Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200615plCC1 701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 06/15/2020 Document dates: 5/27/2020 – 6/3/2020 Set 1 of 6 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 7:41 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:June 1, 2020 Council Meeting, Item #6A: Early Retirement Incentive Program for Police Officers and Fire Fighters CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    June 1, 2020    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      JUNE 1, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6A  EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM FOR POLICE OFFICERS AND FIRE FIGHTERS      Dear City Council:    The staff report for this item (ID # 11382) says there is a need to eliminate 21 police officer and fire fighter positions; that 16 of the positions are currently filled; that there will be an attempt to use existing vacancies to place displaced employees; and that it is expected at minimum 14 would be subject to separation.    What is the number of police officers and the number fire fighters in each category?    Does "an attempt to displace existing employees" mean that there are vacancies in the Police Department and Fire Department command staffs that could be filled by promoting one of the "displaced" employees, or would the City Administration attempt to place these displaced employees in another department?    The most recent online Police Department Monthly Activity Report dated April 2020 shows that at that time there were 51 authorized positions at the rank of "Officer" of which 38 were filled.    The number of Police Officers in a prior year's Adopted Operating Budget Table of Organization was reduced from 51 t0 50, but the number of 2 authorized Officers used in the Monthly Activity Reports since then was never updated to the new number.    Thus, as of April 2020, there were 12 vacancies (50-38) in sworn officers below the rank of Lieutenant in the Police Department.    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Richard Almond <rjalmond@stanford.edu> Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 12:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council members‐‐    Despite the virus threat to the budget, there is still a billion‐dollar flood threat.  I urge you to support the  reconstruction of the Newell St Bridge, and subsequently the one at Chaucer.    Richard Almond, MD  1520 University Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301    Opinion pieces and other recommendations may not always be responded to quickly, due to time constraints, but they are appreciated. 2 Baumb, Nelly From:carl van wey <carl.vanwey@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 12:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:carl.vanwey@gmail.com; carl.vanwey@comcast.net Subject:Newell street bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I urge you to please approve the proposed Newell Street Bridge replacement.    thanks,  Carl Van Wey  1425 University ave  3 Baumb, Nelly From:Dr Ryu <drryu@earthlink.net> Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 12:20 PM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr Subject:TONIGHT'S MEETING AND VOTE. YES TO ITEM #7 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Manager and City Council,  Greetings to you and Thank you for all your hard work during this challenging time.    PLEASE Approve the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and to proceed with implementation steps.  Flood Control: The Newell Rd project is of vital importance for flood control on San Francisquito Creek. The Newell Road  bridge must be replaced before the Pope Chaucer bridge (the primary culprit that caused the flooding of Crescent Park  in 1998) can be replaced.  We have waited for this protection for 22 years, and discussions about Newell have been  going on since 2012.   We simply cannot have any more delays on this project.   It is a matter of safety for life and property for the more  that 1400 homes inundated in the SFC flood zone in Palo Alto.     Bridge Design: The proposed project takes into account extensive community input since discussions started in  2012.  The proposed design is modest and significantly smaller than the project proposed in 2012 while meeting the  minimum Caltrans requirements for modern bridge construction (two 14 foot lanes for cars/bikes). The design also  includes two 5 foot sidewalks for pedestrians. This is an excellent compromise taking into account multiple perspectives.   Budget: The cost of the Newell Road bridge project will be covered by Caltrans (88.5%) and Santa Clara Valley Water  District  (11.5%) as stated in the EIR.  There will be no budget impact for Palo Alto.      Traffic:  Some have expressed concerns about changes in traffic patterns on Newell Road from having a wider bridge.  Studies have indicated the contrary, but should such problems arise in the future, they can be addressed with  monitoring and traffic calming measures as needed.    THANK YOU and Please stay safe.  Susan Gaynon  1340 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto    4 Baumb, Nelly From:egas1044@aol.com Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 12:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: [CPNA] [CPNA Flooding] [ALERT] Crucial Council Consideration of Newell Rd Bridge Upgrade CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members - PLEASE, PLEASE approve the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project. Those of us who lived through the 1998 flood have been waiting 22 years to get to this point. This is one infrastructure project that should take PRIORITY in these coronavirus impacted times. This is a critical project and is absolutely necessary step toward the end goal of replacing the poor designed, and constricting bridge at Chaucer-Pope! We carried our young children out of the house through 2 feet swiftly moving water in 1998. We don't want to have to do this with our grandchildren! Eileen Skrabutenas 1044 Hamilton Avenue -----Original Message----- From: TC Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu> To: CPNA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com>; Len Materman <len@oneshoreline.org> Cc: Kevin Murray <kmurray@sfcjpa.org> Sent: Thu, May 28, 2020 11:50 am Subject: [CPNA] [CPNA Flooding] [ALERT] Crucial Council Consideration of Newell Rd Bridge Upgrade Friends, at this Monday's Palo Alto City Council meeting (June 1) an Action Item to approve the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project will be considered (Item #7 on the agenda, see this link). The staff recommendation is to approve the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and to authorize the City Manager to proceed with implementation steps. The Newell Road bridge upgrade is an absolutely crucial step prior to the Pope-Chaucer bridge upgrade so we can finally (after 22 years) avoid future flood damage of the magnitude we experienced in 1998. This message is to encourage you to attend the Monday Council meeting if possible to strongly support this project (via Zoom; Item # 7 is scheduled for 6:30 - 8:00 PM), or to write to the City Council members and City Manager to express your support -- you can email the Council and Manager at <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> and <citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org> respectively. I would suggest your support message include the following points: Flood Control: The Newell Rd project is of vital importance for flood control on San Francisquito Creek. The Newell Road bridge must be replaced before the Pope Chaucer bridge (the primary culprit that caused the flooding of Crescent Park in 1998) can be replaced. We have waited for this protection for 22 years, and discussions about Newell have been going on since 2012. We simply cannot have any more delays on this project. It is a matter of safety for life and property for the more that 1400 homes inundated in the SFC flood zone in Palo Alto. Bridge Design: The proposed project takes into account extensive community input since discussions started in 2012. The proposed design is modest and significantly smaller than the project proposed in 2012 while meeting the minimum Caltrans requirements for modern bridge construction (two 14 foot lanes for cars/bikes). The design also includes two 5 foot sidewalks for pedestrians. This is an excellent compromise taking into account multiple perspectives. Budget: The cost of the Newell Road bridge project will be covered by Caltrans (88.5%) and Santa Clara 5 Valley Water District (11.5%) as stated in the EIR. There will be no budget impact for Palo Alto. Traffic: Some have expressed concerns about changes in traffic patterns on Newell Road from having a wider bridge. Studies have indicated the contrary, but should such problems arise in the future, they can be addressed with monitoring and traffic calming measures as needed. For those who are new to Crescent Park since 1998, I have included a brief history below. Thanks in advance for your help. Tom R. A Brief History: As you may or may not know, in 1998 we had a major flood (peak flow rate 7200 cubic feet per second, the biggest on record dating back to the 19th century) from the San Francisquito Creek that caused $28M in damages to around 1400 homes. Many of us, especially those impacted by the flood, have been working for the past 22 years with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA, see http://sfcjpa.org/) and other agencies to upgrade the creek to make sure that another similar flood would not risk life and property. The main obstacle in the creek that caused most of the overflow was the Pope-Chaucer bridge, which was built in the late 1940s by the City of Palo Alto to a flow capacity that was only about 70% of what was needed. We cannot just increase the capacity of the P-C bridge however without increasing the capacity of the downstream reaches of the creek, working from the bay sequentially upstream until every part of the creek downstream of Pope-Chaucer would not be damaged by increasing its capacity. If you explore the SFCJPA website you can find the 20-year history that resulted in the current plan to upgrade the creek. We already have made significant progress by upgrading the Hwy 101 culvert for the creek and the reach from Hwy 101 to the bay. These projects provide protection in this reach to contain a 100-year flow rate plus a two-foot sea level rise anticipated from climate change. Increasing the capacity of the Newell Road bridge is a critical part of the next steps in the plan. Planning for the Newell upgrade has been under discussion for more than 10 years now, and the proposed plan would modernize the bridge to Caltrans standards while minimizing changes to the community around the bridge. The project takes advantage of a grant for funding from Caltrans and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to pay for the upgrade with no impact on the City of Palo Alto budget. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CPNA PA Flooding" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cpna-pa- flooding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cpna-pa-flooding/d669502f-64e4-967f-ebc3- 8b54cde471df%40stanford.edu. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park- pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park-pa/4c6920a7-be33-b1b9-56c6- d0b680b499d7%40stanford.edu. 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Jonathan Greene <jonathan.greene@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 2:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Road Bridge reconstruction CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    I understand you will consider approval of the Newell Road Bridge reconstruction project this Monday.    We strongly urge you to get this project going as soon as possible. Any further delay on this and other vital flood risk  mitigation projects puts numerous Palo Altans at risk.    Some points to keep in mind...    Flood Control: The Newell Rd project is of vital importance for flood control on San Francisquito Creek. The Newell Road  bridge must be replaced before the Pope Chaucer bridge (the primary culprit that caused the flooding of Crescent Park  in 1998) can be replaced.  We have waited for this protection for 22 years, and discussions about Newell have been  going on since 2012. We simply cannot have any more delays on this project.  It is a matter of safety for life and property  for the more that 1400 homes inundated in the SFC flood zone in Palo Alto.    Bridge Design: The proposed project takes into account extensive community input since discussions started in 2012.   The proposed design is modest and significantly smaller than the project proposed in 2012 while meeting the minimum  Caltrans requirements for modern bridge construction (two 14 foot lanes for cars/bikes). The design also includes two 5  foot sidewalks for pedestrians. This is an excellent compromise taking into account multiple perspectives.    Budget: The cost of the Newell Road bridge project will be covered by Caltrans (88.5%) and Santa Clara Valley Water  District  (11.5%) as stated in the EIR. There will be no budget impact for Palo Alto.    Traffic:  Some have expressed concerns about changes in traffic patterns on Newell Road from having a wider bridge.  Studies have indicated the contrary, but should such problems arise in the future, they can be addressed with  monitoring and traffic calming measures as needed.    Jonathan & Amy Greene    7 Baumb, Nelly From:Mel Kronick <melkronick@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 4:20 PM To:Council, City; citimgr@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Mel Kronick; Karen Kronick Subject:Newell Bridge Resolution CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As a very long time resident of Crescent Park (we moved here in 1976), I strongly support the approval of the  Newell Bridge resolution about the EIR when it comes to a vote next week. Our support is based on the  following considerations:     Flood Control: The Newell Rd project is of vital importance for flood control on San Francisquito Creek. The  Newell Road bridge must be replaced before the Pope Chaucer bridge (the primary culprit that caused the  flooding of Crescent Park in 1998) can be replaced.  We have waited for this protection for 22 years, and  discussions about Newell have been going on since 2012. We simply cannot have any more delays on this  project.  It is a matter of safety for life and property for the more that 1400 homes inundated in the SFC flood  zone in Palo Alto.    Bridge Design: The proposed project takes into account extensive community input since discussions started in  2012.  The proposed design is modest and significantly smaller than the project proposed in 2012 while meeting the  minimum Caltrans requirements for modern bridge construction (two 14 foot lanes for cars/bikes). The design also  includes two 5 foot sidewalks for pedestrians. This is an excellent compromise taking into account multiple perspectives.   Budget: The cost of the Newell Road bridge project will be covered by Caltrans (88.5%) and Santa Clara Valley Water  District  (11.5%) as stated in the EIR. There will be no budget impact for Palo Alto.     Traffic:  Some have expressed concerns about changes in traffic patterns on Newell Road from having a wider bridge.  Studies have indicated the contrary, but should such problems arise in the future, they can be addressed with  monitoring and traffic calming measures as needed.      We look forward to your affirmative vote on this matter.    With appreciation,  Mel and Karen Kronick    8 Baumb, Nelly From:TC Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu> Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 4:48 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Please Support the Newell Rd Bridge Replacement Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members,  I am writing in strong support of the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project to be discussed under Item 7 in Monday's  Council meeting agenda (June 1). I urge you to vote to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and authorize the  next steps to implement the project as quickly as possible. My Crescent Park home was flooded on February 3, 1998 at  2:00 AM and we have had five near‐miss flooding events since that horrific disaster 22 years ago. It is beyond time to  upgrade the Pope‐Chaucer bridge and the downstream weak spots in the creek, including the Newell Rd bridge, to  contain future high flows.  Flood Control: The Newell Rd project is of vital importance for flood control on San Francisquito Creek.  The Newell Road bridge must be replaced before the Pope Chaucer bridge (the primary culprit that  caused the flooding of Crescent Park in 1998) can be replaced.  We have waited for this protection for  22 years, and discussions about Newell have been going on since 2012. We simply cannot have any  more delays on this project.  It is a matter of safety for life and property for the more that 1400 homes  inundated in the SFC flood zone in Palo Alto in 1998.    Bridge Design: The proposed project takes into account extensive community input since discussions  started in 2012.  The proposed design is modest and significantly smaller than the project proposed in  2012 while meeting the minimum Caltrans requirements for modern bridge construction (two 14 foot  lanes for cars/bikes). The design also includes two 5 foot sidewalks for pedestrians. This is an excellent  compromise taking into account multiple perspectives.    Budget: The cost of the Newell Road bridge project will be covered by Caltrans (88.5%) and Santa Clara  Valley Water District  (11.5%) as stated in the EIR. There will be no budget impact for Palo Alto.      Traffic:  Some have expressed concerns about changes in traffic patterns on Newell Road from having a  wider bridge. Studies have indicated the contrary, but should such problems arise in the future, they can  be addressed with monitoring and traffic calming measures as needed.    We are finally within reach of making San Francisquito Creek much safer for Crescent Park residents (a brief history is  appended below). Please help carry this project through this next step now.  Thank you all for your personal commitments to Palo Alto governance during these difficult times brought on by the  coronavirus pandemic! I know your plates are very full.  Best Regards, Tom Rindfleisch  31 Tevis Place  Palo Alto, CA 94301  9 A Brief History:  As you may or may not know, in 1998 we had a major flood (peak flow rate 7200 cubic feet per second,  the biggest on record dating back to the 19th century) from the San Francisquito Creek that caused $28M (now  estimated to have been $40M) in damages to around 1400 homes. Many of us, especially those impacted by the flood,  have been working for the past 22 years with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA, see  http://sfcjpa.org/) and other agencies to upgrade the creek to make sure that another similar flood would not risk life  and property. The main obstacle in the creek that caused most of the overflow was the Pope‐Chaucer bridge, which was  built in the late 1940s by the City of Palo Alto to a flow capacity that was only about 70% of what was needed. We  cannot just increase the capacity of the P‐C bridge however without increasing the capacity of the downstream reaches  of the creek, working from the bay sequentially upstream until every part of the creek downstream of Pope‐Chaucer  would not be damaged by increasing its capacity.     If you explore the SFCJPA website you can find the 20‐year history that resulted in the current plan to upgrade the creek.  We already have made significant progress by upgrading the Hwy 101 culvert for the creek and the reach from Hwy 101  to the bay. These projects provide protection in this reach to contain a 100‐year flow rate plus a two‐foot sea level rise  anticipated from climate change. Increasing the capacity of the Newell Road bridge is a critical part of the next steps in  the plan. Planning for the Newell upgrade has been under discussion for more than 10 years now, and the proposed plan  would modernize the bridge to Caltrans standards while minimizing changes to the community around the bridge. The  project takes advantage of a grant for funding from Caltrans and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to pay for the  upgrade with no impact on the City of Palo Alto budget.  10 Baumb, Nelly From:opmed@earthlink.net Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 5:14 PM To:Council, City Cc:opmed@earthlink.net Subject:From Michael Gaynon Re: The proposal for replacing the Newell Road bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council, I am a 41 year resident of Palo Alto. I want to see long delayed flood control finally put in place, more than two decades after the serious flood we experienced during the El Nino year of 1998, due to the poorly designed Pope Chaucer bridge. This flood caused considerable damage to our property and to that of many others in our city. It may recur, if this choke point along the San Francisquito creek is not eliminated. There has been much too much delay in correcting this problem. The Pope Chaucer bridge should be replaced as soon as possible, but this will require replacement of the Newell Road bridge. The time to act is now. I therefore support the following statement:   Flood Control: The Newell Rd project is of vital importance for flood control on San Francisquito Creek. The Newell Road bridge must be replaced before the Pope Chaucer bridge (the primary culprit that caused the flooding of Crescent Park in 1998) can be replaced. We have waited for this protection for 22 years, and discussions about Newell have been going on since 2012. We simply cannot have any more delays on this project. It is a matter of safety for life and property for the more that 1400 homes inundated in the SFC flood zone in Palo Alto. Bridge Design: The proposed project takes into account extensive community input since discussions started in 2012. The proposed design is modest and significantly smaller than the project proposed in 2012 while meeting the minimum Caltrans requirements for modern bridge construction (two 14 foot lanes for cars/bikes). The design also includes two 5 foot sidewalks for pedestrians. This is an excellent compromise taking into account multiple perspectives. Budget: The cost of the Newell Road bridge project will be covered by Caltrans (88.5%) and Santa Clara Valley Water District (11.5%) as stated in the EIR. There will be no budget impact for Palo Alto. Traffic: Some have expressed concerns about changes in traffic patterns on Newell Road from having a wider bridge. Studies have indicated the contrary, but should such problems arise in the future, they can be addressed with monitoring and traffic calming measures as needed. Sincerely, Michael Gaynon 1340 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301  11 Baumb, Nelly From:A Woo <aliwoo49@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 5:36 PM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr Subject:VOTE YES TO ITEM #7 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Manager and City Council, Greetings to you and Thank you for all your hard work during this challenging time. PLEASE Approve the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and to proceed with implementation steps. Flood Control: The Newell Rd project is of vital importance for flood control on San Francisquito Creek. The Newell Road bridge must be replaced before the Pope Chaucer bridge (the primary culprit that caused the flooding of Crescent Park in 1998) can be replaced. We have waited for this protection for 22 years, and discussions about Newell have been going on since 2012. We simply cannot have any more delays on this project. It is a matter of safety for life and property for the more that 1400 homes inundated in the SFC flood zone in Palo Alto. Bridge Design: The proposed project takes into account extensive community input since discussions started in 2012. The proposed design is modest and significantly smaller than the project proposed in 2012 while meeting the minimum Caltrans requirements for modern bridge construction (two 14 foot lanes for cars/bikes). The design also includes two 5 foot sidewalks for pedestrians. This is an excellent compromise taking into account multiple perspectives. Budget: The cost of the Newell Road bridge project will be covered by Caltrans (88.5%) and Santa Clara Valley Water District (11.5%) as stated in the EIR. There will be no budget impact for Palo Alto. Traffic: Some have expressed concerns about changes in traffic patterns on Newell Road from having a wider bridge. Studies have indicated the contrary, but should such problems arise in the future, they can be addressed with monitoring and traffic calming measures as needed. THANK YOU. Alice Woo 8 Regent Pl, PA 12 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Lipshutz <roblipshutz@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 5:41 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Newell Chaucer Bridge EIR CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good evening,    I urge the City Council to approve the Final EIR for the Newel Bridge Replacement Project for the following reasons:  Flood Control: The Newell Rd project is of vital importance for flood control on San Francisquito Creek. The Newell Road  bridge must be replaced before the Pope Chaucer bridge (the primary culprit that caused the flooding of Crescent Park  in 1998) can be replaced.  We have waited for this protection for 22 years, and discussions about Newell have been  going on since 2012. We simply cannot have any more delays on this project.  It is a matter of safety for life and property  for the more that 1400 homes inundated in the SFC flood zone in Palo Alto.    Bridge Design: The proposed project takes into account extensive community input since discussions started in  2012.  The proposed design is modest and significantly smaller than the project proposed in 2012 while meeting the  minimum Caltrans requirements for modern bridge construction (two 14 foot lanes for cars/bikes). The design also  includes two 5 foot sidewalks for pedestrians. This is an excellent compromise taking into account multiple perspectives.   Budget: The cost of the Newell Road bridge project will be covered by Caltrans (88.5%) and Santa Clara Valley Water  District  (11.5%) as stated in the EIR. There will be no budget impact for Palo Alto.      Traffic:  Some have expressed concerns about changes in traffic patterns on Newell Road from having a wider bridge.  Studies have indicated the contrary, but should such problems arise in the future, they can be addressed with  monitoring and traffic calming measures as needed.    Thank you for moving this process forward.    Respectfully  Robert Lipshutz  970 Palo Alto Ave.    13 Baumb, Nelly From:Ted Mill <tm11842@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 8:07 PM To:Council, City Cc:Ted Mill Subject:Newell RD Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council Members    I  lived through the flooding of 98 and have vivid images of Newell Rd as a fast moving river. By some magic  our house was one the few on Arcadia that sustained almost no damage, other than a steaming flowing into  our garage that happened to be down stream of our house!    I urge all council members to approve the plans for replacement of the old and narrow bridge joining PA with  the unincorporated section of San Mateo county. Not only is a modern, wide bridge a necessity, it also would  measurably reduce accidents as vehicle slowly cross the creek with great trepidation owing to narrow lanes,  poor visibility and not a few energetic drivers.    Sincerely    Theodore Mill  Arcadia PLace  14 Baumb, Nelly From:Phyllis Sherlock <phyllissherlock2@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 9:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Bridge. Please Pass! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    We then NEED to get on with the Chaucer Bridge!!!  Which caused extensive flooding in my home. 22 YEARS ago!!!  And higher and higher flood insurance payments since then!!!!!  15 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy Wong <nancywong8@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 9:38 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:RE: Newell Chaucer Bridge EIR CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good evening,    I urge the City Council to approve the Final EIR for the Newell Bridge Replacement Project for the following reasons:  Flood Control: The Newell Rd project is of vital importance for flood control on San Francisquito Creek. The Newell Road  bridge must be replaced before the Pope Chaucer bridge (the primary culprit that caused the flooding of Crescent Park  in 1998) can be replaced.  We have waited for this protection for 22 years, and discussions about Newell have been  going on since 2012. We simply cannot have any more delays on this project.  It is a matter of safety for life and property  for the more that 1400 homes inundated in the SFC flood zone in Palo Alto.    Bridge Design: The proposed project takes into account extensive community input since discussions started in  2012.  The proposed design is modest and significantly smaller than the project proposed in 2012 while meeting the  minimum Caltrans requirements for modern bridge construction (two 14 foot lanes for cars/bikes). The design also  includes two 5 foot sidewalks for pedestrians. This is an excellent compromise taking into account multiple perspectives.   Budget: The cost of the Newell Road bridge project will be covered by Caltrans (88.5%) and Santa Clara Valley Water  District  (11.5%) as stated in the EIR. There will be no budget impact for Palo Alto.      Traffic:  Some have expressed concerns about changes in traffic patterns on Newell Road from having a wider bridge.  Studies have indicated the contrary, but should such problems arise in the future, they can be addressed with  monitoring and traffic calming measures as needed.    Thank you in advance for moving this process forward.    Respectfully,  Nancy Wong  970 Palo Alto Ave.    16 Baumb, Nelly From:Ellen Smith <ef44smith@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 29, 2020 11:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Road Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We urge you to approve and accept the EIR for replacement of the Newell Road Bridge and authorize the City Manager to proceed with implementation. It has been 22 years since our basement filled with water and many of our neighbors suffered far worse damage in February 1988. Now that the Highway 101 improvements have been completed, the next step in improving flood management must be the Newell Road bridge. Only then can the upstream Pope Chaucer bridge - the bridge that caused the floodingand continues to endanger us - be safely replaced. It is long past time to take this action. We believe the proposed project is a reasonable compromise that can achieve the needed levels of flood protection and traffic management. Most important, it meets the minimum Caltrans requirements for modern bridge construction (two 14 foot lanes for cars/bikes) as well as providing two 5-foot sidewalks for pedestrian. Since the cost of the project will be covered by Caltrans (88.5%) and Santa Clara Valley Water District (11.5%) as stated in the EIR, there will be no budget impact for Palo Alto. Finally, we believe the bridge is part of a necessary corridor between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto that is important to residents on both sides of the creek. 17 Ellen and Dennis Smith 1469 Dana Ave 18 Baumb, Nelly From:Janie Farn <janie.farn@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 29, 2020 11:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Road Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear council members,    If doing nothing to the Newell Road bridge is not acceptable, then will a new bike/pedestrian only bridge be acceptable?  That will take care of the flood and traffic issue!    I'm among the residents near Newell Road that witness the increased traffic before Covid‐19, and the daily speeding  cars. Crescent Park residents should have a say in how much traffic can be allowed to go through their neighborhood. If  the city builds a wider traffic friendly bridge, then it'll become the traffic divert route for EPA. The planned high rise  development across the creek is not only welcoming but will unavoidably bring more traffic into this area. Sand Hill  Property is a welcome partner for EPA.  Who knows how many high rise developments will take place over the next ten  to twenty years.  A larger bridge will just encourage more development and more traffic.    I think City of Palo Alto should not take proactive measures to increase the traffic, and then react only after residents  complain. Would like have your support for NO on new wider bridge!    Janie Farn    19 Baumb, Nelly From:betty tse <btse04@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 29, 2020 3:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project- vote to support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please see below my message to the City Manager.     Thanks!  Sent from my iPhone    Begin forwarded message:  From: btse04@hotmail.com  Date: May 29, 2020 at 2:48:33 PM PDT  To: citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project  Dear City Manager:    We hope this message finds you well!    We are residents of Crescent Park and are writing to strongly support the subject project. There are  many reasons for our support, and the primary one is to prevent future floods.    Thanks for your consideration!  betty and gabe kralik    Sent from my iPhone  20 Baumb, Nelly From:TC Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 12:02 PM To:Janie Farn; CPNA Cc:Ben Ball; Pamela Wagner; Irving Rappaport; Vanessa Belland; David Dorosin; Jeff & Linda Reese; Kathryn Spector; Euginia Merken; Jim Lewis; Dave Yen; dpudvay@yahoo.com; bowu0110; Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Re: [CPNA Flooding] [ALERT] Crucial Council Consideration of Newell Rd Bridge Upgrade CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  On 5/30/2020 11:17 AM, Janie Farn wrote:  At Monday's June 1 meeting, the City will decide whether to approve the two‐lane car bridge, which I  think will increase traffic between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto and will encourage further development  of high‐rise apartments with direct access to Palo Alto via Newell Road.  The only other viable option at  this time is Alternative 1, which is a one‐lane car bridge controlled by traffic lights on either  side.  Alternative 1 is most similar to the current traffic situation, but also fixes the flooding problem.    If you don't want the City to build a two‐lane car bridge, then please join us to sign a petition supporting  Build Alternative 1.  Due to shelter in place, instead of getting real signatures, please reply to me with  your full name and home address and I will present these on Monday as residents supporting a group  petition for Alternative 1.  Friends, to expand on Xenia's message about Caltrans funding being predicated on adoption of Alternative 2 for the  Newell Road bridge, Ms Farn's argument about unworkable traffic problems unavoidably resulting from approving  Alternative 2 are bogus. If any of you have driven through the Palo Alto High School parking lot, you will have  encountered sharp traffic bumps to protect student walkways. Such sharp bumps would be very effective, without  requiring traffic signals or stop signs, to cause traffic to slow to nearly a full stop upon entering and exiting the proposed  bridge should that be necessary. Those of us putting flood protection priority above the fruitless 10 years of discussions  over what should happen to the Newell Road bridge believe the proposed Alternative 2 is a totally fair and viable  compromise between the stakeholder communities (City of Palo Alto, City of East Palo Alto, Crescent Park flood zone  residents, and Edgewood/Newell neighbors).  In the words of Caltrans from the FEIR (Page 7: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FINDING OF NO  SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) ‐‐ (Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project)):  The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has determined that Build Alternative 2 will have  no significant impact on the human environment. This FONSI is based on the attached Environmental  Assessment (EA) which has been independently evaluated by Caltrans and determined to adequately  and accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project and  appropriate mitigation measures. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an  Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Caltrans takes full responsibility for the accuracy,  scope,  and content of the attached EA (and other documents as appropriate).  The environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable Federal  environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by Caltrans pursuant to 23 USC  327 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 23, 2016 and executed by FHWA and  Caltrans.  21 __________________________________  Caltrans District Director  For the record, we in the San Francisquito Creek flood zone only want a decision NOW about the replacement of Newell  Road bridge, whatever the design, so that an essential replacement for the Pope‐Chaucer bridge can move forward as  expeditiously as possible. The P‐C bridge is the ultimate source of danger to life and property in the flood zone.  Tom Rindfleisch  31 Tevis Place  22 Baumb, Nelly From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 12:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:6/1/20 Agenda Item 7: Newell Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I write to urge the Council to adopt and approve the “Resolution Certifying  the Final Environmental Impact Report ….”;  the “Record of Land Use Action ….”; and the “Amendment” to the design  contract regarding the replacement of the Newell Bridge.  This step is key to the efforts over the past 22 years to  prevent a reoccurrence of the 1998 flooding of San Francisquito Creek that caused tens of millions of dollars damages  and disrupted the Crescent Park neighborhood and many other area of the city and beyond.   Although the immediate  cause of the flooding back then was due to the obstruction of the creek from the Pope‐Chaucer bridge, it is necessary to  correct an equally threating obstruction caused by the current Newell bridge before the Pope‐Chaucer bridge can be  rebuilt.  The vast majority of residents in Crescent Park have been calling for years for this to be done, and are more  than tired of waiting for the solution.  It is inevitable that a 1998‐level or greater flood event will occur, which will not  only cause even greater damage but will risk lives as well.    23 Baumb, Nelly From:William Butler <butlerwd@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 1:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I’m a concerned about the Newell bridge. I live on Edgewood Drive, just north of Newell.       It should be the minimum needed to upgrade for flooding. That is why I favor Alternative 1.     Please vote for this alternative and not any of the larger and more costly alternatives. Here are my reasons:   Build Alternative 1 is has been fully vetted by the EIR process and can rapidly move forward.  Build Alternative 1 satisfies the concerns of our neighbors for whom mitigating flooding is a primary concern and  neighbors for whom mitigating traffic and protecting the lives of school children who use Newell Road as a Safe  Route to School is a primary concern.  Build Alternative 1 is superior on every criteria outlined as objectives in the Draft EIR to Build Alternative 2A  which is the option advocated by PA city staff  Traffic data presented in the Draft EIR: o The TJKM 2019 traffic reported a 79% increase in peak PM traffic over the Newell Road Bride over the  prior four years o According to the TJKM 2019 report, Build Alternative 2A will increase traffic over the Newell Road Bridge  by 2%‐5% compared to doing nothing. o The TJKM traffic forecast did not consider the impact of Waze, Google maps or other traffic navigation  apps and the impact they have on local traffic.  o The TJKM traffic forecast did not consider Stanford’s development plans that have the support of PA city  council.  o The TJKM traffic forecast did not consider the high rise apartment development that has been approved  by EPA.  Bridge Design: o In 2012 PA city staff proposed building a new Newell Road bridge that was 80 feet long and 45 feet  wide. o In 2020 PA city staff is proposing building a new Newell Road bridge that is 80 feet long and 41.5 feet  wide.  This is Build Alternative 2A that was supported on May 7th by PA ARB.  Funding of the bridge o The Draft EIR did not list funding as a criteria that would be evaluated during the EIR process. o PA staff has never presented cost or preliminary budget figures for any of the Build Alternatives  presented in the Draft EIR. o PA staff has had eight years to find ways to fund Build Alternative 1 but haven’t presented any data on  what they did or didn’t do to secure funding for this alternative. o The Caltrans Grant referenced below by Tom R is “earmarked” money going back to the 2009 Federal  Stimulus Plan to fund infrastructure projects.  It’s unclear if Caltrans will be able to fund this project  given the current state budget deficit.   Thank you,  24 William and Anne Butler  1444 Edgewood Dr      Sent from my iPhone  Redacted 25 Baumb, Nelly From:William Reller <wereller@664gilman.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 2:29 PM To:Council, City; citymag@citypaloalto.org Cc:Tom C. Rindfleisch; Janie Farn Subject:Newell Road Brige Replacement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Please approve, let’s get on with it!    Please do not consider a one lane alternative, ridiculous!      Sent from my iPad  26 Baumb, Nelly From:brucecrocker <Bruce.c@pitango-us.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 3:03 PM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr; crocker1@pacbell.net Subject:Newell Road Bridge approval CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please approve the proposed Newell Road Bridge replacement (EIR and Implementation) in the two lane plan as  recommended.  We understand this is a crucial next step to replacing the Pope‐Chaucer Bridge which caused severe  flooding and damage at our house in 1998 (1250 Hamilton Ave).  We have all waited long enough to solve this risk to  property and life in our city.      Thanks you, Suzanne and Bruce Crocker    Bruce E Crocker Bruce E Crocker      Bruce.c@pitango‐us.com   Redacted 27 Baumb, Nelly From:Pitch Johnson <pitch@assetman.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 3:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:janie.farn@gmail.com; Ben Ball Subject:Newell Road Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Members of the Palo Alto City Council    Ladies and Gentlemen,  I support rebuilding the present Newell Road Bridge for safety, but I recommend you authorize a smaller bridge.  The  proposed larger bridge would make Newell Road a major automobile thoroughfare between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto  and lower the quality of life for those of us living nearby. It would make Newell Road and Woodland Avenue less safe  because of the heavier traffic.   An increase in the number of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, however, would make the bridge safer for a significant  number of people without increasing the automobile traffic.    Sincerely yours,  Franklin P. Johnson, Jr.  Edgewood Drive  Palo Alto    Sent from Mail for Windows 10    28 Baumb, Nelly From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 3:13 PM To:Janie Farn; CPNA; TC Rindfleisch Cc:Ben Ball; Pamela Wagner; Irving Rappaport; Vanessa Belland; David Dorosin; Jeff & Linda Reese; Kathryn Spector; Euginia Merken; Jim Lewis; Dave Yen; dpudvay@yahoo.com; bowu0110; Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Re: [CPNA] Re: [CPNA Flooding] [ALERT] Crucial Council Consideration of Newell Rd Bridge Upgrade CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am sure the houses next to the bridge or on Newell Rd nearest the bridge will be impacted as the rest of us in Crescent Park are not likely to be. I live near a Church and was impacted by their building but few other on the same street were; even the neighbors on the other side of the Church were not impacted as I was. Location, location, location. I would dismiss what Caltrans says about "no significant impact" as that is what is always said about every development in Palo Alto. You must read the findings and review the different traffic study reports (always wrong)in the EIR to see what measures were used to arrive at the no significant impact statement.....many times it is outrageous. That said I am sure the new Bridge will be built. It will help control floods. One way to control traffic would be to have practical speed bumps like they have @ the San Antonio shopping Center near Trader Joe's. You either slow down or you ruin your car. The speed bumps built by PAPW are a joke and are altered if they slow down traffic too much or someone complains! It only makes sense the traffic with a wider bridge will increase as who wants to sit through the traffic lights at Woodland and University esp. during commute traffic? I can't sign Ms. Farn's petition but I would ask that we all respect her viewpoint and have a civil discussion. In the end she will likely be right about the traffic increasing, so let's work towards a new Bridge and a way to not have a new speedway. I am sure it is possible. PS: the Church and I were able to work out the issues satisfactory. Everyone just needed to listen and be aware of the unforeseen impacts of a proposed project. It took a long year but was successful. thank you Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM Medical Case Management 29 On Saturday, May 30, 2020, 12:01:48 PM PDT, TC Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu> wrote: On 5/30/2020 11:17 AM, Janie Farn wrote: At Monday's June 1 meeting, the City will decide whether to approve the two-lane car bridge, which I think will increase traffic between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto and will encourage further development of high- rise apartments with direct access to Palo Alto via Newell Road. The only other viable option at this time is Alternative 1, which is a one-lane car bridge controlled by traffic lights on either side. Alternative 1 is most similar to the current traffic situation, but also fixes the flooding problem. If you don't want the City to build a two-lane car bridge, then please join us to sign a petition supporting Build Alternative 1. Due to shelter in place, instead of getting real signatures, please reply to me with your full name and home address and I will present these on Monday as residents supporting a group petition for Alternative 1. Friends, to expand on Xenia's message about Caltrans funding being predicated on adoption of Alternative 2 for the Newell Road bridge, Ms Farn's argument about unworkable traffic problems unavoidably resulting from approving Alternative 2 are bogus. If any of you have driven through the Palo Alto High School parking lot, you will have encountered sharp traffic bumps to protect student walkways. Such sharp bumps would be very effective, without requiring traffic signals or stop signs, to cause traffic to slow to nearly a full stop upon entering and exiting the proposed bridge should that be necessary. Those of us putting flood protection priority above the fruitless 10 years of discussions over what should happen to the Newell Road bridge believe the proposed Alternative 2 is a totally fair and viable compromise between the stakeholder communities (City of Palo Alto, City of East Palo Alto, Crescent Park flood zone residents, and Edgewood/Newell neighbors). In the words of Caltrans from the FEIR (Page 7: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) -- (Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project)): The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has determined that Build Alternative 2 will have no significant impact on the human environment. This FONSI is based on the attached Environmental Assessment (EA) which has been independently evaluated by Caltrans and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Caltrans takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the attached EA (and other documents as appropriate). The environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by Caltrans pursuant to 23 USC 327 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 23, 2016 and executed by FHWA and Caltrans. __________________________________ Caltrans District Director For the record, we in the San Francisquito Creek flood zone only want a decision NOW about the replacement of Newell Road bridge, whatever the design, so that an essential replacement for the Pope-Chaucer bridge can move forward as expeditiously as possible. The P-C bridge is the ultimate source of danger to life and property in the flood zone. Tom Rindfleisch 31 Tevis Place -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park- Redacted 30 pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crescent-park-pa/995853cf-0b90-d390-e25e-c42019c6db2e%40stanford.edu . 31 Baumb, Nelly From:Margaret Feuer <portulaca24@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 3:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vote Alternative 2 on Newell Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Members of the Council,     22 years ago, 1,400 homes in Crescent Park were flooded. Ours  was among them although, with only 5" of disgusting sewage and sludge   in our basement, we were considerably luckier than most of our neighbors.   The culprit was the inadequate Chaucer‐Pope bridge. Fixing this bridge   cannot be considered unless the Newell St. bridge is fixed first.    We and our neighbors are counting on you to take this first essential step  towards protecting our personal safety and property. The Newell Street  Bridge is fully financed by Caltrans and the Santa Clara Valley Water   District only if Alternative 2 is approved.    Thank you for thoughtfully considering this project. We look forward to   your "Yes" vote on Alternative 2.    Sincerely,  Margaret and Michael Feuer  1310 University Ave.  32 Baumb, Nelly From:Carol A. Munch <camunch2@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 4:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Street Bridge - on City Council meeting Calendar for JUNE 1, 2020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,     At your meeting on Monday, June 1 I strongly urge you to approve Alternative 2 of the Newell Street Bridge. We have  waited more than long enough (22 years) and have discussed the alternatives thoroughly enough (since 2012) to move  ahead.  There will always be some citizens who live in the neighborhood who oppose more than a one lane bridge, but  neither East Palo Alto nor Cal Trans will approve of that version.  Without the approval of those governmental bodies we  will not be able to get to the next, and even more important, segment of the flood control measures required to prevent  another flood of the magnitude of the one in 1998.  There are traffic calming measures that may be taken to slow traffic  coming down Newell which will address most of the neighbors’ concerns.  Please agree to proceed with Alternative 2  with two lanes.  The funding of Alternative 2 will be covered by Cal Trans and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.     Thank you!    Carol A. Munch  1125 Hamilton Ave.    33 Baumb, Nelly From:Christy Telch <gforman806@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 4:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Road Bridge Upgrade CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members, I am writing to urge you to approve the Final EIR for the Newell Bridge Replacement Project and for the project to proceed as quickly as possible. We were flooded in 1998 and it took one year to restore our home. We have waited for 22 years for flood protection and both the City Council and City Manager should move this forward as fast as possible. Respectfully, Christy Telch 1130 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto 94301 34 Baumb, Nelly From:Amy Kacher <amyewardwell@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 4:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please approve the bridge design CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello  I am writing to ask you to approve the EIP and the proposed Newell bridge design. It’s long overdue and I hope it can  move ahead.  Amy Kacher  Dana Ave  Sent from my iPhone  35 Baumb, Nelly From:Jim Heeger <jim@heegerassociates.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 7:49 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Jim Heeger; Daryl Messinger Subject:Newell Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To City Council Members and City Manager,    We are Palo Alto residents who live off Newell on Arcadia Place.     We are writing regarding the Newell replacement bridge. It is time to make a decision and move forward with our  neighboring communities. We urge you to support Alternative 2.     Jim Heeger & Daryl Messinger  1410 Arcadia Place    Jim Heeger – personal email jim@HeegerAssociates.com   Redacted 36 Baumb, Nelly From:Colleen Crangle <crangle@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 8:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Alternative 2 for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council:     I am writing to express my strong support for Alternative 2 for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). It is beyond time to get this project done and to move on to the bridge at Chaucer. I was one of the households affected by the 1998 flood and have waited patiently for this compromise to be worked out for Newell.     Sincerely,    Colleen Crangle  60 Kirby Place    ‐‐   Colleen E Crangle, PhD   www.linkedin.com/in/colleencrangle/  https://www.faultlinepress.com/    37 Baumb, Nelly From:Farzi R. <seflog@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 8:24 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:In support of alternative 2 for Newell Bridge project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council members,    I live near Duveneck school on Channing. Our household supports the alternative 2 for Newell road bridge replacement  project.  I hope that the city votes in favor of the  projects so that we can move forward with the related flood mitigation  steps afterward.    Best,  Farzi Rau  1820 Channing    Sent from my iPad  38 Baumb, Nelly From:Meihong Wang <zjuwangmeihong@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 9:03 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Supporting Alternative 2 for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hey there,     Moving forward with Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project (alternative 2) is very much needed for the community  and flood control.  Just want to send out this email to support this project.     Thanks!!    ‐‐   Meihong Wang    39 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Blumenthal <patblumenthal7@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 11:17 PM To:Council, City CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I wish to support the staff proposal for a two lane bridge across the creek at Newell Road. I have lived on Newell Road for 35 years and believe this proposal to be the safest and most appropriate alternative. Some of my neighbors from Crescent Park have been encouraging us to send emails to the Council opposing this plan in favor of a one lane option. They say the one lane option will cut down on traffic but I think they really want to limit traffic flowing from EPA into PA. I do not support this xenophobic position. I encourage the Council to have the courage to support the staff proposal for a wider two lane bridge with bike lanes and sidewalks. Thanks, Pat Blumenthal From: Xenia Hammer <xhammer@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 10:01 PM To: Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Newell Road Bridge - in support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Fine and Council Members, I am writing in strong support for the Newell Road Bridge Project. I urge you to certify the EIR and proceed with this project as soon as possible. Flood Control: This project is of vital importance for flood control on SF Creek. The Newell Road Bridge needs to be replaced before the Pope Chaucer Bridge can be replaced. We have waited for this since the 1998 flood; discussions about Newell have been going on since 2012, and we simply cannot have any more delays on this project. It is a matter of safety for thousands of people in the flood zone in Palo Alto. Bridge Design: the proposed project takes into account extensive community input since discussions started in 2012. The proposed design is significantly smaller than the project proposed in 2012 while meeting the minimum Caltrans requirements (two 14 foot lanes for cars/bikes). The design also includes two 5 foot sidewalks for pedestrians. This is an excellent compromise taking into account multiple perspectives. Budget: The cost of Newell Road Bridge project is covered by Caltrans (88.5%) and Santa Clara County Water District (11.5%) as stated in the EIR. No budget impact for Palo Alto. Traffic: there are some reasonable concerns about traffic on Newell Road. Please address those with monitoring and traffic calming measures as needed. In summary, please approve and proceed with this project as quickly as possible. Thank you, Xenia Hammer Redacted Palo Alto 1 Baumb, Nelly From:david bower <bowser2u@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 8:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Newell Bridge Alternative 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I'm writing to encourage the council to approve the EIR for the Newell Bridge replacement project.  This  project was thoroughly explored by staff and the recommended Alternative #2 will move the city one step  closer to removing infrastructure in the creek that impedes water flow and causes flooding.    David Bower   868 Boyce Avenue  Palo Alto, CA  2 Baumb, Nelly From:harve citrin <citrin@igc.org> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 10:55 AM To:Council, City Cc:Harve Citrin CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Support alt 1 for newell bridge or scrap it altogether  3 Baumb, Nelly From:John Armstrong <johnajr78@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 11:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Road Bridge replacement project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    We support building a smaller bridge (Bridge Alternative 1 – a single lane car bridge with bike lanes and sidewalks). We object to the larger bridge.    Regards,  John and Polly Armstrong    4 Baumb, Nelly From:carial2004@gmail.com Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 11:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:My opinion on Newell Road Bridge replacement project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,     As a Palo Alto resident living close to the Newell Road Bridge, I am writing to you to support a smaller bridge plan with a  single lane car bridge with bike lanes and sidewalks. The small bridge brings less noice/traffic and preserves the  neighborhood better.    Thank you!    Yinqing  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Laura Stark <laura.s.stark@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 11:38 AM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project - support for Alternative 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As a resident of Crescent Park in the flood zone, I am writing to provide my strong support for Alternative 2 for the  Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).     Regards,  Laura      ‐‐   Laura Stark  645 Hale St. Palo Alto, CA  94301  6 Baumb, Nelly From:lois shore <loisshore@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 11:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Road Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I support the plan to replace The Newell Road bridge.This upgrade is an absolutely crucial to control flooding. Thank you, Lois Shore 507 Jackson Dr. Palo Alto 7 Baumb, Nelly From:Kristin Davis <kd@heavenandearthgardens.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 12:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Street Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I live in the Willows neighborhood (220 O’Connor Street) and would like formally vehemently object to the destruction  of the existing trees on Woodland and surrounding streets, in order to build a large new bridge.  I understand there is an option for a smaller bridge and would like to support that measure as an alternative.  Thank you,  Kristin    K R I S T I N  D A V I S    Heaven and Earth Landscape Design  www.heavenandearthgardens.com      Redacted 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Stephen Pond <spond@stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:35 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Council Consideration of Newell Rd Bridge Upgrade - Please approve it asap! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Manager and City Council Members: We are writing to each and all of you to urge passage as written and proposed for the Newell Road Bridge replacement project, specifically the staff recommendation for approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and authorization for the City Manager to proceed with implementation steps. The Newell Road bridge upgrade is an absolutely crucial step prior to the Pope-Chaucer bridge upgrade so we can finally (after 22 years) avoid future flood damage of the magnitude we experienced in 1998. Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report will greatly assist with resolution of this long-standing flooding threat from San Francisquito Creek and provide the following benefits: Flood Control: The Newell Rd project is of vital importance for flood control on San Francisquito Creek. The Newell Road bridge must be replaced before the Pope Chaucer bridge (the primary culprit that caused the flooding of Crescent Park in 1998) can be replaced. We have waited for this protection for 22 years, and discussions about Newell have been going on since 2012. We simply cannot have any more delays on this project. It is a matter of safety for life and property for the more that 1400 homes inundated in the SFC flood zone in Palo Alto. Bridge Design: The proposed project takes into account extensive community input since discussions started in 2012. The proposed design is modest and meets the minimum Caltrans requirements for modern bridge construction (two 14 foot lanes for cars/bikes). The design also includes two 5 foot sidewalks for pedestrians. This is an excellent compromise taking into account multiple perspectives. Budget: The cost of the Newell Road bridge project will be covered by Caltrans (88.5%) and Santa Clara Valley Water District (11.5%) as stated in the EIR. There will be no budget impact for Palo Alto. Thanks in advance for your help with moving this vital project forward. Take good care and stay safe. Stephen Pond and Ann Badillo 1157 Lincoln Avenue 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Jerry Hearn <hearnbo@redshift.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:50 PM To:Council, City Cc:Jeremias, Michel; Murray, Kevin Subject:Newell Road bridge replacement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council members:   I am writing you in support of the current plans for the replacement of the Newell Road bridge.  As background, I have  been involved in issues and activities pertaining to the San Francisquito Creek watershed for three decades, including  participating consistently in SFCJPA considerations as a member of the public. I have been following, and offering input  into, the planning effort for the bridge replacement since it began years ago. My chief focus has been an environmental  one, but I also remain very cognizant of the other issues that need to be addressed in a multi‐benefit project of this sort.    From my viewpoint, the chief driver of this process, other than the fact that a large amount of state funds is available to  use for the bridge reconstruction, is the role of the bridge in flooding events.  In the flood of 1998, had the Pope Chaucer  bridge not been in place upstream, the Newell Road bridge would have had the potential to cause severe flooding in  many of the areas that did suffer that fate.  The SFCJPA has produced, and is working to implement, a plan to minimize  the possibility of flooding along the entire Highway 101 to Middlefield reach of the creek, a major part of which is the  renovation of the Pope Chaucer bridge to create significantly greater channel capacity to carry flows that would carry at  least those of the flood of record.  Before that work can occur, the Newell Road bridge needs to be altered to be able to  pass flow of similar magnitude to avoid becoming the new breakout point along the creek.     I realize that there could be substantial impacts to residents located near the bridge, both during and after construction,  as is the case with most urban public works projects.  I personally have had to deal with such issues regarding my  residence and am, in fact, currently facing a similar circumstance with a pending project on our public street and in my  driveway.  However, as is the case with that project, there are also very significant positive benefits to the bridge project  – environmental, flooding, road safety, emergency access – that, in the balance, will benefit the larger community,  including those nearby residents.  It is my opinion that the negative impacts, such as the possibility of increased traffic,  can be managed by other means and that the public and private benefits to the entire community are significant and  necessary.     In closing, I would like to highly recommend that you approve the project as presented and certify the Environmental  Impact Report so that this vital piece of the flood mitigation puzzle can be out in place as soon as possible.     Sincerely,  10    Jerry Hearn  SF Creek watershed resident       11 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Strohecker <bstrohecker@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Newell Rd Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members, I support the project as currently designed and ready for approval because it provides increased flood control, first and foremost. Other issues, should they arise, can be mitigated. Some people are pushing Alternative 1, and I cannot imagine a sanctioned "shared one lane" when as a practical matter most drivers treat the current two lane bridge as a shared single lane. The lines to cross the bridge will be longer than ever waiting for the green light. This has been a great dialogue in all respects except one. These concerns should have be voiced long ago. Now they are trying to extent the "Palo Alto Process", that already is way too long, by asking you for a no vote on Monday. I want flood control in my adult children's lifetime. Your vote to approve the proposed bridge plan on the agenda is a must to ensure continued progress in controlling flooding from the creek. This vote has been a long time in coming. Vote yes now. No more delays. Best regards, Bob 12 Baumb, Nelly From:Mel Liu <melliu02@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 1:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I support staff recommendations for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project (as outlined in ID # 11184) for  improved flood control and safer, multi‐modal and ADA compliant transportation to and from our cities.    Sincerely,    Melanie Liu  Edgewood Drive  Palo Alto  13 Baumb, Nelly From:David Johnson <ddjohns1@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:03 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:In favor of 2 lane Newell bridge replacement- Alt 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To: Palo Alto City Council and City Manager Fr: Dave Johnson, property owner and resident,1458 Dana Ave, Palo Alto Hello, I wanted to send my support for the two lane bridge option (Alternative 2) that will be reviewed with the City Council this week. While I'm not excited about the potential increase of traffic on Newell (our cross street is Dana/Newell) I believe that flood control is the primary concern, and would like to bridge construction project to proceed ASAP. Perhaps to allay the concerns about the risk of traffic increasing as a result of the bridge, I would like the city to consider monitoring traffic and if it is in fact an issue, revise the traffic pattern to be one lane for cars with wide walking and bike lanes on the side. If this contingency needs to be added to the Alternative 2 plan with the counties, you could taking that action now. Either way, I would like the city to vote in favor of Alt 2, so that construction can proceed as soon as possible. Best Regards, Dave Johnson Palo Alto property owner since 1993, flooded house on Heather lane in 1998, Flood insurance payer since 1993. 14 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Street Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I am pleased to see the Newell Road bridge over San Francisquito Creek moving ahead.  City staff has improved the  project in the past 2 years, considering the best alignment options for the East Palo Alto side, and a new striping plan  which should encourage motorists to drive slowly, and give space to cyclists who wish to ride in the 4‐foot shoulder,  instead of the middle of the lane. Given the all‐way stops at the intersections on both sides of this bridge, I am confident  that traffic speeds will be moderate, and this will be a comfortable zone for bicyclists, and particularly for pedestrians  who will finally get sidewalks across the creek. I encourage you to adopt the staff recommendation, with 10 foot travel  lanes and a 4 foot shoulder.    When construction commences, pedestrian and bicycle access will be cut for 18 months, so temporary alternatives will  need to be supported.  In particular, bicycle and pedestrian access to the EPA bike/ped bridge over 101 at the end of  Newell is important. Staff should consider alternatives during construction, including University Ave. and West Bayshore,  and any upgrades Palo Alto can make to make these better options for bikes or pedestrians.  For example, restriping  West Bayshore to add a 4 foot shoulder on at least one side will discourage speeding, and make more space for  pedestrians and bicyclists.    Thank you for your service to the city of Palo Alto in this difficult time.    Robert Neff  Emerson, near Loma Verde.    15 Baumb, Nelly From:Andrew Mackenzie <ahndymac@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:21 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Strongly support option #2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  On the Newell bridge Replacement project FEIR. It’s been 22 years, we need a way to move forward. It’s time. Don’t  screw this up please. Plus it’s almost all OPM(other people’s money), so it should be a no brainer in our current climate.    Thank you,  Andrew Mackenzie  1061 Stanley Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303  ‐‐   Andrew Mackenzie  Cell:  Redacted 16 Baumb, Nelly From:Trish Mulvey <mulvey@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:15 PM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr Subject:Support for Alternative 2 for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project in the Final Environmental Impact Report CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable Mayor and City Council members:      Please support Alternative 2 for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project in the Final Environmental Impact  Report.  Alternative 2  appears to be the best option to secure Cal Trans funds for construction.  Replacement of the  Newell Road Bridge must be completed before replacement of the flood‐causing Pope‐Chaucer bridge can be  completed.  If necessary later, traffic calming devices can be considered, but public safety from flooding must be the top  priority now.    Trish & Jim Mulvey  527 Rhodes Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303  17 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann DeHovitz <rossde@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:39 PM To:Council, City Cc:Ross DeHovitz Subject:Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council members,    We are writing to voice our strong support for Alternative 2 for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project in the Final  Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).    Thank you,    Ann and Ross DeHovitz, 853 Sharon Court    18 Baumb, Nelly From:Dana Tom <dana@danatom.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:41 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:I support the staff rec. for Newell Road Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members and City Manager,     I am writing to you in support of the staff recommendation for the Newell Road Bridge replacement. It is a reasonable  compromise that I hope the Council will approve it. We have waited more than long enough to move forward on this. It  is essential that this get done so that the Chaucer bridge replacement planning can start. My neighborhood has been  repeatedly under threat of floods ever since 1998. In this time when our Palo Alto budget has suffered greatly, it's even  more important to choose a Newell Bridge design that has no budget impact for Palo Alto. I live in the neighborhood and  am comfortable with the bridge design. There has been plenty of time for community input on the bridge design.    Thank you,  Dana Tom  1419 Hamilton Ave.  19 Baumb, Nelly From:Dana Tom <dana@danatom.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:44 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Re: I support the staff rec. for Newell Road Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  When you include my email in the correspondence printout in the next Council packet, will it include my home address?  I'd rather not have that included. I removed it from the email below.      Thank you,  Dana Tom      On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 2:40 PM Dana Tom <dana@danatom.com> wrote:  Dear Council Members and City Manager,     I am writing to you in support of the staff recommendation for the Newell Road Bridge replacement. It is a reasonable  compromise that I hope the Council will approve it. We have waited more than long enough to move forward on this. It  is essential that this get done so that the Chaucer bridge replacement planning can start. My neighborhood has been  repeatedly under threat of floods ever since 1998. In this time when our Palo Alto budget has suffered greatly, it's even  more important to choose a Newell Bridge design that has no budget impact for Palo Alto. I live in the neighborhood  and am comfortable with the bridge design. There has been plenty of time for community input on the bridge design.    Thank you,  Dana Tom    20 Baumb, Nelly From:Maurice L Druzin <druzin@stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 3:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell road bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    We strobly support Alternative #2  Please move ahead with this and the Pope Chaucer project; it is 22 years since we were flooded, and we are stressed  every winter!  Maurice Druzin  Liz Hoffman  1408 Pitman  Avenue    Sent from my iPhone  21 Baumb, Nelly From:Bjorn Liencres <mbl_paloalto@mblmail.net> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 3:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Road bridge replacement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    We are requesting the City Council adopt and approve the items on action item 7 of the June 1 meeting, concerning the  Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project.    The replacement of the Newell Road Bridge is a key requirement to implement the flood mitigation of the San  Francisquito Creek.  Many local and regional jurisdictions have participated in the bridge replacement planning,  including the cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the San Francisquito Creek Joint  Powers Authority, and Caltrans.    The current bridge is also unsafe.  It does not meet current standards, it is too narrow, and visibility is limited in both  directions.  A Traffic Analysis done by the City also concluded that the bridge replacement would not result in additional  traffic.    Other alternatives were proposed.  Alternative 1 remains unsafe for cyclists and exacerbates the flow of vehicles, and  therefore we oppose it.  The City also determined Alternative 1 results in deteriorated Level of Service for nearby  intersections, and is more costly to construct and operate than Alternative 2 due to traffic lights.  Alternative 3 improves the alignment.  Alternative 4 fully corrects the alignment, but at the expense of complexity and  cost.    In summary, we urge the Council to make progress on the Newell Road bridge replacement by approving the action  items proposed on item 7 of the June 1st meeting.  22 Baumb, Nelly From:Rohini Chakravarthy <rohini.chakravarthy@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 3:36 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Crucial Council Consideration of Newell Rd Bridge Upgrade CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Palo Alto City Council and city manager:     I am a resident of Crescent Park, living 2 blocks from Newell, and am writing in SUPPORT of the proposed Newell bridge  project (Build Alternative 2).    I understand that the city staff recommendation is to approve the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the  project and to authorize the City Manager to proceed with implementation steps.    The Newell Road bridge upgrade is an absolutely crucial step so we can finally (after 22 years) avoid future flood damage  of the magnitude our neighborhood experienced in 1998. We simply cannot have any more delays on this project.  It is a  matter of safety for life and property for the more that 1400 homes inundated in the SFC flood zone in Palo Alto.    I recognize that the proposed project takes into account extensive community input since discussions started in 2012  and meets minimum Caltrans requirements for modern bridge construction (two 14 foot lanes for cars/bikes). The  design also includes two 5 foot sidewalks for pedestrians. I have participated in many of the information sessions led by  the city and JPA and feel you have arrived at an excellent compromise taking into account multiple perspectives    The community worried at many points along the way re: budget for this infrastructure and given that the cost of the  Newell Road bridge project will be covered by Caltrans and Santa Clara Valley Water District  (11.5%), we should run, not  walk, to get this project done before those monies are irected elsewhere.    Finally, I hope the city will take into account traffic concerns and save some budget and time for traffic calming  measures as needed during or soon after this bridge is in place.    Please include my SUPPORT for this project in your deliberations tomorrow  and I hope you will approve the Newell  Bridge project.    Best  Rohini Chakravarthy   1370 Pitman  23 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Craft <susancrafty316@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 3:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Bridge replacement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,     As a resident of Palo Alto's Crescent Park neighborhood I would like to voice my support for approving Bridge Alternative  2 (2 car lanes).  Let's get this fixed so we can move onto the Chauser replacement!! 😊    Thank you,    Susan Craft  1145 Lincoln Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301  24 Baumb, Nelly From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 3:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please re-open the design process and listen to all residents who wish to speak. Those living closest to the Bridge will be impacted the most. You know the traffic study was likely bogus, as are most. People will use the enlarged Newell St. Bridge to avoid the mess at Univ and Woodland. If you make the Bridge narrower on the top and wider near the base you will accomplish flood control objectives and not increased traffic so much. Also speed bumps like those in San Antonio Shopping Center near Trader Joe's will significantly reduce speeding. They are prefabricated and inexpensive to install and really work.. check them out. Please do not spend a lot of PW's time to install a speed bump like near St Albert the Great Church...it is a joke and took so many expensive man hours to create. Also please reconsider your position on the Cubberley lease; better to stop work for a while on all the unfunded CIPs. People would like and near services; not concrete monuments. thank you 25 Baumb, Nelly From:Peter Phillips <pkphillips@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 3:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell St Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello Honorable council members,    Please vote to pass the newell st bridge Alternative 2 proposal as recommended staff ‐ with 2 lanes For vehicles and bike  lanes. We need this project to move forward so work can be done upstream on the Chaucer/Pope bridge. In addition,  with the new 101 overpass, the Newell bridge is a key bike route for students riding to/from east palo alto to greene ms  or paly. So the bridge must have bike lanes.  Thanks.  Peter Phillips  434 Guinda St  PA, 94301  Co‐chair SRTS committee (but replying as an Citizen)      Sent from my iPhone  26 Baumb, Nelly From:Christy Telch <gforman806@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 3:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Bridge Replacement- Alternative 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members, I sent an email yesterday urging you to approve the FEIR in order to move forward on the Newell Bridge Replacement project. I neglected to state that I support Alternative 2 for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Thank you, Christy Telch 1130 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto 94301 27 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 3:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Approve the Proposed Newell Bridge Replacement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members:   Please approve the staff-recommended option to replace the Newell Bridge. I live a few blocks from the bridge and use it often. The recommended replacement will not increase traffic, especially since the new bridge won't shorten driving distances by a single inch and might at most shave a few seconds off driving times. Neighbors agree. In the unlikely event that traffic increases on Newell, the City can implement traffic calming if necessary.   The environmental studies have been completed, everyone has had a fair chance to check for errors, and the right choice is to go forward with the proposed bridge design. Please approve it tomorrow night.   Thank you,   Jeff Levinsky Duveneck Saint-Francis 28 Baumb, Nelly From:J. Robert Taylor <btaylor@taylorproperties.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 4:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell St Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,     This has taken too long, please approve the two lane bridge and get it done along with the Chaucer St. bridge  ASAP.   The bureaucratic delays are inexcusable and could cost the City 10's of millions of dollars in litigation and  consequential damages for its negligence in allowing the known flood hazard to persist.  This is already causing residents  to pay unnecessary flood insurance premiums on land that should never flood but for the inadequate bridge designs.      In addition, commit to the residents of Palo Alto to install traffic calming measures to discourage traffic in excess of the  current flow over the bridge.  Commit, as well to resist, to the extent possible, any high density housing on Woodland, in  particular any development that would increase the traffic count on Newell.      Sincerely,    Bob Taylor  480 Marlowe St  Palo Alto, Ca         29 Baumb, Nelly From:Irving Rappaport <isport1@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 4:24 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr; Shikada, Ed; leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan; Gaines, Chantal Cc:isport1@yahoo.com Subject:Please Support Build Alt. 1 As Only Alternative Satisfying Both the Flood Control and Traffic Concerns CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, and City Manager’s Office Members, It is clear from the online discussions going on the last few days that the only Replacement Alternative that will satisfy both those residents concerned about flooding and those residents that are also concerned about increased traffic is to compromise and approve Build Alt. 1. That has already been vetted in the EIR and satisfies both the flooding and traffic concerns expressed by residents. There is no good reason to adopt Build Alt. 2A, which has pitted the flood control interested citizens against those citizens concerned about increased traffic and safety concerns along Newell and on neighboring residential streets. The much wider two lane bridge will only increase concerns about traffic speeding and safety in crossing the bridge, which are not concerns with the current narrower bridge (It is my understanding that there are no records of vehicle, bike or pedestrian accidents with the current bridge. It does not seem fair to pit two groups of citizens against one another as Build Alt. 2A does, when Build Alt. 1 compromises and can help bring more unity among the residents. I urge the Council to approve Build Alt 1 and allow the project to proceed on schedule and satisfying the different interests among residents. Best regards, Irving S. Rappaport, Esq., CLP IAM 300: World’s Leading Intellectual Property Strategists Palo Alto, CA 94303   30 Baumb, Nelly From:Gerald Berner <bunsenbern@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 4:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I am for a one lane car bridge with bike and walking lanes and the flood control improvement. If two lanes are approved  you will find a way to hook up to HY 101.   The traffic created by university circle on the side streets has already started  to change the neighborhood. I have lots more to say having lived on both the corner of Newell and Hamilton and my  current address   Gerald berner   1408 Edgewood dr.  650‐328‐3971    Sent from my iPhone  31 Baumb, Nelly From:Mehmet Fidanboylu <mehmetf@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 4:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please move forward with Newell Bridge Replacement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,     I would like to urge you to vote yes for Alternative 2 to replace Newell Bridge.    Our house (1119 Oregon Avenue) was in one of the most affected areas of Palo Alto and I am counting on you to  prevent such a tragedy from happening ever again. The frequency of extreme weather events is steadily increasing (heat  waves, fires in California). We cannot simply rely on rolling the dice every year anymore.    For a project of this magnitude, there will always be trade offs and unhappy people. For the last 9 years, there has been  a ton of research and town meetings about this. It is time to move it along and unblock further work, most importantly  on Pope‐Chaucer.    Please give us the peace of mind that we deserve.      ‐ Mehmet  32 Baumb, Nelly From:Barry P. Medoff <barry@medoff.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 5:14 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Approve the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To:  Members of the Palo Alto City Council   Ed Shikada, Palo Alto City Manager      We are writing to ask that you approve the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project and that you proceed with  implementation as fast as possible.    Those of us who were here during the flood in 1998 have been waiting 22 years for this moment.           The recommendation that resulted from a comprehensive process of study and review is crystal clear:  build a new two lane  bridge that meets the minimum Caltrans requirements for modern bridge construction.    Now it is up to you to make this happen.      No more delay.    No more studies.    No more excuses      Approve this project.      Thank you.      Barry P. Medoff  Mary C. Medoff    1431 Arcadia Place  Palo Alto, CA 94303      33 Baumb, Nelly From:Evan Zhang <zhang-evan@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 6:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Palo Alto for Responsible Newell Bridge Develpmnt : Newell Bridge Appeal from neighbor Janie Farn CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    Please note that I’m not in favor of a 2‐lane bridge.  Thanks.   Evan    Begin forwarded message:  From: Evan Zhang <zhang‐evan@hotmail.com>  Date: May 30, 2020 at 6:55:44 PM PDT  To: "pamelajillwagner@comcast.net" <pamelajillwagner@comcast.net>  Cc: Palo Alto for Responsible Newell Bridge Develpmnt <noreply@uptous.com>  Subject: Re:  Palo Alto for Responsible Newell Bridge Develpmnt : Newell Bridge Appeal from neighbor  Janie Farn   Yes to Alternative 1, NO to 2‐lane bridge.  Thank you!!     Evan Zhang & Vivian Liu  1960 Edgewood Dr,  Palo Alto, CA 94303        On May 30, 2020, at 4:44 PM, Pamela Wagner <info@uptous.com> wrote:     On behalf of neighbor Janie Farn:    Neighbors,     At Monday's June 1 meeting, the City will decide whether to approve the two‐ lane car bridge, which I think will increase traffic between East Palo Alto and Palo  Alto and will encourage further development of high‐rise apartments with direct  access to Palo Alto via Newell Road.  The only other viable option at this time is  Alternative 1, which is a one‐lane car bridge controlled by traffic lights on either  34 side.  Alternative 1 is most similar to the current traffic situation, but also fixes  the flooding problem.     If you don't want the City to build a two‐lane car bridge, then please join us to  sign a petition supporting Build Alternative 1.  Due to shelter in place, instead of  getting real signatures, please reply to me with your full name and home  address and I will present these on Monday as residents supporting a group  petition for Alternative 1.     Janie and Michael Farn  Janie.farn@gmail.com  Newell Road      To respond to the whole group, post a message from your browser using the following  link:  https://www.uptous.com/uptous.htm?_flowId=directLink‐ flow&communityId=3036&extraId=230150&action=ann       UpToUs privacy: If you wish not to receive emails from this group, please unsubscribe here   35 Baumb, Nelly From:Al Yuen <Al.Yuen@lumentum.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 6:40 PM To:Council, City Cc:kereiyuen@gmail com Subject:Support for Alternate 1 Newell Bridge option (single lane) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     Thank you for the work you do on behalf of Palo Alto.  These are difficult times under the shelter in place situation and  you have had to make decisions that affect many people's lives.     You know better than I that the Newell Road Bridge has many different points of view and possible outcomes.  I would  like to add my wife and me to the list of folks supporting Alternative 1 with the single lane road to reduce the speeding  and perhaps even reduce the traffic on Newell Rd during school transit hours.  I walk my dog every morning and with 4  children, I'm always worried about them as they ride to school with the number of vehicles speeding on Newell Rd.    Thank you again for your service,   Al & Kerei Yuen  36 Baumb, Nelly From:priya chandrasekar <priya_chandrasekar@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 6:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Build Alternative 2 for the Newell bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please we would like to go ahead with the proposed Alternate 2 of 2 lanes on the newell bridge. Lets get this project going we dont want the 1998 flood repeated. thanks , Priya 37 Baumb, Nelly From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 7:19 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Please support Alternative 2 for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,  I understand that on Monday, staff will recommend to approve the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the  Newell Road Bridge Replacement project and that your authorization is needed for the City Manager to proceed with  implementation steps.  Please approve the project with Alternative 2 which is necessary to achieve crucial flood control protections. The  proposed project with the wider bridge thanks to community input is still modest and a reasonable compromise because  ‐ if needed ‐  there are mitigations for traffic concerns with traffic monitoring and calming measures.   We need you to ensure that flood protection work moves forward now.   Thank you,  Jennifer  38 Baumb, Nelly From:Melissa Froland <gfroland@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 7:47 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Newell Road Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council and City Manager,     I am writing in support of BUILD Alternative 2 for the Newell Rd Bridge Replacement Project in the Final Environmental  Impact Report (FEIR).      While neither build alternative is a perfect solution, it is unlikely there will ever be such a thing.  Therefore, I believe we must  address the long overdue flood control issues now, including both Newell and the Pope/Chaucer bridges, to avoid future  flooding as we had in 1998.      Thank you for your consideration as you address this issue on Monday.    Kind regards,    Melissa Froland  1200 Hamilton Ave  (flooded 1998)  39 Baumb, Nelly From:Leah Reider <leah.reider@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 7:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I live four houses from Newell in Palo Alto, and my house was flooded in 1998.  Please vote to approve the current  proposal for a two lane bridge!  We need to move this proposal along so that we won’t have a repeat performance of  the flood.    Thank you,  Leah REIDER    Sent from my iPhone  40 Baumb, Nelly From:Bruce Nixon <bnixon25@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 8:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell St. Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I feel strongly that a two lane bridge is necessary. My house was flooded in 1998 and I’ve been waiting over 20 years for  remediation.    Bruce Nixon  1416 Hamilton Ave    Sent from my iPhone  41 Baumb, Nelly From:Jane Millman <jane.millman@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 9:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Newell Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    With all due respect for all you do, I hope you will respect my input as well.  I was flooded in 1998 while teaching school  in Palo Alto.  I had to move out of my home for 6 months while we rebuilt the bottom 4 feet of our Eichler that got  contaminated.  I had to pay my mortgage AND pay rent for an apartment at the same time.  The Alternative 2 is the only  option that will help prevent this horrible situation from happening again.  We have waited 22 years to live through a  winter without fear of being flooded again.  Thank you so much for helping resolve this problem and implementing alternative 2 for the Newell Bridge.  Jane and Paul Millman  42 Baumb, Nelly From:Anurag Acharya <acharya@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 9:25 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Newell Road Bridge Replacement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Councillors & Mr Shikada: I believe the city council will be considering a proposal for the replacement of the  Newell Road bridge at its meeting tomorrow. I am writing to ask you to approve the EIR and authorize the  implementation steps for this proposal. Replacing the Newell Road bridge is a critical upgrade to our infrastructure to  avoid widespread flood damage across our city and the Crescent Park neighborhood.     The proposed replacement (Build Alternative 2) is well designed and meets the requirements of all the organizations  involved in this long process. And to make it even more attractive, it has full funding support from CalTrans and the  Santa Clara Valley Water District.     Please approve the upgrade proposal for the Newell Road Bridge    Anurag Acharya   900 block Addison Avenue  43 Baumb, Nelly From:jay whaley <whaley_jay@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 9:41 PM To:Council, City Cc:sallie whaley Subject:Newell Bridge decision CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear members of the City Council of Palo Alto,    We urge your support and approval for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement as it  is being presented to you on June 1.  We have lived in the Crescent Park neighborhood for 46 years, having experienced  the 1988 flooding. We have been very involved in the continuing lengthy  discussions about prevention of future flooding, the process for achieving our  goals and the design of the Newell Road bridge. The plan that you must approve is  the best that could have occurred. The input from multiple concerned individuals  has been heard and your decision does not need to be further delayed. The delay  has already been much too long, as we all work toward the crucial replacement of  the Chaucer bridge.     Thank you for your leadership and continuing commitments for our community.    Jay and Sallie Whaley  24 Crescent Drive  Palo Alto, Ca. 94301    Redacted 44 Baumb, Nelly From:Janie Farn <janie.farn@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 9:53 PM To:lydiakou@gmail.com; Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Michael Farn Subject:Fwd: Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project - June 1 City Council Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,    How are you? I hope you and your family are doing well during this pandemic!    After years of discussion about the Newell Road Bridge replacement, the city staff is suddenly really pushing hard to get  it done with a virtual meeting on Monday June 1st. This is a virtual meeting with not much notice. While Alternative 2  was the only plan presented by the city to the ABR and the neighborhood in May. After hearing about the June 1  meeting, I decided to conduct a survey by reaching out to the neighborhood through some Crescent Park and Duveneck  mailing lists. The result is an overwhelming preference for a small one lane bridge (Alternative 1). Everyone agrees that  flooding is a concern. However, residents are also concerned about the traffic and safety in our neighborhood and that  the higher capacity two‐lane bridge will encourage high rise apartment development on the East Palo Alto side, which  will lead to even more traffic and worse safety. This further validates that city staff are tone deaf on what the  neighborhood wants! We want to preserve our quiet neighborhood streets with safety for school children, bikers and  pedestrians.     I think my action and the results should speak greatly. I started my group petition just yesterday Saturday May 30 at  noon by sending out emails on three incomplete local mailing lists. Only 24 hours later, I already have about 60+ families  who have responded to join the petition for Alternative 1 for the bridge replacement. I'll forward these names and  addresses tomorrow for the meeting.     Below I also included Ben Ball's email to council member Tanaka for you. Ben does a good job to summarize why people  are so heavily in favor of Alternative 1. I and the other 60+ families want the city to put the Alternative 1 on the table for  all council members to vote on. It is the only viable plan to take care of both flooding and traffic calming.    Yes, let's not take many years to vote on this important issue! But please consider Alternative 1.    Thank you for your time!    Janie and Michael Farn  580 Newell Road    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Ben Ball <Ball@franciscopartners.com>  Date: Sun, May 31, 2020 at 12:19 PM  Subject: Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project ‐ June 1 City Council Meeting    Council Member Tanaka,  45    Thanks again for making the time to chat with me about the Newell Bridge replacement project two weeks ago.  During  our conversation you asked what neighbors wanted and at that time I didn’t feel I could speak for what many of my  neighbors wanted.  I strongly felt that they wanted Build Alternative 1 as that was the smallest option that went through  the EIR review process.  Since our discussion, my neighbor, Janie Farn – cc’d here, has collected a petition with names  and addresses of neighbors who desire Build Alternative 1.  We’ve not been able to go door‐to‐door because of the  shelter‐in‐place mandate but we’ve cobbled together as best we can a list over email.  Janie is the keeper of this list so  she should confirm, but as of yesterday evening over 50 neighbors had communicated to Janie their support with  (names, email address and mailing address) for Build Alternative 1.  We will continue to reach out to neighbors prior to  tomorrow’s meeting and will attempt to get you the data we have prior to your 5pm city council meeting.     As we discussed two weeks ago, I encouraged you to ask the other council members to delay this city council  discussion/vote until residents could meet, in‐person, with the city council.  I strongly encourage you to consider this  again.  Zoom pushed through a required upgrade last night and many people will be unable to join the meeting IF  they’ve not upgraded their Zoom app.  Attempting to make a decision that will be as divisive as this decision will be  under such a poor process will only incite anger and unhappiness but those who feel let down by the ultimate  decision.  Additionally the fact that notices went out to residents with only a weeks advance notice is extremely poor  judgement.  Staff took over seven years and now expects residents to respond and organize in one week.  Keep in mind  that the communication that communication from staff announcing the completion of the Draft EIR came out in early  May and didn’t give a date for the city council meeting.  I assure you neither I nor any of my neighbors ever expected a  June 1 meeting.  Sadly this fosters our feelings that PA staff is tone‐deaf to our concerns and is only interested in pushing  traffic into our neighborhood and risking injury to school‐aged children for whom Newell Road in Palo Alto is a safe  route to schools.     As I wrote in my first communication with you, public works projects should never pit residents against each  other.  Sadly the process PA staff has run has created this unfortunate situation.  There has been a lot of email  exchanges among residents who’s only concern is mitigating flooding and they claim that those who have an equal level  of concern over children’s safety and traffic on Newell Road are blocking flood control progress.  Their argument stems  from a belief that only Build Alternative 2 has funding.  I have a hard time believing this argument BUT if true, reflects  poorly on PA staff.  Seven and a half years ago there was a visceral outcry from me and my neighbors who wanted a  responsible bridge built that was as small as possible.  We are now learning (although PA staff must confirm as I haven’t  heard this from PA staff) that all of the Build Alternatives evaluated in the EIR have funding EXCEPT build alternative  1.  This is a complete failure of process IF this is true.  Staff has been aware of our neighborhoods desire for a smaller  bridge.  They’ve had over seven years to secure funding for a smaller bridge.  During this time Santa Clara County  residents overwhelmingly passed Measure B in 2016 which increased sales tax for 30 years by 0.5 cents.  $1.2 billion of  the revenue from this tax was earmarked for “local streets and roads” and another $250 million was earmarked “to  improve bike and pedestrian circulation and safety”.  Additionally, in 2017, the state assembly approved Senate Bill‐1  which increased gas taxes by $0.12 as well as car registration fees.  The Senate bill was fully “approved” for the 2018  popular vote on Proposition 69 and this proposition provides billions of dollars annually some of which are allocated for  “transportation improvements”.  On the surface, it appears ample funds are available to fund Build Alternative 1.  As a  side note, how to fund the bridge was never presented as a criteria for evaluating any of the build alternatives.  IF this is  such a crucial factor why was it excluded?     It would be helpful for PA staff and the PA city council to present the grant applications for Build Alternative 1 that were  submitted to the state under Prop 69 as well as to Santa Clara County Measure B so we can better understand the  46 funding process since that topic appears to be a “hot button” for those solely focused on flood mitigation.  Additionally,  Marc Berman grew up in Palo Alto was on the PA city council back in 2012 and now represents all of us at the state  level.  It would be helpful to understand how PA staff tapped into Marc and his resources for securing funding for Build  Alternative 1.       I greatly appreciated your response to my initial outreach.  You were the only city council member who accepted my  invitation to chat.  I’ve also cc’d council member Cormack on this note as she was gracious enough to acknowledge  receipt of my outreach note to her.     Thanks again for your time and consideration.     Ben Ball  Edgewood Dr.  Palo Alto    Please refer to the following link for important Francisco Partners disclaimer information regarding this e‐mail communication:  www.franciscopartners.com/us/email‐disclaimer. By messaging with Francisco Partners you consent to the foregoing.  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Peter Bianchi <bianchi.peter.n@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 10:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Objection to Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi All,      I would like voice my opposition towards the Newell Road bridge replacement project. The only acceptable alternative  to the current bridge is either no bridge (permanent removal of current bridge) or alternative 1 (one lane bridge with bi‐ directional traffic signal). I wish there was a proposed option of a pedestrian only bridge. Why is that not an option?    A two lane bridge increases the number of vehicles passing through the neighborhood AND allows vehicles to increase  their average speed which already is dangerously above the posted speed limit. Too many cars already use the bridge as  a way to "bypass" University ave to attempt to beat rush hour traffic or to get into that section of East Palo Alto. I have  regularly witnessed cars speed and run the 4 way stop signs at Hamilton + Newell, and Dana Ave + newell. A wide bridge  will only give those ignorant drivers even more opportunity to drive dangerously.     That bridge should be turned into a pedestrian/bicyclist bridge at most!    Thank you,  Peter  2 Baumb, Nelly From:David Young <davids_young@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 11:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:Rebecca Young Subject:Newell Street Bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council: I am writing to express concern about the debate surrounding the Newell Street Bridge. While I am supportive of redoing the bridge, building a large, two-lane bridge will significantly increase the outbound and inbound traffic to/from the 101. This will fundamentally change the traffic patterns and alter the safety for our children. Notably, kids cross every day to and from Duveneck Elementary and increasing the size and traffic flow capacity of this bridge will invite safety concerns. It is not enough to install a stoplight.....as that will only encourage people to "rush to make the light." Maintaining a smaller, one-lane bridge, provides a natural governor to the speeds cars can enter and exit the neighborhood. In addition, the idea of having 4-way stops on every block must remain. Building Alternative 1 satisfies the concerns of the neighborhood and it's been carefully and fully vetted. Your careful attention and consideration of this project, and the wishes of the local residents most directly affected, is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, David Young Dana Avenue 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Harish Belur <hbelur@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 12:00 AM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr; Arevig Antablian Subject:Newell Bridge Replacement -- I support Alternative 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council, We are residents of Crescent Park with our property currently designated in a flood zone due to San Fransciquito creek flooding. It has been 22 years since our devastating floods and all manner of delays have conspired to prevent a comprehensive solution to this situation thus far. We strongly support alternative 2, so that we can get the required funding from Caltrans to replace the Newell Road bridge, which is a big step towards replacing Pope-Chaucer, the cause of the flooding in 1998. We strongly urge you to move forward with alternative 2. We have suffered long enough under the threat of flooding. Thank you, Harish Belur & Arevig Antablian 483 Fulton St. 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Jamie Rapperport <jrapperport@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 7:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:In support of Build Alternative 1 for Newell Street bridge CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I live on Edgewood Drive approximately a block from the Newell Street bridge, and I am writing to express my strong  support for Bridge Alternative 1 – a single lane car bridge with bike lanes and sidewalks ‐ for the Newell Street bridge  replacement. This is the only option that addresses both the flood and traffic issues.  My reasons for supporting Build Alternative 1 are as follows:  1. It has been fully vetted by the EIR process and can move forward rapidly.  2. It addresses the flooding issue.  3. It will minimize impact on traffic on Newell and in the surrounding neighborhood. The wider 2‐lane bridge  being considered ‐ Build Alternative 2A – will have far higher impact on bridge traffic. This is common sense –  two lanes will result in very different traffic flow from one lane. The TJKM 2019 report did not consider the  impact of internet navigation apps (WAZE, Google Maps, etc.). These apps will result in much higher traffic  across the bridge with the two‐lane alternative, as they base their recommendations in part on travel time, and  two lanes will result in lower travel time for a given level of traffic.  The TJKM 2019 report also did not consider  Stanford’s development plans (that have the support of PA city council) or the high rise apartment development  (approved by EPA).       I believe the traffic issue is not being adequately addressed in the decision process. Newell is a Safe Route to School, and  every morning many children ride their bikes down it on their way to the three schools within a mile of the bridge  (Duveneck, Walter Hayes, and Greene). Our goal should be to address the flooding issue without risking dramatic  changes to traffic volume on the street. Build Alternative 1 achieves this and Build Alternative 2A does not.  I understand there is a question about funding, and specifically about whether Build Alternative 2A would get funding  from a CALTRANS grant while Build Alternative 1 may not. There has not been adequate discussion of or due diligence  on the funding aspects of the project, and I do not feel it is appropriate to have this factored in to the decision at this  point.  Thank you for the time and thought you are putting in to this decision, and for considering my views on this project.  Sincerely,  Jamie Rapperport  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Elspeth Farmer <elspeth.farmer@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 7:09 AM To:Council, City Subject:In Support of Bridge Alternative 1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the City Council:     I am writing to urge the City Council to approve Build Alternative 1 ‐ the one‐lane bridge with two‐way traffic for the  following reasons:    A two‐lane bridge will absolutely bring more traffic to the neighborhood than a one‐lane bridge. Waze and Google maps  will divert more traffic to cut through the side streets to use this wider bridge as a back way to 101.     1) Increased traffic is a hazard to all the students attending the many schools in the neighborhood. Newell Road is a  designated "Safe Route to School” and it is used by the hundreds of children biking and walking to Duveneck and Walter  Hays (elementary schools), Greene Middle,  many Paly students and additional students at Castilleja.     2) Bridge Alternative 1 will preserve the residential character of neighborhoods on both sides of the bridge.    2) Funding is not part of the EIR review and NO data has not been presented on this issue. The proponents of a wider  bridge claim that Caltrans will pay for it and not a narrower bridge, but this has never been researched and presented by  staff.     BEFORE deciding which bridge alternative to build, the council needs to have that information.    Elspeth Farmer  elspeth.farmer@gmail.com          Redacted 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Clerk, City Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 7:55 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: June 1, 2020 City Council Meeting re Proposal for Replacement of Newell Bridge ProjectDa     Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Irving Rappaport <isport1@yahoo.com>   Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 4:45 PM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: isport1@yahoo.com  Subject: June 1, 2020 City Council Meeting re Proposal for Replacement of Newell Bridge ProjectDa    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Clerk Minor, I have a question for the Council for the June 1, 2020 Special Meeting Calendar Item scheduled to begin around 6:35 PM regarding the Proposal for Replacement of the Newell Bridge Project. “Isn’t it true that the Bridge Proposal EIR has vetted Build Alternatives 1 - 4 and that all 4 meet the criteria that satisfies both the flood control, traffic, and all other issues and therefore, the Council’s adoption of Build Alt. 1 would not delay the project and the Council could decide at the June 1st meeting to adopt proposal Build Alt. 1, as a compromise, despite the Planning Commission’s recommendation of Build Alternative 2A, thus satisfying all residents instead of pitting different groups of residents against one another?” Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Best regards, 7 Irving Irving S. Rappaport, Esq., CLP IAM 300: World’s Leading Intellecutal Property Strategists Edgewood Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303   8 Baumb, Nelly From:Ed Sterbenc <ed@sterbenc.com> Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 8:53 AM To:Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Ed Sterbenc Subject:Newell Road Bridge Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Altans, I totally support Steve’s position as shown below. While traffic is a day to day annoyance, flooding is a tremedously expensive and long term disruptive occurrence which is certain to recur if something is not done with the Chaucer bridge. Clearly, this will not happen without funding which, in turn will not happen if a new Newell bridge is not constructed, which will not happen if the “one-lane” bridge is insisted upon. I watched the 1998 flood “up close and personal” from my home which is located 1.5 blockes from San Francisquito Creek and it was terrifying, as was the destruction it caused. Steve eloquently described the current actual and realistic set of choices we face. Please support his recommendation. Ed Sterbenc   University Avenue  Palo Alto    Here’s what Steve said:    On May 30, 2020, at 7:42 PM, Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us> wrote: I understand the concern about increased traffic. We are enjoying the temporary calm on our street. I'm also one of the 1400 homeowners at risk from the creek flooding. Our house was flooded in 1998. That was 22 years ago. The problem is not yet solved, but there's been progress against all odds, with completed flood control projects starting at the Bay and working upstream. Newell Bridge is the next essential step, so it's critical that it go forward. Therefore I ask you to support Build Alternative 2, NOT Build Alternative 1. The compelling reason is that flood control can't move forward with Build Alternative 1 because Caltrans will not fund a 1-lane bridge and there's no other funding in sight. But that doesn't help your traffic concern. Please consider these points: First point: You are right to fear high rise developments on the other side of the bridge, but a 1-lane vs. a 2-lane bridge will not discourage them. Inadequate infrastructure rarely stops profitable developments because there's no penalty to the developers for worsening our parking and traffic jams. The excess of office space and 9 the parking deficit in Palo Alto are the major reasons for our neighborhood's deteriorating traffic and parking problems. Second point: possible unintended consequences of a 1-lane bridge: While it may cause some of the traffic to divert and further clog University, Embarcadero and Oregon, it won't divert much traffic since the traffic there will be so bad that people will wait for the 1-lane. With 1 lane we're as likely to have more traffic backed up along Newell as we are to have less traffic. We all need to work together to get some action on how to get people from where they must live to where they must work without clogging up our neighborhoods. There are solutions for that, but a 1-lane bridge isn't one of them. Please support Build Alternative 2 so that we can resolve our flooding danger. Sincerely, Steve Bisset, Fife Avenue 10 Baumb, Nelly From:Penny Proctor <plumbago1927@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 9:21 AM To:Council, City Subject:Yes on Alternative #2 for Newel Rd Bridge! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members,    My house on Greer Rd flooded in 1955 and 1998. Or rather, the neighborhood around it flooded, and the house was ok.  With climate change we will probably get bigger and more frequent floods, and I won't be so lucky the next time. Several  close calls in recent years.    Alternative # 2 for the Newell Rd bridge looks like a wonderful improvement to me!    I use the existing bridge occasionally, and must wait if another car is coming, it is only wide enough for one car at a time.  And bicyclists and pedestrians would be taking their lives in their hands to use it. (I have never seen either.) The new  design with sidewalks, 2 car and bike lanes, will be so much safer and easier to use for all. And fully funded! What's not  to like?    Once it is done, the Chaucer St. bridge can be replaced. (If we are lucky, before the next flood.)    I am thankful for all the hard work by many people to come up with a good bridge design that will be a pleasure to use,  and help protect us from floods!    Please approve it.    Penny Proctor