kind regards, Arlene Rosenblum

1

Page 1 of') ,

Minor, Beth

From:

Sent:

To:

Wyman [ellenandtom@sbcglobal.net]

Monday, April 04,201112:18 PM

Council, City

Subject: Public Art Commission

D Members of the Palo Alto City Council:

CITY Of PALO ALTO, ~A CIIX.CLERWS OFFICE

BAPR -1+ PH 12: 2'

ICO~~:I~ MEETING

1···~p.JU""Placed Before Meeting (J Received at Meeting

3

The pubic really DOES care about the design of the California Avenue fountain and clearly supports a traditional fountain at that location. It continues a 50-plus year tradition and in that sense is historic. Quite simply, it is loved and is appropriate for the location; it is 'friendly and welcoming. Remember, three years ago:

• Merchants on California Avenue preferred a traditional fountain by 11 to 1. • 817 townspeople signed petitions asking for a traditional fountain rather than modern art. • All 34 letters to the council regarding this matter asked for a traditional fountain rather than modern

art. • All five respondents to the Weekly's "Man on the Street" question preferred the traditional fountain.

When we turned in the 817 signatures on this issue we also turned in pages and pages of comments to the city Clerk. Comments that "signers" wrote as they signed, telling the City just what they thought of much of our public art. At least 90% of the comments were very derogatory.

We may have to live with it, to walk around it and we are, after all, a pretty polite community, but we don't all like it. Several people even volunteered out of the blue to donate money to have several of these so­called "art pieces" removed. Clearly, the public does care about this issue. They have been engaged, they have been involved. Council members are the ultimate decision makers in this matter and should not allow a Commission to vote their personal preferences thereby overriding the strong public preferences that have been expressed.

And finally, in the recent poll conducted by the PAC, which it chose to disregard, Palo Altans showed a clear preference for the traditional fountain design.

We write to urge you NOT to reappoint the same people to the Public Arts Commission. The implied mandate for the Public Art Commission is to select art that pleases our community. However, the Commission does not see this as their calling. Moreover, members of the Commission should be legal residents of Palo Alto. If they live here they will be sensitive to what the public values ands wants. It should be comprised of some artists but also just local residents who can speak for the community, our friends and neighbors. As structured, the PAC is not working well.

4/4/2011

Page 2 of2

PAC members see themselves as the "experts" and vote as "professional,artists". At the final vote on the fountain one commissioner commented "Well, I like modern art, so I vote for Szabo". Her preference is immaterial. In this position it is her responsibility to vote for the proposal that she thinks the public would most enjoy.

Please reconstitute the Commission it in a way that truly does serve public interest. The Art Commission should be aware that it was created to serve the community. The public pays for the art and should have a role in the selection of that art.

Don't allow the Art Commission to continue as it has been in the past. Do not simply rename the same well meaning "art experts" -- especially out-of-towners. It is just as important for art commissioners to be Palo Alto residents as it is for Council Members and Planning and Transportation Commissioners to be City residents. They are planning our community and need to be a part of it. As it stands, the role, the aim, the goal of the Commission has been lost.

As a first order of priority, the Art Commission's decision on the California Avenue fountain should be agendized by the Council and reversed. The Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the Council and this decision should not be allowed to stand.

As a second order of business the Art Commission should be restructured or decommissioned.

Ellen and Tom Wyman

4/4/2011

Page 1 of 4

Minor, Beth CITY OF PALO ALTDitA CITY CLERK'S OFfICE

From: Mitchell, Karen If HAR 31 AH'= II' Sent:

To:

Cc:

Wednesday, March 30, 2011 4:25 PM

'Irgreen@bokashicycle.com'

'Sid.Espinosa@cityofpaloalto.org'; Council, City; Arp, Ron; Macway, Sharon; Sartor, Mike; Torke, Ken

Subject: RE: Waste processing ... Palo Alto ... better technology to divert waste, save park land

Dear Mr. Green:

The City Manager's Office asked that the Public Works Department respond to your e-mail dated March 28, 2011 to Mayor Espinosa. We would like to thank you for your information on the Bokashi process. At the moment, the Palo Alto City Council has directed staff to look into conversion technologies - those that would recover energy from organic material. It appears that the Bokashi process is designed to meet other objectives, but does not produce energy. (If I'm wrong about this, please phone me at 650-329-2325).

We greatly appreciated those advocating the Bokashi process attending our public meetings and hope you will continue to be involved. Technologies continue to evolve, and it could be that Palo Alto will want to investigate a combination of technologies, involving the Bokashi process, at some point in the future.

Many thanks for your information and involvement!!

Phil Bobel Phil.Bobel@CityofPaloAlto.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Larry Green <lrgreen@bokashicycle.com> Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM Subject: Waste processing ... Palo Alto ... better technology to divert waste, save park land To: Sid.Espinosa@cityofpaloalto.org

Dear Sid,

I have a solution for waste management and preservation ofland that I would like the Palo Alto community to consider. It is a more efficient way of handling waste with soil microbes in special fermenters. The technology I proposed 2 years ago puts an immediate stop to greenhouse gas production, is 10 times faster than composting, has the smallest foot print of all current technologies for operations, gets rid of odors and vermin, and requires little capital investment. Frankly, compo sting is too slow and anaerobic digestion for methane production is unattractive and an outdated technology. It is not cost effective and is highly polluting.

Urban planners can use a two step strategy. First divert waste right at home so it never hits the curbside for pick up. This can be done easily right now regardless of how you manage your organic waste stream after pick up. Second step involves better handling of the organic waste you are obliged to process. The best technology is bokashi fermenting. This is scientifically known as acidic anaerobic fermenting is not at all related to anaerobic digestion that involves methane production. No methane is obtained and no heat is generated.

I recommend diverting waste at the home to acidic anaerobic fermenting using bokashi fermenting units right at home for your residential customers. They love it and the community

3/3112011

Page 2 of4

benefits with rich healthy gardens and landscaping. This simple step alone takes the organic waste off the street relieving the city ofthe responsibility and costs in handling that waste. Several cities we are dealing with are now asking us to show them how this is done and in Canada we expect to sign contracts with managers where they will provide units for home use at a cost savings to the city.

About 2 years ago I sent a letter to Peter Drekmeier at which time I advocated an alternative program that I believe would solve your organic waste program far more effectively and efficiently at less cost than any other alternative that was being discussed. It was my understanding we would get a hearing and open discussion with the blue ribbon panel that was being created. I never heard any follow up and assumed the waste management problems were resolved.

I recently came to the realization that this was not the case. Our technology was apparently not presented to the council. Recently I got in touch with Peter assuming he would let those involved know of this alternative technology. It now appears to me after having had a discussion with Emily Renzel that I was talking to the wrong person. It appears that Peter and a few others are pushing to support AD technology. This is not a good idea for many reasons. I've attached the bluestem report which has much useful data that reveals the technology is far too costly and not easily scalable. I've studied the issues extensively and know this would be a mistake for Palo Alto or any community to follow as a solution to waste management. It is neither clean nor cost effective.

Below is a copy of the last communication I sent to Peter. Emily asked that I present information to the city council in advance of the April meeting. I am writing you now to let you know there is a far superior and simpler solution to handle this problem that would not take away park land, would more efficiently and cost effectively solve your organic waste program keeping waste out oflandfills, and it produces great products for soil restoration.

We have a web page www.bokashicycle.com showing how home residential units work. The file attached provides you with an attribute comparison and sketch of our recently filed provisional patent for waste processing. We anticipate starting up a program in Chicago this year. I would like to discuss the possibilities of doing the same in Palo Alto. It's fast and inexpensive and even in a pilot program you will quickly come to realize this is the best option to handle waste. I would like to know how we might get this information to those decision makers who should know there are great alternatives they have never known about.

Very Best Regards, Larry Green MD PhD Bokashicycle LLC www.bokasdhicycle.com cell 253.988.4411

-------- Original Message --------Subject:Bokashicycle ... acidic anaerobic fermenting waste

Date:Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:46:04 -0800 From:Larry Green <lrgreen@ix.netcom.com>

To:Peter Drekmeier <pdrekmeier@earthlink.net>

Hi Peter,

3/3112011

Page 3 of4

I'm providing you with additional information regarding the acidic anaerobic fermenting process which runs continuously with little labor, smallest foot print of all tec1mologies that can process all organic waste and is the only one of all current competing technologies that eliminates greenhouse gas production. Essentially 100% of the waste entering the plant is diverted to marketable product that is obtained in 10 days. That product applied to soil restores organic content, expands microbe populations in diversity and numbers, conserves water, and eliminates the need to apply petro fertilizer. You've got a chance to make history Peter.

I am 100% confident that Palo Alto will truly regret investing in anaerobic methane producing plants which are far too costly, too polluting, and incapable of handling the volume of waste you have in a sustainable manner. I would hope you have had a chance to review the bluestem reports on the AD systems and their track record. As you know, these were popularized in Europe because of the government's subsidy allowing their start up by greatly increasing tipping fees in Europe to discourage landfill use. This drove waste to AD reactors because it then became possible to build a plant and run it at a marginal profit. These tipping fees are unnecessary and won't be tolerated in other countries. The bluestem report is one of the best reviews ever produced. I've attached a copy for your review. .

You may be interested in this larger scale operation outlined that shows how to take all organic waste material and in 10 days convert it to end product for soil amending. This is a systems approach to more efficiently process food waste with virtually no waste and it requires little energy to complete. Most importantly is the high throughput (10 days processing) accomplished with total containment. There are no objectionable odors, no high capital investment in equipment and maintenance commonly linked with compo sting operations and minimized permitting requirements as the waste in process never touches the ground or soil. This entire operation can be done under one roof.

We license the technology to users. The attached PDF outlines the process which is a part of our provisional patent filed. End product, cake and tea are then marketed to landscapers, nurseries, farmers, and home users.

Here is a pilot study showing how to produce the AgrowPulp(TM) and AgrowTea(TM) products for amending soil.

Food waste from Bon Appetit (Intel campuses Hillsboro, OR) restaurants (all waste including meat and dairy) was fermented 10 days, then dewatered.

You can see the rich cake has a nice color and we are getting plenty of tea. The cake is moist but does not stick together when squeezed. In this pilot 84 pounds of fermented waste at 10 days produced 25 pounds of cake and 59 pounds (almost 8 gallons) of tea.

There are lots of ways of running the separation to get a moist, dry, or very dry cake.

There are 5 video parts ...... shows separation and final product.

The annoying background noise was related to a faulty air compressor that wasn't holding pressure but normally this would not be the case as the air pressure would be held steady and the separation is very quiet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be2hDQFeE-A&feature=mfu in order&list=UL http://www.youtube.comiwatch?v=gOmA4IzOaD8&feature=mfu in order&list=UL http://www.youtube.comlwatch ?v=GI3y9Skv5 SO&feature=mfu in order&list=UL http://www.youtube.comlwatch?v= PWVT3hCW gmk&feature=mfu in order&list=UL http://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=3-2kgg 7xdA&feature=mfu in order&list=UL

This method of processing waste is easily scaled to virtually any size. In a 50 tons per day operation it would generate approximately 10,000 gallons of AgrowTea and 5 tons of AgrowPulp. There are no pathogens in the end product and no foul odors and both products should greatly improve soil when applied and mixed with the soil. Some market development will be needed and packaging options need to be defined but as you can see it really cuts the cost in processing waste. It also provides a community friendly and attractive way of getting rid of our organic waste.

3/3112011

Best Regards, Larry Green Bokashicyc1e LLC cell 253.988.4411

SID ESPINOSA Mayor, City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 617-3100 x3619 Sid.Espinosa@cityofpaloalto.org

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com!SidEspinosa

Page 4 of4

Connect on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com!pages!Sid-Espinosa-Mayor-City-of-Palo-Alto/173437449350158

3/3112011

,.

To The Palo Alto City Council:

Please do not continue with the feasibility study of the anaerobic digester oti Byxbee Hills Park. The feasibility study has shown thatthe cost would be between 50 to 100 million dollars to construct the industrial plant. Operation costs will be from two to four million dollar a year. To make this industria\operation . profitable, expansion further onto Byxbee Park might be necessary. It will destroy Byxbee Hills Park.

This industrial plant is the imtithe'sis of how to confront global warming. All studies show that construction resulting in the destructioq of open space, conservation lands and habitat is one of the major causes of global warming. There are many other wars PalQ Alto's 25,000 households can reduce our C02 footprintan<;l

: not destroy or encroach upon Byxbee Hills Park.

Please take Palo Ai(o off this destructive and expensive path now. Sincerely, ~

PE11gL j)fE}tU!JkJETL

. To The Palo Alto Citx. C.'\PI~ff1=PA L 0 A.LTD., CA !..n .•. ....... ' FRK'SOFFICE . _ Please do not continu~~ili i:~reasibIIity s.t;uClyof the anaerobic dige. _ ster on Byxbec .HillS}l~a;.~ .T.·V. · € e f_b~tdy ?as shown that the cost would be hlt'Al'eK S'b'tom1rtttH~n dollars to construct the industrial plant. Operation costs will be from two to four million dollar a year. To make this industrial operation . profitable, expansion further onto Byxbee.Park might be Ilecessary. It will destroy Byxbee Hills Park.

T,his industrial plant is the antithesis of how to confront global warming. All studies show that construction resulting in the destruction of open space, conservation lands andhabiiat is one of

major causes of global warming. There are many other ways Alto's 25,000 households can reduce our C02 footprint and

. . or encroach upon Byxbee Hills Park .

. Alto off this destructive and expensive path now.

To The Palo Alto City Counci1:C'IT y or ,. . ' : .... ........ r IJA.LO ALTO,CA Please do not continue with the £!Iil(i1~~fi!Y%~I"robic d.'.igesteron ByxbeeHillsPark .. ~~ ~bi1UY.· .'. slWiY:b~b.own that the cost would be between 5b ~J\Il'JtS mmiorllbl~s3J construct the industrial plant. Operation costs will·befrom two to four million dollar a year. To make this industrial operation .•. profitable, expansion further onto Byxbee Park might be necessary. It will destroy ByxbeeHilIs Park.

This industrial plant is the antithe'sisofhow to confront global warming. AU studies show that construction resulting in the . destruction of open space, conservation lands and habitat ison~of the major causes of global warming. There are many oth.e~ wa~~ Palo Alto's 25,000 households can reduce our C02 footPrihf~' n9t destroy or encroach upon Byxbee Hills Park. '¥

crl~ase take Palo Alto off this destructive and expensive path now. . 'Sm¢~rely,

.:/$(.4 rt,'1~ 0 [GI vtA

Nanie>~fo .. '

Address·· .. ··;·· .. · .....

To The Palo Alto City Council: CITY OF PALO CITY CLERK' ALTO,CA

Please do not continue with the feasibility stuay 0~h9~J~bic digester on Byxbee Hills Park.. ThffeMimli.~.·r~tu~~. s~ that the cost would be between 50 fo Itf6 RliIli'dn <fdR~,~ 1 construct the industrial plant. Operation costs will be from two to four million dollar a year. To make this irtdustrial operation profitable, expansion further onto Byxbee Park might be . necessary. It will destroy Byxbee Hills Park.

This industrial plant istheantithe'sis of how to confront global warming. An studies show that construction resulting in the destruction of open space, conservation lands and habitat is one of the major causes of global warming. There are many otherways Palo. Alto's 25,000households'can reduce our C02 footprint and not destr9Y or encroach upon Byxbee Hills Park.

d _ •

~~.ease~e Palo Alto off this destructive and expensive path now. Sin§lely, . ' .

\1 "-'-~-':.'" "\ . '

:"'I'L_i S (~ KivV"\ N'a'ine

t~,rlo ere+- Hqrte Sf-. Pt\ij) .""~ Cit 1/fJIJ} Address

i . ~Tl

ToThe Palo Alto City Council: C'lr~ OF P4L . .. i CLfRk94lTd

p~eas. e do not continw~ with the feasibili1?' ~~Udllfjl;l.e .. anaerobie .. OFF) dIgester on Byxbee HIlls Park. The feasIbIlIty s ~ho'W· thatthe cost ~ould b.e between 50 to ! 00 million dollars t~ rN 12: . construct the mdustrial plant. Operation costs will be from two to 0, four million dollar a year. To make this industrial operation. profitable, expansion further onto Byxbee Park might be necessary. It will destroy Byxbee Hills Park.

This industrial plant is the antithe'sisofhow to confront global warming. All studies show that construction resulting in the destruction of open space, conservation lands and habitat is one of the major causes of global wanning. There are many other ways Palo Alto's 25,000 households can reduce our C02 footprint and.. not destroy or encroach upon 8yxbee Hills Park. !

Please take Palo Alto off this destructive and expensive path now.

Sine. erely, .. ,17 . ~ r~St3N

Name {t;;~o Fu LWPVf Address ~'I. /~/z/r-7

f- k '17 crv ~

. To The Palo Alto City Council:C1 T Y OF FA L () ALTO . CITY CLERK1S OFr"cPA

Please do not continue with the feasibility study of the anf:robic digester on Byxbee Hills Park. H~i8i~ PIIJl~ . ~own that the cost would be between 50 to 100 mlllion'Mftir"M construct the industrial plant. Operation costs will be.from two to four million dollar a year. To make this industrial operation profitable, expansion further onto Byxbee Park might be . . necessary. It will destroy Byxbee Hills Park.

This i~dustrial pl~t is the antithesis of how to ~onfront global warmtn~. All studIes show that construction reSUlting in the destruction of open space, conservation lands and habitat is one of the m!\ior causes of global warming. There are many other ways Palo Alto's 25,000 households can reduce our C02 footprint and not destroy or encroach upon Byxbee Hills Park.

P~ease take Palo Alto off this destructive and expensive path now. Smcerely,

JOtJ!ttJ;'N ~Df(ttypJ

Address 4. t-\:~D 'S

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Audrey Kass [shalomnature@comcast.net] Tuesday, April OS, 2011 10:05 PM Council, City; Van Aken, Cornelia Himmel, Ned Modification at Palo Alto Main Library

Dear Public Representatives,

BHyeFI'A·6 CITY CLEf&'S ~~Ab~A I , APR -6 AM 7= 47

We are writing to comment on the plans to modify the parking lot at Palo Alto Main Library and the civic center next door. Our understanding is that a connector driveway is going to be constructed between the two parking areas and that this driveway is going to require the removal of some trees, gardens and open space. We do not like the idea of converting "green space" into more asphalt. This change does not seem necessary and is likely to bring more "cut through" traffic into the driveway / parking lots. It is currently not difficult to get between the two parking areas (by using Newell St). What is the benefit of loosing these trees and green space? In the addition, the gardens are a valuable resource for us (Palo Alto residents) that do not have our own yard (i.e., living in apartments or condominiums).

Thank you, Audrey Kass & Paul Hammes 777 San Antonio Rd. #56 Palo Alto, CA

1

Minor, Beth

From: edito~@paloaltofreepress.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:56 AM

To: Council, City

Subject: The "Blacklist" of Paloaltofreepress.com]

Attachments: SandraBrownVoiceMail.mp3

el lugar adecuado en el momento oportuno

We don't print racy material, we just expose the "Naked" truth!!

Editor - Mark Petersen-Perez

-------- Original Message --------Subject: The "Blacklist" of Paloaltofreepress.com From: <editor@paloaltofreepress.com> Date: Tue, April 05, 2011 8:47 am

!'APk--s ... CE PH 4: 37

To: "Donald Larkin" <Donald.Larkin@CityofPaloAlto.org>;, "Sandra Brown" <Sandra. Brown@CityofPaloAlto.org>;, sidespinosa@gmail.com, gail.price3@gmail.com, city.council@cityofpalotlto.org, "Sue Dremann" <sdremann@paweekly.com>, "David DeBolt" <ddebolt@padailypost.com>, james. keene@cityofpaloalto.org

Page 1 of2

Your orders to "Blacklist" Paloaltofreepress.com Mr. Larkin has not "stumped" our growth ..... No' no to tWittering the WORLD!!!

0.80% Europe. 0.80% United Kingdom:m 0.80% Ireland U

0.80% Germany I.IIlIIII

4/5/2011

Page 2 of2

0.80% Turkey • 0.60% Lithuania Ii

0.400/oSpain -..ii... 0.40% Finland +3

0.40% Croatia Z

0.40% Japan ej

0.40% Denmark .m .~

0.20% Malaysia !,g

0.20% Serbia Ill!II

0.20% Ukraine ~

0.20% Thailand !i!i

0.20% Taiwan • 0.20% Vietnam II

0.20% Hungary --0.20% Canada I!J

el lugar adecuado en el momento oportuno

We don't print racy material, we just expose the "Naked" truth!!

Editor - Mark Petersen-Perez

4/5/2011

Minor. Beth

From: abjpd1@juno.com

Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:23 AM

Page 1 of 1

CITY Qf Pt\L I) I'll'O C . Cf1.'.Y Cl .. C" ... 'I"K~S.·'" ·.t .•... A.···

.Lf, . OFFICi

ff HAR 31 AM ':10

To:

Cc:

alphonse9947@gmail.com; dminkler@dminkler.com; jaxsalon@hotmail.com; Council, City

timothygray@sbcglobal.net

Subject: YouTube - BDS Flash Mob in Grand Central Station, NYC-Tear down the Apartheid Walls!

From: Jane Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:52 PM Subject: FW: YouTube - BDS Flash Mob in Grand Central Station, NYC To: List <14friendsofpalestine@gmai1.com>

and another BDS action, this time in New York. Enjoy! JJ

from Sherna Berger Gluck

THIS IS GREAT! Watch it/them.

http://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=myt23xhMEMk&feature=player embedded#at=243

End the Blockade of Gaza! Tear down the Apartheid Walls! End the Israeli collective pLmishment on the Palestinian people Free Palestine!

Support the Free Gaza movement & US Boat to Gaza break the siege on Gaza! http://www .FreeGaza.org http://www.UStoGaza.org

Support ISM volunteers in West Bank and Gaza Strip! http://www .palsolidarity.org

Donna Wallach donna@freegaza.org Skype: palestinewillbe (h) 408-293-4774 (cell) 408-569-6608

3/3112011

Page 1 of2

Minor, Beth CHY OF 'PALQ ALTO.CA CfTY CLERK'S OFfiCE

From: abjpd1@juno.com

Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:00 AM

To: t.ciampi@hotmail.com; tbarrett@scscourt.org; ifitch@crimelab.sccgov.org; Larkin, Donald; Council, City; ddebolt@padailypost.com; dprice@padailypost.com; Espinosa, Sid (internal); Yeh, Yiaway; Burns, Dennis; tnolan@nablaw.com; HRC; p-a-patriot@yahoogroups.com; ray.samuels@att.net; swagstaff@co.sanmateo.ca.us; mgreenwood@pdo.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; ladoris.cordell@sanjoseca.gov; sam.liccardo@sanjoseca.gov; depps@ado.sccgov.org; james.gleason@ido.sccgov.org; svdebug@newamericamedia.org; charissedomingo@gmail.com; timothygray@sbcglobal.net; Burger, Kelly; bsaucedo@pdo.sccgov.org; smanley@scscourt.org; Gsaldivar@scscourt.org; dryan@scscourt.org

Cc: jrosen@da.sccgov.org; loretta.king@usdoj.gov; gerald.engler@doj.ca.gov; aleksandr.kobzanets@ic.fbi.gov; nancy.brown@calbar.ca.gov; dhowe@da.sccgov.org; diane.curtis@calbar.ca.gov; alphonse9947@gmail.com

Subject: Re: PAPD admits to violating PC 141 (b) yet they are not prosecuted for doing so

3/30/2011

Hi Tony,

Thanks for continuing to seek justice in your case. If the police can falsely charge you--then they can do the same to any of us. By the way, did you advise DA Jeff Rosen that a very conservative judge--and former member of Mr. Rosen's office--ThangBarrett, dismissed the underlying criminal charges against you in this matter. I think this fact is critical information for you to make Mr. Rosen aware of.

Mr. Rosen was not the Santa Clara County DA at the time the charges against you were dismissed. I suggest you copy Mr. Rosen with articles from the Palo Alto Weekly---which covered your case very closely during the time frame the matter was before Judge Barrett. Don't stop until the truth is uncovered.

Sincerely,

Aram James

P.S. I have attached two links to articles re your case.

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story id=10299

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show story.php?id=19756

-Jeff Rosen Santa Clara County District Attorney:

Mr. Rosen,

I have previously provided you the attached evidence verifying that several members of the Palo Alto Police Department violated California Penal Code 141 (b).

3/3112011

Page 2 of2

Four taser probes were fired during the March 15,2008 incident. Only two probes were documented into evidence. Only one taser cartridge was documented into evidence. Manuel Temores, Kelly Burger and Natasha Powers with the knowledge of Alex Afanasiev removed two taser probes, a taser cartridge, taser wires, blast doors and AFIDS from the crime scene and destroyed them. The probe in the fence did not and could not have come from Burger's taser gun. The second firing which resulted in the taser probe lodging into the fence is mIssing from the videos. Obviously the video footage of the firing that resulted in the taser probe lodging into fence has been removed from the videos in violation of Penal Codes 132 and 134.

The evidence is undeniable, so the question is, why do you refuse to prosecute the culpable members of the Palo Alto Police Department for violating PC 141(b)? The officers have been caught red handed and have essentially admitted to violating the law, so why do we have this law on the books if you are not going to hold officers accountable when they violate it?

The P APD has informed me that they destroyed the evidence of the original taser video downloads that were placed onto their computer hard drive, however your office made a duplicate of that hard drive prior to the P APD destroying their own. It is possible for you to recover the original unadulterated taser videos, will you attempt to do that?

Tony Ciampi 650-248-1634

PC 141. (b) Any peace officer who knowingly, willfully, and intentionally alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, with specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter will be wrongfully produced as genuine or true upon any trial, proceeding, or inquiry whatever, is guilty of a felony punishable by two, three, or five years in the state prison.

( c) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under both this section and any other provision of law.

3/3112011

Minor, Beth

From:

Sent:

To:

editor@paloaltofreepress.com

Sunday, April 03, 2011 8:00 AM

Brown, Sandra

CITY OF PAlQ ALTO,CA CITY CLERK'S OFftlCE

f·f APR -4 An 1: i4

Page 1 of 1

Cc:

Subject:

Larkin, Donald; Espinosa, Sid; claude@ezran.com; Price, Gail; Council, City; Keene, James

Paloaltofreepress.com vs. City of Palo Alto et al.

Attachments: SandraBrownVoiceMail.mp3

Mr. Brown.

Re: Your Pending Retirement

Please don't retire before this matter is heard in Federal Court. I want you to appear in court as in the Victor Frost [panhandler] case in full uniform including your tazer, glock, nightstick, maze, lieutenant gold badge and service bars as I question you on protecting First Amendment Freedom and equal opportunity of the Press in light of the attached VM recording ....

It is hoped this filing will be simultaneously with the new city attorney's appointment [Molly Suzanne Stump] and her first day on the job ....

el lugar adecuado en el momento oportuno

We don't print racy material, we just expose the "Naked" truth!!

Editor - Mark Petersen-Perez

4/4/2011

Page 1 of2

Minor, Beth CITY Of PALO ALTQ.CA CITY CLERK'S OfFICE

From: editor@paloa/tofreepress.com II APR -4 Aft 1:51 Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 7:13 PM

To: Brown, Sandra

Cc: Burns, Dennis; Council, City; David DeBolt; Tony Ciampi; bshasty@laoir.com; dmteran@laoir.com; wwkatz@/aoir.com; r1 miller@laoir.com; c2/herna@/aoir.com; aaarias@laoir.com; jruhlin@/aoir.com; 10reUa.king@usdoj.gov; gerald.engler@doj.ca.gov

Subject: RE: Complaint of Rudeness and Intimidation #C 2010-006

There's just one big problem with your findings Ms. Brown .... the audio recording ..... To be released to the DO] in all do time .....

el lugar adecuado en el momento oportuno

We don't print racy material, we just expose the "Naked ll truth!!

Editor - Mark Petersen-Perez

-------- Original Message --------Subject: Complaint of Rudeness and Intimidation #C 2010-006 From: <editor@paloaltofreepress.com> Date: Fri, March 18, 2011 3:56 pm To: "Sandra Brown" <Sandra.Brown@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cc: "Dennis Burns" <Dennis.Burns@CityofPaloAlto.org>, city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, "David DeBolt" <ddebolt@padailypost.com>, "Tony Ciampi" <t.ciampi@hotmail.com>;, bshasty@laoir.com, dmteran@laoir.com, wwkatz@laoir.com, rlmiller@laoir.com, c2Iherna@laoir.com, aaarias@laoir.com, jruhlin@laoir.com, loretta.king@usdoj.gov, gerald.engler@doj.ca.gov

Ms. Sandra Brown:

Shame on you!!!!!

liThe officers described him as very angry, spitting, and "going off."

4/4/2011

Page 2 of2

I would think, if in fact, this outward display of anger, spitting, and "going off", if true, would have given rise to any peace officer on responsible grounds, too at the very least request that tt citizen calm down or face arrest for disturbing the peace. None of which occurred .....

This report is right out Ripley's Believe It Or Not!

How convenient there were no witnesses and in reality who are you going to beleive city council Me or Mr. Larkin, these police officers, or the Genanco / Miller team ... etc ...

Since June 18th of last year, I had approached Police Chief Dennis Burns and Lt. Sandra Brown and city council on multiple occasions requesting an up-date on this complaint.

Ms. Brown stated she had this complaint on her desk for almost a year. Again, the original complaint was filed on 06/18/2010.

The Genanco / Miller team have one thing correct and only one. "IPA recommends that it woulc be more . appropriate to categorize this complaint as unresolved".

Shame on you Ms; Brown knowingly having the outcome of this report for nearly a year on your desk with Chief Burns personally telling me someone would get back with me. What a team!!!

el lugar adecuado en el momento oportuno

We don't print racy material, we just expose the "Naked" truth!!

Editor - Mark Petersen-Perez

4/4/2011

Page 1 of2

Minor, Beth CITY OF PAl:.O}-\LTO.CA CrTY CLERK'S OFFICE

From: Gonsalves, Ronna

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 12:23 PM

To: Council, City

Cc: Grider, Donna

Subject: FW: Cancellation of Trip to Japan

Keiko has asked me to pass this along to you. A group of Palo Alto students were scheduled to go to Japan later this year. The trip has been officially canceled.

Thanks!

Ronna Jojola Gonsalves Deputy City Clerk City of Palo Alto 650-329-2267

From: nakajima keiko [mailto:tymm4@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 6:44 AM To: Gonsalves, Ronna Subject: FYI: cancellation of Trip to Japan

YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

Dear Parents and Students,

I received the following email from PAUSD this afternoon. After serious consideration and discussion, we have decided to cancel our 'Trip to Japan 2011." We cannot put our students at risk to travel with so many unknown factors.

Just three weeks ago, we were so looking forward to meeting with our new friends!

Then everything changed due to a chain of horrible disasters in Japan. I called the Tsuchiura Office twice this evening to discuss our situation. They are meeting in a few hours to discuss their visit to Palo Alto. It is likely that they will cancel their trip as well. They also have their own concerns.

4/4/2011

Our travel agent told me that our individual plane tickets are non-refundable,

however, he would only charge us $350 per ticket if we cancel by tomorrow. After

that, it will cost us more. Your check for $1,000 payable to me will be returned in full. Please understand that with or without your reply, your ticket will be cancelled by

tomorrow, 3/31.

I do not know how to express my sincere gratitude for your patience and support

during these past three weeks. I am very sad and your understanding is very much appreciated.

Arigato always,

Keiko

"The trip should be reconsidered on two levels. First, the nation is suffering and has made it a priority to conserve their resources for the Japanese people who are without drinking

water and basic supplies. It is very poor timing to send our students now to consume resources. Our State department has issued a statement saying "strongly urges U.S.

citizens to defer travel to Japan at this time and those in Japan should consider departing."

Secondly, the city ofTsuchiura is close enough to the nuclear plant and effects from

radiation to be of concern for our students who should not, unnecessarily, be exposed to danger. I will send an article to you that describes, in heart wrenching detail, the

continued earthquakes and deprivation in Japan. The potential for harm and the risk of

more powerful earthquakes when the students plan to be there outweigh the benefits.

I would share the article that I will send, in another email, with your students. They will want to be of help in any way you might plan with them to make an educational impact

and a learning experience from this natural chain of disasters. I am happy to discuss this

further with Michael and Sharon. Thank you, Keiko, for your dedication to your students in offering them this experience but this is not a good time. Ginni Davis"

4/4/2011

Page 2 of2

Minor, Beth

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Attachments:

Stephen Zyszkiewicz [steve@ragehip.com] Friday, April 01,2011 1 :10PM Council, City Please Allow Cannabis Dispensaries in Palo Alto

Sam ple_ Ordinance. pdf

bll Y Of PALD AUD. dA CrTY CLERK'S OFFtcQ:

I.JAPR -~AM 7:$5

Sample_Ordinance. pdf (111 KB)

Would the city council please consider allowing cannabis dispensaries in Palo Alto?

It is obvious from the 100+ dispensaries in San Jose that there is a need for dispensaries outside of San Jose. The ratio in San Jose is about 1 dispensary per 10,000 residents. The demand is from the city of San Jose but also all cities surrounding San Jose including as far and further than Palo Alto. It is clear that Palo Alto could be home for 3 to 7 dispensaries if allowed.

Why must medical cannabis patients drive all the way to San Jose for their medical cannabis?

I have lived in both Sunnyvale and Campbell and I can tell you it is not convenient to drive to San Francisco or Santa Cruz to pick up some medical cannabis, and that is with a car. With San Jose regulating dispensaries, it is time cities like Palo Alto allow and regulate them as well.

With the federal legal status, patients in Palo Alto are worried about coming out about their patient status. Medical cannabis has been legal in California since 1996, more than 14 years. The fact that cities are not allowing cannabis dispensqries seems a lot like Jim Crow to me.

This is legal in California, and is simply a zoning issue in that the city would need to zone for them.

What questions can I answer for you?

Why are dispensaries not currently allowed? If this is because other cities around Palo Alto do not have dispensaries, then I urge you to talk with surrounding cities so that cannabis dispensaries will be allowed in all cities.

I'm a board member of Americans for Safe Access - Silicon Valley. We are always available to help answer any questions.

I have attached the Americans for Safe Access Sample Ordinance.

Stephen Zyszkiewicz Treasurer Americans for Safe Access- Silicon Valley

1