HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200615plCC2 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 2 of 6
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
11
Baumb, Nelly
From:Anna Jaklitsch <annajak14@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 9:53 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Newell bridge reconstruction
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I recommend that the Alternative 2, a two-lane bridge be adopted by the council.
Anna Jaklitsch
Hamilton Ave.
12
Baumb, Nelly
From:John or Mary Schaefer <jmschaefer8@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 9:54 AM
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.
________________________________
Palo Alto City Council
I appreciate the continuing focus of my neighbors who have been part of finding new solutions to save whole
neighborhoods from a repeat of the disastrous flood of 1998. We have worked diligently to limit the impact of a new
flood. We have been part of an informal team that listened to the interests of 2 counties, 3 cities, Stanford University
and various towns that are part of the San Francisquito Creek flood plane. We are on the threshold of getting rid of the
second to last barrier along the creek. This will allow the last barrier, the Pope/Chaucer bridge, to be replaced. We have
watched the relocation of San Francisquito Creek from the bay to 101, additional tubes under the freeway and now the
Newell bridge. The City of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto can adjust the lane markings, ad traffic lights to control problems.
This new bridge replaces a present crossing which directed additional flood water to our homes. The new bridge has to
meet the current codes, requirements and is an important source for alternate emergency access between these 2
cities. It has been part of the map for years.
Mary Carey Schaefer
13
Baumb, Nelly
From:Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 10:10 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Crescent Park PA; dsfna@yahoogroups.com
Subject:City Council: Please approve the Newell Bridge Project tonight
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
June 1, 2020
To:
The Palo Alto City Council
From:
Steve Bisset, Fife Avenue (Crescent Park)
At tonight's City Council meeting, please approve without delay Build Alternative 2, designated in the
project plan as the “Locally Preferred Alternative” (LPA).
The Newell Road / San Francisquito Bridge Replacement Plan is thorough and competent, with
detailed analysis and careful and realistic consideration of the alternatives. It entailed extensive public
outreach over several years. For example some current advocates have their comments published in
the Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10340), June 2019.
Some are advocating that you delay project approval to continue the years-long discussion of
alternatives other than Build Alternative 2. Build Alternatives 3 and 4 objectionably increase the traffic
capacity of the intersection, while Build Alternative 1, a 1-lane bridge, has no chance of approval by
the minimum set of necessary entities, including Caltrans, so there is no chance it will ever be funded
or built.
To my knowledge, the whole neighborhood is concerned about traffic and the impact of future high
density development on the other side of the bridge. Development is a serious issue that demands a
serious unified mitigation plan. Seeking to solve the development problem by reducing the status quo
capacity of the Newell Bridge intersection is not feasible and would not be effective, yet it would put
hard-won progress on flood control at risk.
Your approval of Build Alternative 2 will:
- Put into action this essential step in mitigating the flood hazard that threatens life and property for
about 1400 Palo Alto homes;
- Preserve the traffic capacity status quo of the Newell/Woodland/Edgewood intersection, which will
remain limited by its unchanged zigzag alignment;
- Replace a 2-lane bridge with a safer 2-lane bridge;
- Reduce or eliminate the City of Palo Alto’s exposure to a horrendous liability suit under the inverse
condemnation doctrine, which could bankrupt the city if we fail to approve this readily available
solution 22 years after the 1998 flood.
Now is the time to act. Please approve Build Alternative 2, and let’s get on with it.
15
Baumb, Nelly
From:Peter Stevens <phs@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 10:17 AM
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 am writing to ask that you approve the Newell Road bridge replacement and that you proceed with building it as fast as
possible.
Those of us who were here during the flood in 1998 have a strong interest because the bridge, as well as the Chaucer
street bridge played roles in flooding. My house was flooded in 1998.
As I understand it, the recommendation that you have on the docket this evening is to build a new two lane bridge, with
pedestrian space.
This seems to be a reasonable improvement over the existing bridge, and a good plan.
Please approve the project.
Thank you,
Peter Stevens
366 Iris Way
16
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kevin Fisher <k.fisher@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 11:10 AM
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 Palo Alto City Council,
I have lived at 728 Alester Ave since 1995.
Our home was flooded by San Francisquito creek on February 3rd 1998. We evacuated in the middle of the night carrying
our two small children through the poison-oak infested floodwaters to safety. Hundreds of additional Palo Alto families
can share similar stories of trauma and property damage. It's a miracle there was no loss of life.
This flooding was primarily due to the Pope/Chaucer bridge which cannot be safely replaced until downstream mitigation
is completed. Next on the list of downstream mitigation is replacement of the antiquated Newell Rd bridge, which itself is
also a bottleneck for the creek.
For more than 20 years, we have been patiently waiting for a solution. We are on the cusp of real and meaningful
progress with replacement of the Newell Rd Bridge and the JPA's advanced plans for replacement of the Pope/Chaucer
Bridge.
City of Palo Alto has gone through a roughly 10 year process with regard to replacing the Newell Road bridge, working
with neighboring communities and residents of Palo Alto on the plan. A well-conceived (and funded) project for replacing
the Newell Rd bridge is now before you. There has been ample opportunity for input from all parties. And we are now at
the finish line with regard to the approval by City of Palo Alto.
We cannot endure any more delay in this process. The risk of inaction is too great. I implore you to approve this
project NOW.
Kevin Fisher
728 Alester Ave
17
Baumb, Nelly
From:jkathomas@aol.com
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 11:10 AM
To:city.mgr@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City
Subject:I Support Alternative 2 for Newell Rd Bridge Replacement
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Members of the City Council,
Please approve tonight Alternative 2 for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement.
I will always remember the sound of the creek water rushing into the air vents of our home at 2 AM in February of 1998.
It is time to move forward and cease delaying the inevitable.
Thank you,
Jeannie Thomas
751 Center Drive
18
Baumb, Nelly
From:dolok@comcast.net
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 11:11 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of Build
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
We are writing in support of Build Alternative 2, designated in the project plan as the “Locally Preferred Alternative”
(LPA).
Flood hazard mitigation is a critical issue for us as residents whose property backs onto San Francisquito Creek, only 3
blocks downstream of the Newell Bridge.
We are also in favor of the bridge redesign for traffic flow and safety.
Thank you very much.
Dolores and Bill Kincaid
1643 Edgewood Dr
PA 94303
19
Baumb, Nelly
From:John Hanna <jhanna@hanvan.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 11:12 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:City Mgr
Subject:Iterm 7 on June 1st Council agenda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council members: Please approve the replacement of the Newell bridge this evening. Do not lose sight of
the underlying reason for replacing the bridge. It is the next step in the Joint Powers flood control project. The
decision has been made to work from downstream up, and the Newell bridge is the next step. The plan is to
replace it before the Chaucer bridge is replaced, The Chaucer bridge was the cause of the 1998 flood, and it is
still there, posing the same threat as before. The City paid over three million dollars to settle the class action
lawsuit after the 1998 flood, and if there should be another flood caused by the Chaucer bridge, hundreds of
homes could be flooded and the city will be liable for significant damages. The City has taken the position that
removing just the Chaucer bridge without replacing the Newell bridge could result in flooding caused by the
Newell bridge. Both bridges restrict the natural capacity of the creek. While that makes sense at some level, so
long as the Chaucer bridge remains in place, the homes in the FEMA Flood zone A remain at risk, and the City
remains legally responsible for any damage done as a result of the blockage of the Creek caused by the structure
of the Chaucer bridge placed in the creek bed by the city of Palo alto. Previous Councils have ignored past
warnings and we have been fortunate that there has not been another flood in the past twenty years, but don’t
press your luck. Next year could be another flood year. Replacement of the Newell bridge should not be an
issue. The local residents close to the bridge have a right to have their concerns about traffic and safety
addressed, but those concerns go only to the size and configuration of the replacement bridge, and should not be
allowed to delay the replacement of the Newell bridge and the Chaucer bridge.
Respectfully,
Joh Hanna
John Paul Hanna, Esq.
HANNA & VAN ATTA | 525 University Avenue, Suite 600 | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Tel: (650) 321-5700; Fax: (650) 321-5639
E-mail: jhanna@hanvan.com
Recognized by Best Lawyers® in America 2019 for Real Estate Law; Community Association Law; and Land Use and Zoning Law;
and in 2019 for Land Use and Zoning Law Lawyer of the Year in N. California
This e-mail message may contain confidential, privileged information intended solely for the addressee. Please do not read, copy, or disseminate it unless you are the
addressee. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please call us (collect) at (650) 321-5700 and ask to speak with the message sender. Also, we would
appreciate your forwarding the message back to us and deleting it from your system. Thank you.
20
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kathryn Spector <kathryn_spector@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 11:13 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE NEWELL BRIDGE OPTION 2
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Our community much prefers the function of the existing bridge - not a new speedway. Please approve
Option 1 and keep our neighborhood safe.
Kathryn Spector
1525 Dana Ave
21
Baumb, Nelly
From:Gerald Berner <bunsenbern@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 12:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:] City council Approve one car lane bridge
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I have read it all and having once lived on the corner of Newell and Hamilton and now on crescent a one lane bridge with
bike and walking lanes and flood control I prefer Alt 1.
Gerald berner. 1408 Edgewood dr. Redacted
22
Baumb, Nelly
From:David Ross <dsross2@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 12:12 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 support alt 2
David Ross
Walter Hays Dr
23
Baumb, Nelly
From:Donald McLaughlin <donnodot@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 12:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:City Council: Please approve the Newell Bridge Project tonight
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
June 1, 2020
To:
The Palo Alto City Council
From:
Don McLaughin, Forest Avenue (Crescent Park)
At tonight's City Council meeting, please approve without delay Build Alternative 2, designated in the
project plan as the “Locally Preferred Alternative” (LPA).
The Newell Road / San Francisquito Bridge Replacement Plan is thorough and competent, with
detailed analysis and careful and realistic consideration of the alternatives. It entailed extensive public
outreach over several years. For example some current advocates have their comments published in
the Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10340), June 2019.
Some are advocating that you delay project approval to continue the years-long discussion of
alternatives other than Build Alternative 2. Build Alternatives 3 and 4 objectionably increase the traffic
capacity of the intersection, while Build Alternative 1, a 1-lane bridge, has no chance of approval by
the minimum set of necessary entities, including Caltrans, so there is no chance it will ever be funded
or built.
To my knowledge, the whole neighborhood is concerned about traffic and the impact of future high
density development on the other side of the bridge. Development is a serious issue that demands a
serious unified mitigation plan. Seeking to solve the development problem by reducing the status quo
capacity of the Newell Bridge intersection is not feasible and would not be effective, yet it would put
hard-won progress on flood control at risk.
Your approval of Build Alternative 2 will:
- Put into action this essential step in mitigating the flood hazard that threatens life and property for
about 1400 Palo Alto homes;
- Preserve the traffic capacity status quo of the Newell/Woodland/Edgewood intersection, which will
remain limited by its unchanged zigzag alignment;
- Replace a 2-lane bridge with a safer 2-lane bridge;
- Reduce or eliminate the City of Palo Alto’s exposure to a horrendous liability suit under the inverse
condemnation doctrine, which could bankrupt the city if we fail to approve this readily available
solution 22 years after the 1998 flood.
Now is the time to act. Please approve Build Alternative 2, and let’s get on with it.
24
Baumb, Nelly
From:Arthur Stauffer <arthur.stauffer@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 2:14 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Steve Bisset
Subject:Fwd: [CPNA] City Council: Please approve the Newell Bridge Project tonight
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I would like to support the position expressed by Steve Bisset in the below email. Alternative 2 seems to be the most
practical solution to the flooding problem, in that it is affordable, a solid design, approved by our planning commission,
and the most likely to be approved by East Palo Alto as well. I believe that any increase in traffic can be mitigated by a
signal, speed bumps or other means. In addition, the zig zag design mentioned below will also slow traffic.
After 22 years of discussion and planning, it is time to solve the flooding problem. We need to move on to finally replace
the Chaucer Street Bridge and greatly reduce the potential for extensive flooding damage in the future.
Art Stauffer
Begin forwarded message:
From: Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>
Subject: [CPNA] City Council: Please approve the Newell Bridge Project tonight
Date: June 1, 2020 at 10:09:57 AM PDT
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: Crescent Park PA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com>, dsfna@yahoogroups.com
June 1, 2020
To:
The Palo Alto City Council
From:
Steve Bisset, Fife Avenue (Crescent Park)
At tonight's City Council meeting, please approve without delay Build Alternative 2,
designated in the project plan as the “Locally Preferred Alternative” (LPA).
The Newell Road / San Francisquito Bridge Replacement Plan is thorough and
competent, with detailed analysis and careful and realistic consideration of the
alternatives. It entailed extensive public outreach over several years. For example
some current advocates have their comments published in the Planning &
Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10340), June 2019.
Some are advocating that you delay project approval to continue the years-long
discussion of alternatives other than Build Alternative 2. Build Alternatives 3 and 4
objectionably increase the traffic capacity of the intersection, while Build Alternative 1, a
1-lane bridge, has no chance of approval by the minimum set of necessary entities,
including Caltrans, so there is no chance it will ever be funded or built.
25
To my knowledge, the whole neighborhood is concerned about traffic and the impact of
future high density development on the other side of the bridge. Development is a
serious issue that demands a serious unified mitigation plan. Seeking to solve the
development problem by reducing the status quo capacity of the Newell Bridge
intersection is not feasible and would not be effective, yet it would put hard-won
progress on flood control at risk.
Your approval of Build Alternative 2 will:
- Put into action this essential step in mitigating the flood hazard that threatens life and
property for about 1400 Palo Alto homes;
- Preserve the traffic capacity status quo of the Newell/Woodland/Edgewood
intersection, which will remain limited by its unchanged zigzag alignment;
- Replace a 2-lane bridge with a safer 2-lane bridge;
- Reduce or eliminate the City of Palo Alto’s exposure to a horrendous liability suit under
the inverse condemnation doctrine, which could bankrupt the city if we fail to approve
this readily available solution 22 years after the 1998 flood.
Now is the time to act. Please approve Build Alternative 2, and let’s get on with it.
‐‐
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/CALVpHEfGPS_CXEb7EOtb7%3DVtAuDqewmcp‐LhssfPqfwZJzwfqA%40mail.gmail.com.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Merele McClure <merelemcc@att.net>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 2:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Please approve "Locally Approved Alternative 2" (LPA).
I was flooded in 1998 at 486 Fulton Street, Crescent Park.
Thank you!
Merele McClure
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Carolyn Westgaard <carolynwestgaard@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 3:10 PM
To:City Mgr; Council, City
Subject:Please approve the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project on June 1
Attachments:2376 St Francis Dr 001.jpg; Inside 2376 St Francis Dr 001.jpg; St Francis Dr 001.jpg
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello City Council and City Manager,
In requesting that you approve the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project during the City Council meeting
on June 1, I am forwarding an email and photos I sent to the Council 6 years ago. The photos are of my home
and car on St. Francis Drive on February 3, 1998.
As you know, completing work on the Newell Road project is of vital importance for flood control on San
Francisquito Creek so that work may proceed to the Pope Chaucer bridge which primarily caused the flooding
in 1998. I still live on St. Francis Drive and it saddens as well as angers me that we have waited for this
protection for 22 years, and that discussions about Newell have been going on for 8 years. We simply cannot
have any more delays on this project and risk flooding like what you see in the photos again.
The bridge design has taken in account extensive community input and many compromises have been made
to accommodate the different perspectives. Some neighbors near the bridge have expressed worry about
traffic patterns that will be caused by the new bridge. However, that has been studied and it has not been
shown to be a concern. And, if it should become a concern once the bridge is built, mitigation measures can
be put in place.
So, please, please, approve the project on Monday night and make my neighborhood safe from this degree of
flooding again.
Thank you,
Carolyn Westgaard
From: Carolyn Westgaard <carolynwestgaard@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 5:52 PM
To: len@sfcjpa.org <len@sfcjpa.org>; jpa@sfcjpa.org <jpa@sfcjpa.org>; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Newell St bridge comments from someone who flooded in 1998
Hello,
I am writing to you because I attended two recent meetings regarding the Newell Street bridge project and found some
of the public comments quite frustrating from the perspective of someone whose house flooded in 1998. I truly
Redacted
2
appreciate the work you have done on this project and am sending you this to encourage you to not allow this project to
be derailed by my neighbors who seem to lose the sight of the forest for the trees.
I live at 2376 St Francis Drive which, on February 3, 1998, I came to realize is located at the low end (a.k.a. the "deep
end") of St Francis Dr. It is where much of the flood water pooled as it ran downhill from the creek because the water
could not cross the berm at Oregon Expressway. At the height of the flood that morning, the water was almost 4 feet
deep. For my neighbors and me, the flood was profound: our houses and belongings were greatly damaged, our cars
were totaled, we were left homeless for a time, our lives were changed. My husband and I were fortunate to
have the resources to rebuild our house so that it now sits above flood level. Most of our neighbors did not
rebuild as we did and are still in jeopardy.
It was obvious that day and since then that the bridges over the creek contributed to that flood. I do not have a stance
on what sort of bridges replace them but I do urge that you continue to work diligently and with haste to replace them
and make us all safer. I appreciate that this may need to be an incremental process that deals with many
complexities. The point is that each such incremental action mitigates the risk of February 1998 happening again.
So please continue your work. I recognize that you must take public comment into account but I hope it does not deter
you from the ultimate task: meaningful flood control.
I am attaching a few photos that I took of our house and neighborhood the morning of February 3, 1998 so you can see
the kind of damage you are working to avoid in the future.
Thank you very much for your time and work on this,
Carolyn Westgaard
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Irving Rappaport <isport1@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, May 29, 2020 7:43 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:isport1@yahoo.com; BKoodrich@MPBF.com
Subject:Issues Concerning the Proposed Newell Bridge Replacement Project
Attachments:Replacement Bridge Car Traffic and Other Citizen Considerations - May 29, 2020.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
It is important to acknowledge that the main purpose of replacement of the Newell Bridge is to
deal with a possible 70-year flood surge in the creek.
I am hopeful that the City Council will be amenable to giving consideration Monday evening, June 1,
6:35 PM at the City Council Meeting online to possible alternative compromises that would not cause
real delay or increased costs to the proposed project. And, if they are reasonable, hopefully they will
allow time to evaluate such reasonable alternatives.
Some alternatives include Build Alternative 1, which provides the necessary flood control concerns,
without adding a huge structure as proposed by Build Alt. 2A. Other compromises could include a
project where the two car lanes are only increased from the current 8 ft. to 9 to 10 ft. wide
each. Another compromise to keep the size of the structure more modest would be a combined
pedestrian and bike lane on only one side of the bridge.
We citizens ask that the Council and Planning Commission Members, bear in mind that it is
the citizens in the impacted neighborhoods on both sides of the bridge that will have to live
with both the short and long term consequences of this project.
However, the proposal does not address or provide any statistics or estimates on the
following important safety and citizen issues. Attached is a two page analysis of the sections
of the 700 page EIR that fails to address these issues.
1) Increased speeding on the bridge due to much wider car lanes, decreasing the safety
of driving across the bridge;
2) Increased car traffic across the bridge and in the neighboring single residential
streets (rush hour in recent years on some streets has been terrible);
3) Although claimed to be functionally obsolete under 2020 CA bridge construction
standards, the bridge is neither obsolete or unsafe from car, pedestrian or bike use,
as the City has produced no evidence of accidents in the 100+ year history of the
bridge;
4) There is no information of the amount of daily pedestrians or bikers crossing the
bridge; and
2
5) The proposal does not take into account the displacement of existing residents on
the East Palo Alto side when high rise office and residential buildings will surely
come from a much wider bridge, clearly increasing traffic, not only on the bridge, but
in all neighboring residential streets on both sides of the bridge.
Thanks for your full consideration of the serious long term impact such a project will have on all our
citizens living in neighborhoods and residential streets on both sides of the bridge.
Best regards,
Irving S. Rappaport, Esq., CLP
IAM 300: World’s Leading Intellectual Property Strategists
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650)321-7024
AREAS NOT ADDRESSED IN EIR ON ADDED CAR TRAFFIC ON BRIDGE AND NEIGHBORING
STREETS AND SPEEDING ON THE BRIDGE DUE TO MUCH WIDER CAR LANES ON BRIDGE
No analysis of
increased car
speeding on the
bridge or increased
number of cars,
crossing the bridge
& on neighborhood
streets, both due to
much wider lanes.
What does it
mean that the
Project would not
result in impacts
on traffic
operations under
the opening year?
This is Not True!
The wider lanes
would increase
speeding of cars
over the bridge,
thereby increasing
the chances of
accidents. It would
also mean more
car traffic both on
the bridge & on
neighboring
streets. The bridge
is not functionally
obsolete or unsafe.
The main
reason for
replacing the
bridge is to
deal with a 70-
year possible
flood surge.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 8:10 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Fw: Newell Rd Bridge Upgrade
Attachments:Alternative
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I know that this is a tough time for you to make a decision that requires you all to balance the budget of the city yet
continue to put in place infrastructure measures to safeguard our city. I know that the Newell Road bridge has been on the
agenda for years!
It has come to my attention that there is a proposal of an alternative plan as illustrated in the attachment. The proposed
project takes into account extensive community input since discussions started in 2012. It is much more 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. I
understand that Caltrans says that they don't see increased traffic with their proposal, but as I question all traffic studies,
did they do a 24/7 study to see the traffic impact at all hours of the day. Secondly did they study beyond the 1 or two
blocks beyond the Newell street bridge. I have seen over the years that studies such as these fail to study the road and
safety impact of neighborhoods roads beyond the initial site.
As for this alternative, I believe that is an excellent compromise taking into account multiple perspectives and should be
considered. It will reduce cut-through traffic that already plagues their neighborhood, keeps the impatient and fast drivers
from streaming into the neighborhood streets which can cause safety concerns for walkers, young children trying to cross
the streets, and ensuring a residents rights to a safe and quiet neighborhood according to the Palo Alto Municipal Code
below. My husband and I are bike riders and frequent the neighborhood and are constantly alarmed at the speed of the
cars on this street to the point that we avoid riding on Newell unless we really have to. We see cars headed directly to the
Newell bridge in order to avoid the traffic jam on University. Widening that road will be an open invitation to bring even
more cars into the neighborhood over that bridge. Please keep it bike and neighborhood friendly.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kimberley Wong,
Long time resident of Palo Alto
9.10.010 Declaration of policy.
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the city that the peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Palo Alto
require protection from excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the community. It is
the intention of the city council to control the adverse effect of such noise sources on the citizen under any condition of
use, especially those conditions of use which have the most severe impact upon any person.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Paul Gumina <paul@svbusinesslaw.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 10:44 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Jeremias, Michel
Subject:Public Comment: Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project, Certification of Final Environmental
Impact Report / Project Approval, District 4- SCL/SM-Newell Road BRLS 5100(017), June 1, 2020 City
Council Meeting, Action Item No. 7, for Yang Shen
Attachments:06-01-20 Ltr to City Council from Yang Shen.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:
My office represents Yang Shen, owner of a single family home located at 1499 Edgewood Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94301
("the Shen Property"). The Shen family lives in the home.
My client, his realtor, Mike Pan, and I intend to speak at tonight’s City Council Meeting in opposition to Agendi Action
Item No. 7, the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project.
Attached, please find correspondence to the Members of the Council consisting of my client’s written comments and
opposition to the Project.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Paul L. Gumina
Cell:
West Coast Business Law
The Law Offices Of Paul L. Gumina, P.C.
Main Office
560 W. Main St., Suite 205
Alhambra, CA 91801
Tel. (Toll Free):
Fax: 866‐894‐8867
E‐Mail: Paul@westcoastbizlaw.com
www.westcoastbizlaw.com
Please address correspondence to our Alhambra Office
San Jose Branch Office
1641 N. First St., Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95112
IRS Circular 230 disclosure:
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed
Redacted
Redacted
2
by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice
contained in this communication, unless expressly
stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any tax-related
matter(s) addressed herein.
Objections by Yang Shen - June 1, 2020 Page 1
The Law Offices Of
Paul L. Gumina, P.C.
Via Email To: June 1, 2020
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org;
Michel.Jeremias@cityofpaloalto.org
Clerk of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave, 6th Fl
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project
Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report / Project Approval
District 4- SCL/SM-Newell Road BRLS 5100(017)
June 1, 2020 City Council Meeting, Action Item No. 7
Submitted On Behalf Of Yang Shen, 1499 Edgewood Drive, Palo Alto CA 94301
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:
My office represents Yang Shen, owner of a single family home located at 1499 Edgewood
Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ("the Shen Property"). The Shen family lives in the home.
The Shens have previously opposed the City's proposed certification of the DEIR / FEIR, and
have opposed the project as proposed therein, for the reasons stated in their letter to Michel
Jeremias dated June 30, 2019, containing the Shens' comments to the DEIR; and or the reasons
stated in my email correspondence to the City's Architectural Review Board sent on May 6,
2020. This correspondence already received the the City is incorporated by reference herein.
We also incorporate herein by reference the comments made by myself, the Shens, and Michael
Pan, that we made at the ARB Meeting on May 7, 2020, in opposition to the City's certification
of the FEIR and the project.
The Shens oppose certification of the FEIR because it fails to adequately address the severe,
negative environmental and health impacts that will be imposed, directly, on the Shen Property
and its residents. After listening and reading the comments of proponents of the flood control
aspects of the comments at the last ARB meeting, we appreciate the trauma these residents
experienced thirty years ago. However, because the creek runs across my client's property, and
my client's property is subject to a flood control easement, we are writing to raise additional
concern about the defective flood control analysis in the proposed FEIR, because a poorly
designed project is worse than no project at all, particularly with respect to my client's exposure
to, and risk of, severe flooding if this project is implemented as planned. To summarize, the
proposed FEIR fails to adequately describe, analyze, or address the flood control aspects of this
project. These impacts, which in my opinion, constitute non-compliance of the proposed FEIR
with CEQA standards.
West Coast
Business LawSM
www.westcoastbizlaw.com
Paul L. Gumina, Esq.
Robert Arthur, Esq.
Of Counsel
Offices in San Jose and
Los Angeles County,
California
560 W. Main St., Suite 205
Alhambra, CA 91801
Telephone: (866) 894-8863
Facsimile: (866) 894-8867
E-Mail: paul@westcoastbizlaw.com
Objections by Yang Shen - June 1, 2020 Page 2
1. Objections Regarding The Defective Flood Control Analysis
(A) SCVWD Hydraulic Model Is Not Described. The SCVWD hydraulic model
parameterization is not described in the FEIR or the LHS. Reported model interface screenshots
and summary data tables only report the existing conditions and proposed conditions bridge face
cross‐section geometry, model cross-section spacing, right and left top of bank elevations, and
“Manning’s n” roughness coefficients at the bridge section. The “error bar” associated with the
model detailing and parameterization and calculation procedures is less than the standard
accuracy of available topographic maps of residential sites and known finished floor elevations.
As well, being in FEMA Zone A, the tolerance for base flood elevation surcharges is 1.0 feet.
(B) The hydraulic model is a steady‐state one‐dimensional model. An unsteady state two‐
dimensional model is necessary for determining effects of the bridge replacement immediately
upstream from the bridge section, as well as downstream effects. The absence of proper
modelling results in the piecemeal analysis of the project. CEQA requires agencies to analyze
“the Whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in
the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. . .” (14
Cal. Code Regs., § 15378(a)) An EIR must therefore analyze the environmental effects of an
entire project, rather than breaking the project into segments. Current standard practice is to use
1‐D HEC‐RAS model for in‐channel flows that are narrow and deep, and combine
computationally with a 2‐D model on the adjacent floodplains for broad shallow flows. Because
upstream improvements are intended to be implemented that would reduce floodplain overflow
from near Middlefield Road, the FEIR does not consider whether large enough flows that will
reach the Newell Bridge vicinity may exceed the estimated 50‐year design discharge to
potentially exceed the natural channel capacity and raise the water surface elevation above the
30.0‐ft replacement bridge soffit elevation.. The proposed FEIR fails to compute the effect of the
replacement bridge on the depth and direction of those floodplain flows.
(C) Modification of Bridge Approaches May Affect Floodplain Flow Dynamics Especially
Under Potential Future Conditions. The hydraulic engineering analysis documented in the
FEIR and the LHS does not describe what hydraulic effects the raised bridge approaches on both
sides of the replacement bridge may have on overbank floodplain flows. According to the detail
of the FEMA floodplain map reproduced at p. 10 of the LHS, there is a levee on the right (south)
bank of SFC upstream and downstream from Newell Road which is mapped on the left (north)
bank of SFC only in the 400‐500 ft immediately upstream from the bridge. (The mapping is poor
and fails to show if the levee is entirely on the south side of the channel. However, the FEIR
also shows on vicinity maps an existing floodwall along the left (north) side of the creek
bordering Woodland Avenue. FEMA indicates that the 1% Annual Chance Peak Flow (100‐year
flow) is entirely contained in the channel in the reach upstream from Newell Road Bridge, but
also maps a 100‐year floodplain area only on the left (north) side of SFC, despite the presence of
the floodwall mapped in the FEIR. The SCVWD hydraulic model data summarized in the LHS
indicates that the top of bank elevations are roughly the same on both the right and left sides of
the creek. From first principles, it appears that presence of a regulatory floodplain only on the
left (north) side of the creek results from natural topography favoring overflow to the left
considering the well documented long‐term “down‐to‐the‐northeast” natural alluvial fan
morphology in this vicinity. The FEIR and the LHS do not explain the purpose and effect of the
floodwall on the north side, the mapping by FEMA of an irregular “levee” on both sides of the
creek, and, by extension, how modification of Newell Road roadway grades on both sides of the
replacement bridge would interact with these apparent flood control facilities. The proposed
Objections by Yang Shen - June 1, 2020 Page 3
FEIR fails to consider the increased potential for overbank flows to be forced to the south, over
the right bank upstream from the replacement bridge. This is a significant negative impact not
evaluated by the FEIR. Mitigation measures should be required to determine a range of measures
to enlarge the natural channel and install top of bank floodwalls. Such a hydraulic model analysis
for anticipated upstream improvements should model the effects of eliminating floodplain flows
originating from Middlefield Road vicinity, it should likely have to be an unsteady state one‐ or
two‐dimensional model depending on the range of design alternatives that are not analyzed in the
proposed FEIR.
(D) Insufficient Freeboard for Passing Floated Debris. Neither the LHS nor the FEIR
analyzes the potential for floated debris (e.g., trees fallen into the creek during floods and floated
downstream) to jam on the headwall of the replacement bridge. FHWA and Caltrans typically
require 2 vertical feet of clear space or “freeboard” between the top of the 50‐year flood water
surface elevation and the soffit or ceiling of the bridge. The design provides only 0.59 feet of
freeboard. In fact, the proposed FEIR does not address the possibility that Caltrans will not
exempt this project from the requirement, or if raising the soffit 2 feet above the 50‐year flood
water surface elevation might require grading modifications on either or both sides of the bridge,
causing significant utility or private property conflicts or roadway safety diminishing sight
distance restrictions.
(E) FEIR Differs from LHS. The proposed FEIR at p 2.2.1‐2 refers to 70‐year and 100‐year
peak flows and water surface elevations that the LHS refers to as 50‐year and 100‐year values. It
is not clear how or why the FEIR changed the 50‐year values to 70‐year values.
(F) Technical Writing Lacks Understandable Narrative. The hydraulic engineering analysis
in the FEIR and the LHS lacks clear documentation, and is written in a manner that cannot be
understood by residents who are not hydraulic engineers. The FEIR preparer paraphrased results
in the LHS. The LHS itself is entirely a verbal description of the HEC‐RAS hydraulic model
results. Only a hydraulic engineer can read these sections and understand the breadth of the
analysis portrayed. The content of these sections lacks “common sense” narrative explaining the
physical phenomena for a layman’s audience, especially one that is written to address the point
of view of residents near the bridge replacement site. The analysis is not prepared for a
“neighborhood‐scale” context, nor does it address neighbor's concerns regarding site‐specific
physical phenomena.
The result of these defects is to raise a question that the proposed FEIR does not address: What
happens if the replacement Newell Road Bridge does not prevent but causes, during a flood, the
formation of a debris dam at the Bridge that will cause my client's property to be among the first
to be flooded?
2. The Proposed FEIR constitutes improper piecemeal analysis of the project, in that it
fails to consider or address the project's context, that it is merely one element of the "San
Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project
Upstream of Highway 101" adopted by on September 26, 2019, by the San Francisquito
Creek Joint Powers Authority.
The proposed FEIR for the Newell Creek Bridge Removal Project fails to address the flood
control measured in the context of the above-referened project proposed by the SFC-JPA. Nor
does the proposed FEIR address the concerns and public comments to the FEIR that SFC-JPA.
The flood control project proposed by CalTrans, SFC-JPA, and the Cities of Menlo Park, Palo
Objections by Yang Shen - June 1, 2020 Page 4
Alto, and East Palo Alto has been improperly piecemealed, and for other reasons, as alleged in
the Petition for Writ Of Mandamus entitled, Peter Joshua v. San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Authority, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 19-CIV-06305. A copy of the Verified Petition
in that action is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. My clients object to the
piecemeal analysis of the Newell Road Bridge Removal Project, and in particular, the analysis of
the proposed flood control plans, for the reasons stated in the Verified Petition.
3. The Proposed FEIR fails to address the foreseeable, negative impacts of the continuation
of the Covid-19 crisis.
The proposed FEIR fails to address the possible and foreseeable of the continuation of the
Covid-19 crisis. This project, like all currently proposed major construction projects, could be
stalled, indefinitely, if (as the US CDC expects) there is a "second wave" of Covid-19 later this
year or next year. In that event, it is foreseeable that additional and perhaps more restrictive
"stay-at-home" and quarantine measures will be ordered by the State of California. Simply put,
project workers may be ordered to stay at home, regardless of social distancing and face-
masking, and there may simply be no work force available to complete the project for an
unknown and possibly prolonged period of time.
Also, given the literal collapse of California's economy during the last two months, it is
foreseeable that the contractors and vendors may go out of business after work on the project
starts because they have failed financially. So far, this has been the most severe economic
decline since the Great Depression. No person or government agency can guarantee or even
expect that the current supply chain needed for this project will be unimpaired.
Also, it is foreseeable that the treasury of the State of California and of the local agencies
involved may collapse as well. If the project is started now, but then suspended or slowed due to
the continued or even more severe effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on workers, contractors and
vendors, it is foreseeable that the Shens will have to suffer and endure a construction staging area
in their back yard where construction equipment and materials are simply abandoned and left in
place, constituting an attractive nuisance with no one available to prevent thefts and trespassing.
In other words, there is DEIR or FEIR for any complex construction project that can satisfy
CEQA unless it addresses the uncertainties created by the Covid-19 emergency and its
foreseeable, negative impacts on workers, private businesses, and on government agencies.
4. The Proposed FEIR fails to describe, with particularity, the anticipated effects of
widening and straightening Newell Road on traffic impacting the Shen property and
neighboring properties. It fails to describe, with particularity, what equipment and
activities will occur in the construction staging site in my client's backyard, the hours of
operation, and what noise, pollutants, and security problems can be reasonably anticipated.
As will be discussed below, the Shen Property is located in a unique position with respect to the
project, and my clients will suffer the greatest negative environmental and health impacts during
the construction phases because the City of Palo Alto and CalTrans propose to stage construction
activities within about 30 to 200 feet from their home. The Shen Property is immediately
adjacent to the intersection of Newell Road and Woodland Avenue, where the bridge will be torn
down, flood control work on the banks of the creek will occur, and the new, two-lane bridge will
be rebuilt. San Francisquito Creek runs along the northern property line.
Objections by Yang Shen - June 1, 2020 Page 5
As previously discussed, two aspects of the Shen Property's connection with the project site are
also unique. First, the Shen Property is subject to a flood control easement adjacent to San
Francisquito Creek along its northern boundary line. Second, the northeastern portion of the
Shen Property is actually not owned by Mr. Shen, but is owned by the City of Palo Alto. In
May 1998, The City of Palo Alto granted a written Encroachment Permit for an indefinite term
to the prior owner, and that permit has been in effect as to each subsequent owner of the Shen
Property. The Shen Property occupies and encroaches on the City's property. The purpose of
the encroachment was to permit the former owner to build a fence along the eastern-most side of
the City's boundary line adjacent to the sidewalk along the west edge of Newell Road. There are
several very tall trees growing within the encroachment area, and the encroachment area has
been professionally landscaped by the prior and current owners of the Shen Property.
The encroachment permit is subject to revocation by the City on 30-day's notice, at the City's
sole discretion. After the encroachment permit was issued, since 1998, the owners of the Shen
Property constructed the current six-foot tall wooden fence along the west edge of the City's
property line, and now this fence separates the sidewalk and street along Newell Road from the
Shen Property and provides privacy and relief from street noise. The City has threatened to
cancel the Encroachment Permit unless Mr. Shen agrees to allow the City to enter the
encroachment area and use it during the project.
In a meeting with the City of Palo Alto planning staff that took place on May 13, 2019 at the
Shen Property, Mr. Shen and I were informed that the City and CalTrans planned to re-occupy
the encroached area for use as a staging area for the project and to perform the following work:
1) remove the existing boundary-line fences that were installed pursuant to the 1998
encroachment permit; 2) build a temporary fence along the actual western boundary line of the
Shen Property; 3) cut down at least three very tall eucalyptus trees and remove all landscaping
that has been professionally maintained for many years within the encroachment area; 4) position
unspecified construction equipment, materials and supplies in a staging area that will comprise
not only the encroached area, but also the area behind the Shen Property adjacent to both the
northern and southern banks of San Francisquito Creek. The planning staff members did not
describe what equipment and materials would be stored where, or what daily activities would
take place in the staging area. Generally, the planning staff mentioned that delivery trucks would
be unloading materials and construction equipment into the staging area, and workers would
perform work within the staging area such as cutting stone and concrete, and mixing concrete
and/or road paving materials. The planning staff did not mention whether mobile generators
would be running, or whether asphalt paving materials would be stored, loaded, and/or mixed in
the staging areas. The planning staff did not indicate with any specificity how often delivery
trucks would be unloading materials and equipment in the staging area; on which days and
during which hours would deliveries be made; in what types of vehicles; during what hours;
what equipment would be staged and stored in the staging area; and what work would be
performed using any particular equipment and materials in the staging area.
Based on prior experience, the Shen family can expect that the delivery trucks picking up and
dropping off in the staging area adjacent to their home will generate an unknown but significant
amount of noise, dust, soot and exhaust will be a daily occurrence during an unknown number of
hours per day. This alone presents a serious and unmitigated health hazard to the occupants of
the Shen Property. The same is true with the noise and exhaust of fork lifts and other material
handling equipment that are expected to operate in the staging areas. It is unknown whether the
City and CalTrans will operate portable generators in the staging area, and during which hours.
Such generators can be anticipated to create significant noise, soot and exhaust. If concrete will
Objections by Yang Shen - June 1, 2020 Page 6
be mixed in the staging area, the concrete mixers will generate a significant amount of noise,
concrete dust, soot and exhaust. If asphalt or asphalt compounds are used in the project, the
Shen family can expect that trucks carrying the asphalt mixes will deliver to the paving machines
in or adjacent to the staging areas. If concrete saws will be used in the staging area, great noise,
particulate concrete dust, exhaust and soot can be expected to impact the Shen Property. The
process of delivering hot asphalt mixes to paving equipment in or near the staging area adjacent
to the Shen Property can be expected to create substantial noxious odors, noise, exhaust and soot.
The City staff did not mention whether portable toilets for workers would be set up and used in
the staging area, but if so, the noxious odors and possible sewage spills can be expected.
It is well known that thefts from unguarded construction sites are commonplace. The City has
not advised what security will be required to prevent the staging area from becoming an
attractive nuisance to children, and a target for thieves. Although the proposed FEIR mentions
that construction lighting will not be needed in the staging area because CalTrans and the City
expect to do all work during daytime hours, the staging area will need to be lighted 24 hours a
day to provide security and deter theft. The light would be expected to disturb the Shen family
and interfere with their ability to get a good night’s sleep. The City and CalTrans should
anticipate that the staging area should be secured 24 hours a day by security guards as well. The
project should also mitigate the possibility that trespassers could gain access to the staging area,
and simply hop the fence to enter the Shen Property without being observed from the street.
The FEIR, including the City's responses to the Shens' comments, fail to address or consider any
of these negative environmental and health effects as to the staging areas proposed to exist
immediately adjacent to the Shen Property in other than a cursory and superficial manner, other
than stating, in essence, "the City and the project's contractors will comply with applicable codes
and regulations." No meaningful mitigation steps relevant to these specific, foreseeable negative
impacts have been proposed in the FEIR. For this reason, the City should not certify the FEIR
and require revisions and effective mitigation steps to address the concerns that I have outlined,
above. Specifically, the FEIR, on Page S-5, Section S.4.5.1 [Construction Staging Areas] admits
that the proposed FEIR failed to adequately address the serious, foreseeable environmental and
health impacts caused by activities in the proposed staging areas on the persons living
immediately adjacent to them, as follows:
"The final location of staging/laydown areas would be determined during the design
phase and will require additional analysis if there are any changes that result in impacts
that are not described in this Draft EIR/EA or addressed by standard measures included in
the project description."
This statement admits that the proposed FEIR failed to analyze, consider, or propose mitigation
to the foreseeable negative environmental and health impacts, even though the City planning
staff I met on May 13th were very certain of the location of the staging area adjacent to the Shen
Property, and how they planned to use the staging area. They stated, as a matter of fact, the
City's intention to re-occupy the encroachment area next to the Shen property, and described in
general terms what would occur there over an approximately two-year period. Given this
certainty, the failure to address these anticipated negative impacts in the proposed FEIR is
inexcusable, and the proposed FEIR should be rejected in its current form.
Keep in mind that the construction and related activity in the staging area will occur
between 30 feet to 200 feet from my client's home, and last for approximately two years.
The burden created by the expected activity will, without question, That fact is not mentioned or
Objections by Yang Shen - June 1, 2020 Page 7
analyzed whatsoever in the proposed FEIR. The FEIR should have addressed all negative
environmental and health impacts that can be expected to be suffered by residents living within
200 feet from the construction staging areas, including the residents of the Shen Property. The
discussion in proposed FEIR, Section 2.6.6 [Air Quality] fails to address, specifically, the kind of
activities that are anticipated to generate significant air pollution and contamination from
airborne exhaust, dust, concrete dust, and soot that will emanate from the staging area
immediately adjacent to the Shen Property, within 30 to 200 feet of the home, for two years.
Finally, the proposed FEIR fails to address whether it is in the best interest of the neighborhood
and its residents to permanently close Newell Road to through traffic south of Woodland
Avenue. My client further objects to the adequacy of the proposed FEIR as to its goal to
provide traffic relief by installing a new bridge on Newell Road to cross the San Francisquito
Creek. The justification for the project, from the point of view of CalTrans, is to provide relief
to drivers seeking to use neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on the main roads
(University Avenue and Embarcadero Road) leading to Highway 101. The City staff mentioned
to me during our May 13th meeting that GPS services such as Waze, Google Maps, Lyft and
Uber have been directing drivers to use Newell Road to bypass congestion en-route to Highway
101. However, overburdening local streets that were never intended to be thoroughfares or carry
cross-town traffic is a poor, ineffective solution to a problem that should be addressed by other,
more creative means that are less burdensome to neighbors, including the Shen family.
Newell Road will be closed to through traffic for about two years, as the bridge is torn down and
re-built. Drivers, the City, and CalTrans will need to find better alternatives during the time
Newell Road is closed to through traffic before construction begins. Those alternatives should
be permanent ones, which would mitigate, entirely, the heavy traffic burden that CalTrans and
the City seeks to impose on the residents immediately adjacent to Newell Road south of
Woodland Avenue once the bridge is rebuilt.
In conclusion, the proposed FEIR failed, almost completely, to follow the standards set by the
California Supreme Court in the case, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502.
The California Supreme Court held that courts reviewing claims that an EIR inadequately
discusses environmental impacts must determine whether the EIR “includes sufficient detail” to
support informed decision-making and public participation. The Supreme Court also held an
EIR must make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to
likely health consequences.” The Sierra Club decision makes clear that EIRs must contain clear
and detailed discussion of impact significance determinations, and in particular must explain the
nature and magnitude of significant impacts. With respect to the effects of a project on air
quality and health, the Supreme Court held that the EIR at issue failed to adequately inform the
public about the health effects of the project’s significant air pollution impacts. The Court noted
that the EIR determined the project’s emissions of several pollutants would be a significant and
unavoidable environmental impact, and that the EIR also contained a discussion, “general in
nature,” about the health effects associated with various project-related pollutants. However,
because the EIR’s discussion of health effects failed to “indicate the concentrations at which
such pollutants would trigger the identified symptoms,” the Court found the EIR’s discussion
inadequate, and held that “a sufficient discussion of impacts requires not merely a determination
of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the
impact.” The Court found the EIR’s discussion omitted material necessary for informed
decision-making and to enable the public to understand and meaningfully consider the impacts of
the project. The proposed FEIR in this case would not survive a challenge under the holding of
Objections by Yang Shen - June 1, 2020 Page 8
the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case. Therefore, the proposed FEIR must be rejected at this
time, until a better analysis of the project is conducted.
Paul L. Gumina
1
2
3 1.
I
INTRODUCTION
On September 26, 2019, the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, by
4 and through its Board of Directors (collectively, "Respondents"), approved the San
5 Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project Upstream
6 of Highway 101 ("Project") along a stretch of San Francisquito Creek and certified an
7 Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project. The proposed Project consists of
8 construction of flood reduction features, including the replacement of Pope-Chaucer Bridge,
9 the widening of the San Francisquito Creek channel, and the replacement of the wooden
10 University Avenue bridge parapet extension. The majority of the Project elements would
11 occur on properties within the jurisdictions of the Cities Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Menlo
12 Park.
13 2. In approving the Project, Respondents also approved a Statement of Overriding
14 Considerations. However, the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") explicitly
15 requires public agencies to make the finding that mitigations or alternatives that reduce or
16 eliminate environmental impacts are infeasible before adopting a Statement of Overriding
17 Considerations. Pub. Resources Code § § 21002, 21002.1 (b ), and 21081. Respondents
18 improperly skipped this step in the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and
19 instead simply weighed the benefits versus the impacts of the project without considering the
20 feasibility of alternatives or mitigations.
21 3. CEQA also requires an EIR to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to a
22 project which offer substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal and may be
23 feasibly accomplished in a successful manner. Pub. Resources Code§§ 21081(b); 21002.1.
24 The EIR analyzes four alternatives: (1) the No Project Alternative, (2) the Floodwalls
25 Alternative, (3) the Former Nursery Detention Basin Alternative, and (3) the Webb Ranch
26 Detention Basin Alternative. The "No Project Alternative" is required and the remaining three
27 fail to constitute a reasonable range of alternatives as explained infra.
28 4. CEQA requires agencies to analyze "the whole of an action, which has a
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
2
1 potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
2 foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. .. " 14 Cal. Code Regs.,§ 15378(a).
3 An EIR must therefore analyze the environmental effects of an entire action, rather than
4 breaking the action into segments. CEQA prohibits piecemeal review or "segmentation"
5 because such review underestimates the environmental impacts of the entire action by
6 analyzing each segment of a project in isolation without due consideration of the other parts of
7 the project. See Tuolumne County Citizens for Resporisible Growth v. City of Sonora (2007)
8 155 Cal.App.4th 1214. Here, the EIR improperly segmented the Project by not considering the
9 Searsville Dam and Reservoir" project which is proposed separately for Reach 3, which leads to
10 inadequate disclosure and analysis as to the Project's environmental effects.
11 5. Petitioner Peter Joshua ("Petitioner") challenges the approval of the Project on
12 the grounds that Respondents' certification of the EIR for the Project failed to comply with the
13 mandates set forth under the CEQA because, inter alia, the Project's Statement of Overriding
14 Considerations did not contain required findings, the EIR failed to contain a reasonable range
15 of alternatives, and the EIR improperly engaged in piecemeal review of the Project. Therefore,
16 Respondents' certification of the EIR and approval of the Project constitutes an abuse of
17 discretion and must be reversed.
18
19 II
20 PARTIES
21 6. Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 5 as if fully set
22 forth herein.
23 7. Petitioner is an individual dedicated to the prote.ction of the environment in the
24 City of Menlo Park, and the Counties of Santa Clara and San Mateo by participating in local
25 environmental and land use policy and decision making. Petitioner is a resident and taxpayer
26 of the City of Menlo Park, County of San Mateo and is affected by the Project, and whose
27 interests in preservation of the ecological integrity of the City and County will be adversely
28 affected by the failure to conduct appropriate environmental review under CEQA and approval
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the Project. Petitioner participated at public hearings and submitted comments on the
Project.
8. Respondent San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority is a regional
government agency created by the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto, the
County of San Mateo and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Respondent San Francisquito
Creek Joint Powers Authority plans, designs, and implements projects to address the cities'
flooding, environmental, and recreational concerns along the San Francisco Bay.
9. Respondent Board of Directors of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Authority is the governing body for Respondent San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Authority and approved the Project, certified the EIR for the Project, and adopted a Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of
Does 1 through 15, are unknown to Petitioner who therefore sue said Respondents by such
fictitious names and will seek leave to amend this Petition for Writ of Mandamus when their
identities have been ascertained.
11. Petitioner is informed and believes that at all times herein alleged, Respondents
and each of them were the agents and employees of each of the remaining Respondents and
while doing the things herein alleged, were acting within the course and scope of such agency
and employment.
III
STANDING
12. Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 11 as if fully
set forth herein.
13. Approval of the Project will adversely affect the interests of Petitioner.
Petitioner is a resident and taxpayer of the City of Menlo Park, County of San Mateo County
who is dedicated to preserving the environment of the City of Menlo Park and the Counties of
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
4
1 San Mateo and Santa Clara as set forth, supra, and is concerned about maintaining the
2 environmental integrity of the City of Menlo Park and the Counties of San Mateo and Santa
3 Clara. Approval of the Project, certification of the BIR, and adoption of a Statement of
4 Overriding Considerations will adversely affect these interests of Petitioner. Petitioner has
5 submitted comments and objections concerning the lack of CEQA compliance and has
6 participated at public hearings. Accordingly, Petitioner is an "aggrieved person" within the
7 meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21177.
8 14. !urisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to California Code of Civil
9 Procedure§§ 1085 and 1094.5; California Public Resources Code§ 21167; CEQA Guidelines
10 § 15112; the Constitution of the State of California; the Constitution of the United States; and
11 other applicable laws and regulations.
12
13
14
15
16 15.
IV
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 14 as if fully
17 set forth herein.
18 16. Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to the filing of this Petition by
19 himself or others, raising each and every issue known to him before Respondents, in
20 compliance with Public Resources Code§ 21177, Code of Civil Procedure§§ 1085 and
21 1094.5, and other applicable law.
22 17. Notice of the filing of this action as required by Public Resources Code§
23 21167 .5 was mailed to Respondents on October 24, 2019. (Letter and Proof of Service are
24 attached hereto as Exhibit "A".)
25
26 Ill
27 Ill
28
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18.
VI
CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the California Environmental Quality Act
[Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.]
Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully
set forth herein.
19. Respondents' approval of the EIR constitutes an abuse of discretion because,
inter alia, the Project's Statement of Overriding Considerations failed to include necessary
findings; the EIR failed to provide a reasonable range of alternatives, and the EIR improperly
engaged in piecemeal review of the Project. The specific violations of CEQA include, but are
not limited to, the violations listed below.
20. CEQA requires findings that mitigations and alternatives are infeasible prior to
an agency adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pub. Resources Code§§ 21002,
21002.l(b), and 21081. The invalidity of the Statement of Overriding Considerations is a
dispositive issue under CEQA because of the failure of Respondents to make the required
finding that the alternatives and mitigations are infeasible, a requirement confirmed by the
California Supreme Court in City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of Califomia State University
(2006) 39 Cal. 4th 341, 368-369. Respondents skipped the question of infeasibility of
alternatives that reduce significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project. Instead, the
Statement of Overriding Considerations simply weighed the impacts versus the benefits of the
Project without considering feasibility. The finding of infeasibility is an explicit prerequisite
under CEQA to the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The requirement to
adopt feasible alternatives is prominently found in CEQA in three sections. Public Resources
Code Section 21002 states:
The legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies
should not approve projects as proposed ifthere are feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects of such projects ....
CEQA also states that "[ e Jach public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on
the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so."
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
' Pub. Resources Code § 21002.l (b ). Finally, Public Resources Code Section 21081 mandates
as follows:
Pursuant to the policy stated in Sections 21002 and 21002.1, no public agency shall
approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been
certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would
occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur:
(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect
to each significant effect:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the
environment.
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should
be, adopted by that other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report.
(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under
paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific
overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project
outweigh the significant effects on the environment.
In short, Respondents must adopt feasible alternatives to a project when there are significant
and unavoidable impacts unless it is infeasible to do so. Only when mitigations and
alternatives are infeasible may Respondents adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations
finding that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.
"CEQA does not authorize an agency to proceed with a project that will have significant,
unmitigated effects on the environment, based simply on a weighing of those effects against
the project's benefits, unless the measures necessary to mitigate those effects are truly
infeasible. Such a rule, even were it not wholly inconsistent v\rith the relevant statute (id., §
21081, subd. (b )), would tend to displace the fundamental obligation of"[ e Jach public agency
[to] mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or
approves whenever it is feasible to do so" (id.,§ 21002.1, subd. (b)). City of Marina v. Board
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MAl\TIAMUS
7
1 a/Trustees of California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 241, 368-369; see also County of
2 San Diego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 86, 98,
3 108; fn.18.
4 21. CEQA requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of alternatives. Pub.
5 Resources Code § 21002. The alternatives analysis serves both the informational and .
6 substantive purposes of CEQA. In particular, it is impermissible for Respondents to approve
7 the Project ifthere are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that serve to lessen the
8 significant impacts of the Project. Pub. Resources Code§ 21002. Failure to adequately
9 evaluate project alternatives violates CEQA. Here, Respondents failed to adequately evaluate
10 a reasonable range of project alternatives that would have reduced or avoided the significant
11 environmental impacts of the Project. The EIR states that Reach 2 and Reach 3 have two
12 separate projects, with Reach 2 including the proposed Project and one alternative. What is
13 clear, however, is that the projects in Reach 3 are not separate alternatives at all. The EIR at
14 page 1-7 states that "this EIR also discusses a project in Reach 3 that complements the
15 preferred alternative by increasing the level of flood protection afforded solely by Reach 2
16 project from 7500 cfs to almost 8,500 cfs." The EIR also states that "a project in the upstream
17 areas of Reach 3 that results in temporary detention of extreme flows is a critical piece of
18 [Respondent San Francisquito Joint Powers Authority's] overall strategy to reduce risk and
19 costs in our communities." (See EIR at page 1-7.) The EIR at page 3.8-10 discusses the
20 Newell Road and Pope-Chaucer Bridges and that "in concert with an upstream detention
21 project that would temporarily remove at least 800 cfs during a 100-year storm, each bridge
22 would not cause flooding during that size event." Finally, the EIR concludes that "[t]he Reach
23 3 alternatives could be implemented following further, more detailed, analysis under CEQA to
24 increase flood protection after one of the Reach 2 alternatives is constructed. With this
25 strategy, implementation of a Reach 2 and a Reach 3 alternative may be considered part of an
26 overall program." (EIR page 4-4.) Given these statements, it is clear that the Reach 2 and
27 Reach 3 projects are intertwined. They are not separate alternatives at all. The EIR does not
28 contain a range of alternatives. Instead, it has chosen only one alternative, other than the No
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
8
1 Project alternative, to analyze in the EIR: the Floodwalls Alternative. Therefore, the EIR is
2 fatally flawed.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
22. The EIR cast the alternatives as not meeting all the Project Objectives· as
adequately as the proposed Project. The objectives are so narrowly tailored that viable
alternatives are improperly disposed of.
The purpose of an EIR is not to identify alleged alternatives that meet few if any of the
project's objectives so that these alleged alternatives may be readily eliminated. Since·
the purpose of an alternatives analysis is to allow the decision maker to determine
whether there is an environmentally superior alternative that will meet most of the
project's objectives, the key to the selection of the range of alternatives is to identify
alternatives that meet most of the project's objectives but have a reduced level of
environmental impacts.
Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1089.
23. CEQA and relevant caselaw further mandate that Respondents adopt all CEQA
13 findings prior to the approval of the Project. 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091. Crucially,
14 Respondent San Francisquito Joint Powers Authority, as the lead agency according to CEQA,
15 was required to find whether there were any feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that
16 would serve to reduce the significant impacts of the Project on the environment. 14 Cal. Code
17 Regs. § 15091(a)(3). The EIR asserts that once the Project has been implemented,
18 Respondents will draft an Adaptive Management Plan in order to mitigate for sedimentation as
19 a result of erosion impacts associated with increased flows within the Creek. However, the
20 Adaptive Management Plan is nothing more than a monitoring plan conducted after the
21 approval of a project. Such a monitoring plan constitutes an improper deferral of mitigation
22 measures. It is "improper to defer the formulation of mitigation measures until after project
23 approval; instead, the determination of whether a project will have significant environmental
24 impacts, and the formulation of measures to mitigate those impacts, must occur before the
25 project is approved." Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th
26 884, 906.
27 24. CEQA requires agencies to analyze "the whole of an action, which has potential
28 for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
indirect physical change in the environment." 14 Cal. Code Regs.§ 15378(a). Here, the EIR
considers the Searsville Dam and Reservoir project separately in Reach 3. This results in an
incomplete analysis of probable environmental impacts and constitutes unlawful piecemeal
review and segmentation.
25. The FEIR's Responses to Comments related to specific written comments
submitted regarding the DEIR failed to provide adequate responses. The responses were
incomplete or unresponsive. The evaluation and responses to public comments must contain
good faith, reasoned analysis. CEQA Guidelines§ 15088(a), (c). Thus, Respondents' failure
to properly respond to comments regarding the EIR further constitutes a failure to proceed in a
manner required by CEQA.
26. Due to all the above flaws, among others, Respondents' actions in approving the
Project and certifying the BIR constitute an abuse of discretion. Respondents must prepare an
adequate BIR that conforms with all of the procedural and substantive requirements set forth
under CEQA, and properly adopt all findings required by law.
27. Respondents' actions constitute an abuse of discretion. Respondents must
prepare an adequate EIR that conforms with all of the procedural and substantive requirements
set forth under CEQA. Approval of the EIR and adoption of the Statement .of Overriding
Considerations, which lacked both procedural and substantive requirements under CBQA,
constitutes an abuse of discretion.
28.
VII
ATTORNEYS' FEES
Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully
25 set forth herein.
26
27
28
29. In pursuing this action, Petitioner will confer a substantial benefit on the People
of the State of California and therefore are entitled to recover from Respondents' reasonable
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, and other
provisions of the law.
VIII
INJUNCTION
30. Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 as if fully
set forth herein.
31. An actual controversy has arisen concerning Respondents' failure to comply
with CEQA (Pub. Resources Code§ 21000 et seq.), as set forth above.
32. As a result of the above-alleged violations of CEQA~ Respondents have failed to
conduct adequate environmental review as required by law and improperly adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and, thus, have failed to proceed in a manner required
by law in approving the Project.
33. At all times mentioned herein, Respondents have been able to comply with
CEQA, prepare adequate environmental review, and comply with all relevant provisions of
law. Notwithstanding such ability, Respondents have failed and continue to fail to perform its
duty to comply with CEQA.
34. Petitioner is informed and believes, and on that basis allege, that Respondents
are threatening to proceed with commencement of the Project in the near future. Said
implementation of the Project will irreparably harm the environment and will result in
significant and unmitigated adverse environmental impacts.
35. Petitioner possesses no speedy, adequate remedy at law, in that implementation
and development in connection with the Project will permanently and forever harm, injure,
degrade, and impact the environmental values of the City of Menlo Park, the Counties of San
Mateo and Santa Clara, and the State of California. Petitioner will suffer irreparable and
permanent injuries if Respondents' actions described herein are not set aside. ·
36. A stay and/or restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunction
should issue restraining Respondents from proceeding with development of the Project.
37. In order to preserve the status quo, a stay and/or restraining order and
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
11
EXHIBIT A
Notice of Intent to Commence Litigation
Exhibit A
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
2
I certify and declare as follows:
3
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is WITTWER
4
PARKIN LLP, 335 Spreckels Drive, Suite H, Aptos, California which is located in Santa Cruz County
5
where the mailing described below took place.
6
I am familiar with the business practice at my place of business for the collection and
7
processing of corTespondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Correspondence so
8
collected and processed is deposited ·with the United States Postal Service that same day in the
9
ordinary course of business.
10
On October 24, 2019 the following document(s):
11
NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE LITIGATION
12
were placed for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope; with
13
postage fully paid to:
14
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
15 SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
615-B MENLO A VENUE
16 MENLO PARK, CA 94025
17 I certify and declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.
18 Dated: October 24, 2019 ·A.1J\c{~
Ashley Mccarroll 19
20
21
22
23
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Janie Farn <janie.farn@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 2:00 PM
To:lydiakou@gmail.com; Council, City; City Mgr
Cc:Michael Farn
Subject:Re: Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project - June 1 City Council Meeting
Attachments:Newell Bridge_Petition.pdf; Replied with support of Build Alternative 1 for Newell Road Bridge.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council and Manager,
Attached files are the 100+ signatures that support the Build Alternative 1 and some of their comments.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Again thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
Janie Farn
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 9:52 PM Janie Farn <janie.farn@gmail.com> wrote:
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!
2
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,
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
3
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
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.
Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project
Alternative 1 -- one lane bridge
Name Address email
Janiel Farn Newell Road janie.farn@gmail.com
Michael Farn Newell Road mfarn@fenwick.com
Ben Ball Edgewood Dr.Ball@franciscopartners.com
Angie Ball Edgewood Dr.acball2@gmail.com
Irving S. Rappaport Edgewood Drive isport1@yahoo.com
Henry Mellen Hamilton Ave claudia.mellen@gmail.com
Claudia Mellen Hamilton Ave henry_mellen@icloud.com
Clark Mellen Hamilton Ave claudia.mellen@gmail.com
David Dorosin Hamilton Ave david@dorosin.com
Heidi Dorosin Hamilton Ave heidi@dorosin.com
Kiki Bo Wu Hamilton Ave bowu0110@gmail.com
Jeff Reese Newell Road jeffreesemd@gmail.com
Linda Water Newell Road lmwatersmd@gmail.com
Vanessa Belland Newell Road vanessabelland@hotmail.com
David Wang Hamilton Ave david_94303@yahoo.com
Ligia Belland Addison Avenue lenachow@mac.com
Barbara Fikes Hamilton Ave bblatner8@gmail.com
Megan McCaslin Edgewood Drive meganmccaslin@gmail.com
Peter Forgie Edgewood Drive meganmccaslin@gmail.com
Florence Su Jefferson Drive florencesu@stanfordalumni.org
Dennis Wu Jefferson Drive florencesu@stanfordalumni.org
Hilary Jones Walter Hays Drive hilary_jones@ml.com
Kathryn Spector Dana Ave kathryn_spector@yahoo.com
Michael Spector Dana Ave kathryn_spector@yahoo.com
Anne Butler Edgewood Drive annehbutler@yahoo.com
Cynthia Shore Edgewood Drive jeff.shore@comcast.net
Jeffrey Shore Edgewood Drive jeff.shore@comcast.net
Jeff Austin Wilson Street Jeff@albionpartners.com
Anthony Soohoo Pitman Avenue asoohoo@gmail.com
Barbara Bogner Greer Road bbretirednow@aol.com
Erica Andersen Edgewood Drive andersen.erica@gmail.com
Franklin P. Johnson, Jr.Edgewood Drive pitch@assetman.com
Heejeong Park Hamilton Ave parkhj_feb@yahoo.com
Ravindra Anaparti Dana Ave anaparti@yahoo.com
Gerald Berner Edgewood drive bunsenbern@hotmail.com
Harriet Berner Edgewood Drive bunsenbern@hotmail.com
Pamela Wagner Phillips Rd pamelajillwagner@comcast.net
Eric Wagner Phillips Rd pamelajillwagner@comcast.net
Kenny King Oregon Ave kenny.aishin@gmail.com
Alex Hayes Oregon Ave jane_a_hayes@yahoo.com
Beth Wegbreit Dana beth_weg@yahoo.com
Ingeborg Crozier Edgewood Drive inge.k.crozier@gmail.com
Alec John Hsu Edgewood Dr.alecjhsu@gmail.com
Kimberley Wong Emerson Street sheepgirl1@yahoo.com
Nelson Ng Emerson Street lofujai@ymail.com
Mark Thomas Walter Hays Drive nbthomas@gmail.com
Nancy Thomas Walter Hays Dr nbthomas@gmail.com
Steve Young Southwood Drive steve@foreveryoung.org
Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project
Alternative 1 -- one lane bridge
Evelyn Yang Byron St evelyny92@yahoo.com
Evan Zhang Edgewood Dr zhang-evan@hotmail.com
Vivian Liu Edgewood Dr zhang-evan@hotmail.com
Karen Hickey Newell Road kahickey@yahoo.com
Steve Blonstein Newell Road steveblonstein@gmail.com
Ruth Fisher Greenwood Ave fishru56@aol.com
John Armstrong Edgewood Dr johnajr78@gmail.com
Polly Armstrong Edgewood Dr polly@meer.net
Kathy Johnson Newell Rd kathyjohnson54@gmail.com
Andrea Blonstein Newell Road andreablonstein@gmail.com
Barbara Blatner Hamilton Ave bblatner8@gmail.com
Yinqing Zhao Channing Ave carial2004@gmail.com
Harve Citrin Hamilton Ave citrin@igc.org
Jonathan Chen Rhodes Drive jcpaloalto@gmail.com
Lisa Mellberg Walnut Drive scottmell1@yahoo.com
Scott Mellberg Walnut Drive scottmell1@yahoo.com
Coralee Branson Edgewood Drive branson2@pacbell.net
Frank Branson Edgewood Drive branson2@pacbell.net
Rebecca Young Dana Avenue rebeccajonesyoung@gmail.com
David Kwan Hamilton Ct tamittran@gmail.com
Tami Tran Hamilton Ct tamittran@gmail.com
William Abbott Louisa Ct.whabbott1@aol.com
Bonnie schmidt Hamilton Ave ms.bonnieschmidt@yahoo.com
Zhi Cheng Dana Ave xmhongliu@yahoo.com
Hong Liu Dana Ave xmhongliu@yahoo.com
Dan Hansen Edgewood Drive d2hansen@yahoo.com
DeAnna Hansen Edgewood Drive d2hansen@yahoo.com
Marie Thompson Newell Road near Kings Lanemarie@onemail.com
Gordon Thompson Newell Rd gordon@onemail.com
Dave Yen Hamilton Ave dhyen@yahoo.com
Fanny Ching Hamilton Ave dhyen@yahoo.com
Winnie Siege Dana Ave near Newell wmdsiegel@gmail.com
Anne Jackson Forest Ave annejacksondesign@gmail.com
Ricardo Motta Hilbar Lane rijamo@me.com
John Furrier Dana Ave johnfurrier@gmail.com
Mani Varadarajan Dana Ave manimani@gmail.com
Jamie Rapperport Edgewood Drive elspeth.farmer@gmail.com
Elspeth Farmer Edgewood Drive elspeth.farmer@gmail.com
Vaijayanthy Rangarajan Dana Ave vaister@gmail.com
Euginia Merken De Soto Drive euginia.merken@gmail.com
Vinaya Kapoor Jefferson Drive kapoorvinaya@gmail.com
Samir Kapoor Jefferson Drive kapoorvinaya@gmail.com
CHRISTINE MEYER Dana Ave cjm101@me.com
Peter Bianchi Dana Ave Nextdoor
Kristin Davis O'Connor Street Nextdoor
Carol Wu Rhodes Dr moohouse@gmail.com
Barbara Levin Newell Road blevin5@hotmail.com
Brian Mo Heather Lane mobrian@gmail.com
Elise Singer Jackson Dr elise.singer@gmail.com
Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project
Alternative 1 -- one lane bridge
Ann Dolan Hamilton annd2990@gmail.com
Rachel Farn Newell Rd rachelfarn32@gmail.com
Leo Merken De Soto Drive leo.merken@gmail.com
Ed Feitzinger Phillips Rd feitzinger@gmail.com
Replies from supporters of Build Alternative 1 for Newell Road Bridge Thank you for organizing support for Bridge Alternative 1. We live on Newell (near Kings Lane), and we support Bridge Alternative 1. The new bridge should be about flooding, not increasing traffic and agreeing with high rise developers in EPA. Parking is such an issue around Woodland, so many residents park their cars in PA. More housing there will just exacerbate the problem. In addition, the EPA homeowners living in the corridor between Newell and University cannot leave their home during rush hour due to gridlock. The only people wanting more traffic are the politicians and developers! They use “safety” as a reason for a 2-lane bridge. There hasn’t been an accident in 100 years. I don’t think the meeting should be during this time of “shelter in place.” Thanks for your work, Janie. Gordon & Marie Thompson
I would love to join in signing the petition for a smaller bridge. Erica Andersen I support Bridge Alternative 1- a single lane car bridge with sidewalk) and object to the larger bridge. Please add our name and address to the petition.
Anthony Soohoo I support your project. Once they get two lanes it may become easier to hook up to Hy 101. And who knows then the city can start building affordable high rises along Newel and then of course we would need
a subway to decrease the street traffic. I could go on but basically i support your one bridge proposal. Gerald and Harriet Berner
You could add my name: Barbara Fikes. I agree with you about Alternative 1.
The elephant in the room is not traffic as it exists today, but what will happen when/if the area between the creek and 101 gets developed as proposed. Have traffic studies been done as part of the EIR for the bridge project taking into consideration potential development in the western part of East Palo Alto? Stephen Monismith Obayashi Professor in the School of Engineering I would like to join your petition. Anne Butler Remember though that a one lane bridge will have an effect on traffic congestion planning in the context of potential future development during an environmental review. Therefore, a one lane bridge is a good way of controlling additional future density. Jeff Austin
There is no reason to have to negatively impact our neighborhood because Caltrans insists on a size bridge that is unacceptable to the residents most affected by the bridge. If it necessary to have this project, which benefits all Palo Alto and East Palo residents, not just those neighborhoods on either side of the bridge, then the two cities should be willing to pay for
the bridge. Our lives and the quality of our neighborhood should not be dictated by Caltrans that has neither an interest in the long-term adverse impact of the project nor does it give one hoot
about the peacefulness and tranquility of our existing residential neighborhood. Irving S. Rappaport With all due respect to those who want the large incarnation of the bridge, why do you care what size it is if the flooding issues are taken care of? Those of us who live nearby are not looking forward to the potential for increased traffic and increased density on the other side. It’s not a matter of fixing
the traffic issues afterwards, creating traffic calming measures. Why not be proactive and think creatively ahead of time. Once you build it it will fill up, as in, “if you build it they will come.“ Megan McCaslin 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. 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?
Rita C. Vrhel
The only thing we can “control” is the size of the bridge and preserving traffic levels similar to
what they would be IF the current bridge is left in place. I’ve attended EPA city council meetings
where they discussed their 30 year plan and it’s clear they plan to allow development of 8-story
high density housing in that area. We can’t control what they do but we can control the amount
of traffic that enters our neighborhood by keeping the bridge as small as possible.
Ben Ball
IMHO, the flood control issue is solved by increasing the effective open area. The traffic lane issue is somewhat disconnected. We can solve the flood issues by constructing a proper open area and attempt to preserve some semblance of our current neighborhood by reducing traffic potential. I fully realize that a one lane bridge will not be a panacea but every little bit helps. It’s an additive process not an all or nothing. Let’s not give up because the state and EPA is hell bent on building 8 story high rises everywhere. --Jeff Austin
Agree Jeff! Be sure to email Janie (cc’d), sign the petition, and encourage everyone you know in the neighborhood to do the same. That’s what I’m doing. Claudia
Jeff makes excellent points! Let’s not allow the politicians and developers control our destiny. The flooding problem can be solved without destroying the peacefulness and tranquility of our neighborhood. We do not want a lot more car traffic! There is more than enough of that already. Furthermore, we should not allow Caltrans to ruin our neighborhood just because they are putting up some of the money. The year’s long construction noise, pollution and inability to cross the creek at Newell will be nightmare enough, to day nothing of the continuing rise in car traffic. By keeping the bridge narrow, both the residents on both sides of the creek will have less worry with 8 story high rises going up on the East Palo Alto side of the creek, which will displace current residents living there now. Irv
I support alternative 1. Ravindra Anaparti I appreciate all the effort through the years to try and keep the Newell Bridge from becoming a large
thoroughfare. I support Ben’s recommendation for Alternative 1. It meets all the articulated needs of the communities. Alternative 1 will provide the needed upgrade to the Newell Bridge. As a long term neighbor in Crescent Park we have maintained a firm belief that Alternative 1 is the best choice. There is not support from the neighborhood for the large 2 lane, 2 bike lane and 2 sidewalks. Support for this alternative has always come from city planners. Please help us win Alternative 1. Steve Young
The traffic is terrible (pre-pandemic). we are past Embarcadero, but my daughter almost got side swiped by a car that was hurrying to cut through to Middlefield. They don't turn right to avoid the
additional light. Karen Hickey
Thanks for the email. I am definitely in support of Alternative 1. The single lane bridge has worked fine for decades and a replacement of the same size should suffice. Besides with the expected massive budget shortfall coming I would think a single lane bridge is significantly lower cost than a 2 lane version. Steve Blonstein
My vote is for a one lane car bridge for that reason in thinking about future density. --Bo Wu
Please consider smaller bridge. Otherwise we will have a speedway problem. Resident for over 50 years and no problem w small bridge. There will be several problems w a large bridge. Harriet and Gerry Berner 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. Franklin P. Johnson, Jr 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 It’s a bad idea to expand the bridge for higher level of traffic through our neighborhood. Awful! Tami Just to add Irv's point, the flooding in 1998 was terrible(I was here) however, I don't believe anyone was injured or killed. That will almost certainly be the case if this proposed bridge expansion goes through if the traffic patterns that we are already seeing evolve and worsen. Jeff Reese I absolutely support a smaller bridge with safer options for foot/bike traffic. Also, the updates to manage flooding in our neighborhood and that of EPA are essential. A large two lane bridge is NOT what is best or safest in our residential neighborhood. It is close to schools where kids ride bikes and walk to school. Added vehicular traffic is not safe as that is a route hundreds of young children take every day to Duveneck, Walter Hays and Greene Middle Schools. Rebecca Young I, John Furrier of 1457 Dana Ave, support a vote against the large bridge. My main reason is there is no doubt in my mind that Waze and online tools will send more cars then anyone can imagine down Newell. This will cause MASSIVE congestion that will cause a car backup to as far as Channing maybe even Embarccadero, Safety will be the #1 concern then local family won't be able to get around town. We are already seeing this with the streets of E. Cresent Drive and Center flooding into University.
From Nextdoor: kristin davis, The Willows We are facing epic drought conditions again and for the foreseeable future.. The likelihood of a flood of that proportion is minimal at best.
Karen Ewart, Community Center The bridge at Chaucer got flooded. I don't recall the bridge at Newell ever getting flooded. I don't look forward to more speeders flying up-and-down Newell road once this happens.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Rosalinda Quintanar <rquintanars@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 2:48 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Vote for Bridge Alternative One
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I vote for Alternative One (One Lane Bridge)
Rosalinda Quintanar - Patricia Lane
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ingrid Aalami <ingridaalami@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 1:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Newly Bridge
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Build a 2 lane bridge
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Rod Miller <rod@rodmiller.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 12:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:San Francisquito Creek Bridges - BUILD 'EM!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I am totally opposed to any delay in removing the flow restrictions for the creek.
Think about this
21 YEARS AND STILL NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE TO REMEDY THE PROBLEM!
21 YEARS!
Among the 7 AFIK agencies that need to agree to solve the problem there apparently is no sense of urgency. People
have gotten hired, received promotions, and retired during that span of time. But no sense of urgency. A firmly managed
genuine sense of urgency can do a lot to solve jurisdictional issues.
In the meantime, since I was badly flooded in 1989, every winter I have to re‐deploy my sandbags (about 500 is a lot of
work for a now 81 year old) and sweat through the big storms. Then in the spring put the now wet (double the weight)
sandbags in storage until the fall. I've done this 20 times! Other homeowners do the same.
I invite you, the City Council, to come this Fall and help me deploy my sandbags, and then in Spring put them back in
storage.
If doing that makes you feel uncomfortable, imagine my discomfort that occurs bi‐annually.
Anyway, no apologies for the rant. The point of this message is that the Newell and Chaucer bridges can't be rebuilt soon
enough for me. When I am able to recycle my sandbags it will be a great day.
I'll invite all those who have directly helped over the years to my celebration ‐ that would be zero other people.
‐‐
Rod Miller
Handcraftsman
===
Custom 2‐rail O Scale Models: Drives,
Repairs, Steam Loco Building, More
http://www.rodmiller.com
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:TC Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu>
Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 5:19 PM
To:Ben Ball; 'CPNA'; 'Pamela Wagner'; 'Irving Rappaport'; 'Vanessa Belland'; 'David Dorosin'; 'Jeff & Linda
Reese'; 'Kathryn Spector'; 'Euginia Merken'; 'Jim Lewis'; 'Dave Yen'; dpudvay@yahoo.com;
'bowu0110'; DSFNA
Cc:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:[CPNA Flooding] Video of What Crescent Park and Duveneck/Saint Frances Looked Like the Morning
After
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To give those who were not participants in the 1998 San Francisquito Creek flood some perspective, take a look at this
link (about 4 min) to see what things looked like the morning after. The flood hit on February 3, 1998 around 2:00 AM.
The video was taken the morning after from a helicopter by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. SFC is an unusual creek
in that the overflow water drains AWAY from the creek, not back into it. The bulk of the water that left the creek that
night (~2000 cubic feet per second, flowing for about an hour) ended up in East Palo Alto, the Embarcadero Road
industrial park and airport, and at the southern end of the Duveneck/Saint Frances neighborhood where the Oregon
Expressway, Hwy 101, and Embarcadero Road come together. The flood washed over most of Crescent Park,
Duveneck/Saint Frances, and parts of East Palo Alto on its way downstream to its resting place. Southbound Hwy 101
was closed for 3 days...
Tom R.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Christy Telch <gforman806@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 3:51 PM
To:City Mgr
Subject:Newell Bridge Replacement Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To: City Manager,
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
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ann DeHovitz <rossde@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:40 PM
To:City Mgr
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 Manager,
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
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Colleen Crangle <crangle@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 8:23 PM
To:City Mgr
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 Manager:
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/
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Christy Telch <gforman806@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 30, 2020 4:33 PM
To:City Mgr
Subject:Newell Road Bridge Upgrade
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Manager,
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.
Christy F. Telch
1130 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto 94301
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:opmed@earthlink.net
Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 5:16 PM
To:City Mgr
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 Manager,
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
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:harve citrin <citrin@igc.org>
Sent:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 9:38 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:info@uptous.com
Subject:Newell bridge
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
The whole basis for a double lane replacement bridge is flawed. The East Palo Alto “island” bordered by the creek and
the highway already has two (2) points of access, one at University Ave and one at Embarcadero. Access thru Newell Rd
to emergency services in downtown Palo Alto would be longer not quicker. The cheaper and quicker alternative to
flood control is a foot/bicycle bridge connection between the communities.
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Barry P. Medoff <barry@medoff.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 11:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RE: 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.
WELL DONE.
THANK YOU ALL.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Barry P. Medoff" <barry@medoff.com>
Subject: Approve the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project
Date: May 31, 2020 at 5:13:46 PM PDT
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org
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.
3
Thank you.
Barry P. Medoff
Mary C. Medoff
1431 Arcadia Place
Palo Alto, CA 94303
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Shilpa Putchakayala <shilpaz@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 11:20 PM
To:claudia.mellen@gmail.com
Cc:janie.farn@gmail.com; Council, City
Subject:No to two lane bridge on Newell
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Apologies for not sending this earlier.
Based on what I read, it sounds like option#1 will solve the flooding problem.
We live 1 home away from Newell and have seen people speeding despite of few stop signs and signals. We have 3
schools, 2 libraries, art center, 2 parks, Rinconada pool and tennis which heavily is used by kids walking/biking. We DO
NOT want this ecosystem to change.
Is the funding declined is if it’s option#1? or will they fund lower?
Who is guaranteeing there will be no incremental traffic if second lane opens up? University/ Hamilton is clogged during
peak traffic hours, what measures have been taken there to reduce traffic?
There were recent accidents involving cars and bicycles and making this 2 lane road will only increase more of such
incidents.
NOTHING is more important than keeping KIDS and FAMILIES safe.
Shilpa
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:Amy Kacher <amyewardwell@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 10:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bridge #2 - In support
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I am disheartened tonight listening to the City Council meeting. We need to just build Option 2 and
keep our neighborhood safe. We can't delay any longer. ITs been 8 years. This is ridiculous. People
coming in at the 11th hour wanting the single lane. bridge must not have been a part of the original
bridge design process. We can't delay any longer.
I've lived for 16 years on Dana, I was the safety rep at Duveneck for 5 years. We need this two lane
bridge built, please don't listen to people who want to delay and try to get a single lane bridge which
will never be approved. We've ALREADY tried for that.
Please approve the two lane bridge!
Stand together. We are all just people.
6
Baumb, Nelly
From:Deepa Chatterjee <deepa_chatterjee@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 8:56 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Deepa Chatterjee; David Neequaye
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 -
We are homeowners and residents of Edgewood Drive, between Newell and Island. We would like to voice our
support for Build Alternative 1. This option addresses both flooding concerns and traffic concerns. We have
two major concerns:
1) Our children (7 and 9 years old) currently attend Duveneck Elementary, which is on the other side of
Newell, and will one day bike down Newell to Greene Middle School. Our block is lucky to have 5-7 other
families with young children, all under the age of 10. Currently, we worry about the kids going to school on their
own, even though it is only 3 blocks, because in walking or biking across Newell Road, they must rely on
cautious, aware drivers who are observing stop signs.
2) Edgewood Drive is a curvy road, with no straight sight lines (further impacted by parked cars). Currently,
traffic cuts across Edgewood, from Newell to Southwood and E Crescent Drives, and vice versa. Much of this
traffic moves VERY fast for a residential street which you cannot see straight down. Traffic is heavy during the
week. The lack of visibility makes it quite dangerous.
It is impossible to believe that improving the flow of traffic across Newell Bridge will not increase
the attractiveness of using the bridge. With the use of digital apps that are designed to optimize the flow of
traffic (eg. Waze, Uber etc), if traffic moves faster across the Bridge, more traffic will be directed to Newell and
Edgewood. What if large vans and trucks start to use it heavily? Additionally, there is a compounding effect of
development on Woodland Avenue and at Stanford that will make this worse.
For these reasons, we would like the bridge rebuilt to mitigate flooding, and in such a way that traffic is not
increased. We support Build Alternative 1. With regards to funding, we have not seen updated cost estimates
for all solutions, so funding cannot be incorporated into decision-making.
Thank you.
-Deepa Chatterjee & David Neequaye
1465 Edgewood Drive
7
Baumb, Nelly
From:Madhuri Chattopadhyay <madhuri@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 6:29 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Newell Road Bridge update
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
tonight. I am writing to ask you to approve the EIR and authorize the implementation steps for this proposal.
I support the proposed replacement (Build Alternative 2) ‐ it is well designed, meets the requirements of all the
organizations involved in this long process and has full funding support from CalTrans and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District. Replacing the Newell Road bridge is a long‐awaited critical upgrade to our infrastructure to avoid widespread
flood damage across our city and the Crescent Park neighborhood.
Please approve the upgrade proposal for the Newell Road Bridge.
Madhuri Chattopadhyay
900 block of Addison Ave.
8
Baumb, Nelly
From:Sunita Ram <sunita5678@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 5:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Objection to PA staff’s recommendation and my Support for Build Alternative 1.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I would like to share my opinion re: expansion of the Newell road bridge.
I DO NOT support a large two lane, double sidewalk bridge to ease traffic issues.
Our neighborhood has three schools within 1 mile of the bridge that serve k-8 children (Duveneck, Walter
Hayes, and Greene). These are YOUNG children! Hundreds walk and bike to school via the bridge and
adjoining streets daily. I’m not in favor of adding another large artery for the sake of traffic mitigation at the
expense of the children. Our neighborhood was not planned that way and Newell is not a good way to access
101.
Hope you take this into consideration as you take decisions re: Palo Alto.
Thanks,
Sunita
9
Baumb, Nelly
From:Larry Jones <john.x.wyclif@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 4:57 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 support Alternative 2 for the Newell Bridge replacement. We and our neighbors were flooded in 1988 and I don't
want to go through that again. There have been several years since then when we have had minor flooding.
Larry Jones
1407 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94310
10
Baumb, Nelly
From:Claudia Mellen <claudia.mellen@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 4:52 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Newell Two-Lane Bridge: VOTE NO!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
As a long time resident of Crescent Park who lives very near both Newell and San Francisquito Creek, I urge you to VOTE NO on the
proposed two‐lane Newell Bridge.
This bridge would, effectively, create a thoroughfare from East Palo Alto/101 to and through a quiet but central section of our
neighborhood. We have three schools within 1 mile of the bridge that serve K‐8 children (Duveneck, Walter Hayes, and Greene).
Hundreds of our youngest walk and bike to school across the bridge, down Newell, along adjoining streets, daily.
Proponents of the two‐lane bridge say that we can pursue traffic mitigation ‘later.” But we know where such a short‐sighted view
has led in the past.
Alternative 1, on the other hand, satisfies our flood mitigation concerns and also better mitigates traffic, by design.
Let’s not pursue a two‐lane proposal because we think someone else (Caltrans) may foot most of the bill. Let’s get this right, for the
sake of the residents of both sides of the bridge, protecting our homes, and our children. Strategy first, then the structure
(funding).
Sincerely,
Claudia Mellen
11
Baumb, Nelly
From:Linda Nguyen <lnguyenviet3@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 4:46 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Janie Farn
Subject:Please build a smaller Bridge on Newell Road
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear city counselors,
I voted for to build a smaller Bridge on Newell Road. Thank you!
Best,
Linda Nguyen
645 Channing Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Sent from my iPad
12
Baumb, Nelly
From:Don Stark <donstark@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 4:41 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi,
My name is Don Stark, and I live at 645 Hale St. I support the Newell Bridge Replacement Alternative 2, as Alternative
1 means nothing gets built for the foreseeable future.
I was living on Hawthorne Street in Downtown North during the 1998 flood ‐ loading sandbags and watching the water
rise was scary. Let's not have a repeat.
Thanks for your consideration.
Don Stark
Don Stark 645 Hale St. Palo Alto, CA 94301
13
Baumb, Nelly
From:Rich Gerould <rgerould@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 4:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:I SUPPORT APPROVAL OF THE NEWELL BRIDGE PROJECT
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I am Richard Gerould, owning and residing at 1295 Dana Avenue between Center and Lincoln. I support adoption and
approval of item 7 in tonight’s agenda (including the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)) so that the Newell Bridge
reconstruction can begin as soon as possible. We were in the flood in 1998 and have paid and continue to pay
approximately $1,500 per year in flood insurance. It is time to rebuild the Newell Bridge crossing so that the
Pope/Chaucer crossing can begin as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Richard Gerould
14
Baumb, Nelly
From:Gordon Craig <joan.and.gordon@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 4:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Newell Bridge project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council,
Regarding the Newell Bridge project, please vote to fund the two‐lane version of the project, as well as some speed
bumps for Newell Ave.
I live close to Newell, and think that it would also help to have road signs indicating which way bicycle traffic should go. I
have seen several times groups of bicycles riding to/from EPA on the wrong side of the road. It’s dangerous for the
cyclists and problematic for the motorists.
Thank you for your service,
Gordon Craig
1476 Dana Ave.
15
Baumb, Nelly
From:Patricia Jones <pkjones1000@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 3:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project: Please approve Build Alternative 2
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I support Build Alternative 2 for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project. I feel it is a reasonable compromise and is
the smallest project that still retains the funding necessary to make it happen.
We were flooded in 1988 and I don’t ever want to go through that again. This is a necessary step along the way toward
getting the Chaucer Street Bridge replaced, which is a real bottleneck.
We have been waiting for 22 years for something to happen. Please approve Build Alternative 2!
Thank you.
Patricia Jones
1407 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Patricia Jones
www.pkjones.com
pkjones1000@icloud.com
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Karen Ambrose Hickey <kahickey@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 9:58 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: Driving Complaint
Hello City Council,
Thank you for giving me my 2 minutes. Here's an email correspondence with PAPD regarding an
issue on Newell. Having lived here 18 years, I know that there are parents with kids, but there are
definitely commuters cutting through. Sometimes I cannot get out of my driveway or even to my
house without waiting in a line of cars. The cars honk at the kids and swerve, often into the opposing
lane (and nearly hitting my daughter standing on her bike waiting to cross to bike to school. Please,
Please, vote for Alternative 1. It allows the kids of EPA to get to school, but keeps the traffic more
residential and less business. Newell is NOT Middlefield. I purposely do NOT go to 101 North over
the bridge so that I don't add to the cars in the EPA neighborhood, although Waze and Google Maps
think I can shave off a few minutes. I respect my neighbor's streets as well. We get HUNDREDS of
kids on bikes, which is awesome. Please don't encourage cars over the bikes.
Best,
Karen Hickey
1815 Newell
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Karen Ambrose Hickey <kahickey@yahoo.com>
To: Maloney, Con <Con.Maloney@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019, 10:49:00 AM PST
Subject: Re: Driving Complaint
Hi Lieutenant,
I tried to call, but you are probably busy. It is correct to say that traffic was stopped on Newell
northbound due to the Embarcadero light. There were more cars than usual since school was getting
out. We had a line of traffic from the light to almost Seale Road - the entire block. I was in the line of
stopped cars, towards Seale and not yet to my house in the midway point. As all the cars (including
me) were waiting for the signal light, this car pulled out of the line of stopped cars into the oncoming
traffic lane and headed down Newell, north, passing all the stopped cars towards Embarcadero.
There was no traffic at this point because the light hadn't changed. Almost to Embarcadero (2nd
house or so), the man started to backup and then when he reached the halfway point (and across the
street from my house), the man pulled into the neighbors driveway. At that point, I had reached my
house, pulled over to the parking curb and was able to take a photo of the license plate. He then
backed out and headed south on Newell.
Normally I wouldn't send anything like that, but hundreds of kids bike down this street every day and
usually the drivers are very careful.
Thank,
2
Karen Hickey
PS. Tell your colleagues thank you for being very patient with my 100-year old neighbor at 1801
Newell. Her dementia has gotten so bad that she doesn't recognize her son who lives with her. I think
she called you all again last night. We talked her out of calling a few nights ago - she came to our
door.
On Wednesday, December 18, 2019, 09:09:14 AM PST, Maloney, Con <con.maloney@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Good morning,
The law does not allow us to take enforcement action on after-the-fact traffic violations in most
cases. However, when someone reports a clear violation we will find the time to call or mail the registered
owner and advise them of the behavior. This is especially true with a government vehicle. Shame on them.
I just want to describe the driving accurately. A call is great, or is it correct to say that traffic was stopped in the
road and this driver went into the opposing lane of traffic and passed the stopped vehicle unsafely on the left,
potentially going head on with other cars? Let me know. Thanks.
Con
From: Karen Ambrose Hickey [mailto:kahickey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:24 AM
To: Maloney, Con
Subject: Re: Driving Complaint
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and
clicking on links.
Hi Con,
I will. Sorry I didn't include more but I wasn't sure whether it was important enough. I'll call today.
Karen
Redacted
3
On Tuesday, December 17, 2019, 12:40:40 PM PST, Maloney, Con <con.maloney@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hello Ms. Hickey,
Last week you sent an email to the police department regarding a driver on Newell Road. I would like a little more detail
about the event. Could you please call me when you have a few minutes? I am have a somewhat inconsistent schedule,
but I will be in the office most of Wednesday and Thursday morning. Thank you.
Con
Lieutenant Con Maloney
Palo Alto Police Department
Investigations, Traffic & Parking
275 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
phone:
fax:
con.maloney@cityofpaloalto.org
Redacted
Redacted
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Madhuri Chattopadhyay <madhuri@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 6:14 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
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
tonight. I am writing to ask you to approve the EIR and authorize the implementation steps for this proposal.
I support the proposed replacement (Build Alternative 2) ‐ it is well designed, meets the requirements of all the
organizations involved in this long process and has full funding support from CalTrans and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District. Replacing the Newell Road bridge is a long‐awaited critical upgrade to our infrastructure to avoid widespread
flood damage across our city and the Crescent Park neighborhood.
Please approve the upgrade proposal for the Newell Road Bridge.
Madhuri Chattopadhyay
900 block of Addison Ave.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ben Ball <Ball@franciscopartners.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 9:44 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Comments on Newell Road Bridge
Attachments:Newell Bridge BHB comments for city council 2020 06 01.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Attached please see my written comments since I wasn’t able to read it all in the two minute allocation.
Thank you.
Ben
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.
My name is Ben Ball. I live on Edgewood Dr in Palo Alto and have lived on
Edgewood Dr since 1996.
Public works projects should never unnecessarily pit neighbors against each other
and sadly PA staff’s recommendation for Build Alternative 2 does just that. Since
2012 I have communicated to staff, along with many of my neighbors who live
close to the Newell Road Bridge, that protecting our children who use Newell
Road to get to school, decreasing speeding on Newell Road and mitigating traffic
increases were equally important to mitigating flooding. Build Alternative 1
satisfies the needs of my neighbors and it has always satisfied the needs of those
concerned about flooding.
Staff recommends Build Alternative 2. I’d like to offer a different interpretation of
the Draft EIR data and recommend you support Build Alternative 1.
The first bullet point in the objectives of the Draft EIR states reducing average car
speed and traffic as an objective. Your report states that Alternative 2 best meets
these goals yet the data in the report suggests something different.
• According to the TJKM traffic report published in 2019 as part of the draft
EIR process, Build Alternative 2 will increase traffic by 2%-5% from 2020 to
2040 relative to doing nothing.
o Staff may not believe this is an increase, but residents consider this
significant. Additionally most residents believe this materially
understates the increase given the 79% increase in peak PM traffic
over the bridge during the prior four years reported in the same
TJKM 2019 report AND the fact that the TJKM analysis didn’t account
for impacts from Uber/ Lyft, any of the mobile navigation apps, EPA’s
30 year development plan or Stanford’s development plans.
o Build Alternative 1 is superior to Build Alternative 2 on this criterion.
• The current bridge starts approximately 200 feet from Edgewood Dr. The
configuration of the bridge forces cars to crawl across the bridge in order to
avoid hitting cars entering the bridge from the opposite side. Additionally,
the current visibility while entering the bridge from the Woodland Ave side
forces cars to stop prior to entering the bridge. Build Alternative 2
eliminates the need for cars to stop prior to entering the bridge and
provides 60 additional feet of roadway for cars to build speed before hitting
Edgewood Dr. Under Build Alternative 2, cars will enter the bridge already
at speed and will have 30% more unencumbered roadway to build speed.
o While staff has presented this data as inconsequential, I believe this
data demonstrates that Build Alternative 2 fails the objective to avoid
increasing speeds on Newell Road and will increase average speeds
across the bridge.
o Build Alternative 1 doesn’t present any of these issues so is superior
to build Alternative 2 on this criterion.
• Your report states that Build Alternative 2 has a similar environmental
impact as all other build Alternatives; however, the Draft EIR states that
Build Alternative 2 will permanently remove 20% more trees than Build
Alternative 1. Once again, build Alternative 1 is superior to build
Alternative 2 on this objective.
• Caltrans isn’t the only source of funding nor should Caltrans dictate what’s
appropriate for our neighborhood. Santa Clara County measure B passed in
2016 allocates $1.5 billion to local roadways and improving bike and
pedestrian passageways. Additional, CA prop 69 increased gas taxes and
car registration fees to improve local roadways. Funds can be secured to
construct a bridge that is appropriate for our neighborhood. It’s just
requires a bit of effort. Alt 1 is 33% smaller than Alt 2 so it reasonable to
assume that Alt 1 material construction expense should be $3 million less
than Alt 2.
Bridge Alternative 1 mitigates flooding issues, maintains children’s safety and
controls traffic levels and speeds to those currently experienced by the existing
bridge. It has also been fully vetted by the Draft EIR process. I encourage you to
support Build Alternative 1.
Thank you
From: Iris Zhang <ihzhang@stanford.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 10:03 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Reactions for Palo Alto City Council meeting in the evening of 6/1/2020
Hello,
While the city council was discussing the Newell Road bridge project, multiple members of our
community said that we are in a “state of emergency” and that the city of Palo Alto should implement a
curfew as soon as possible, especially in the interest of protecting racial minorities in the neighborhood.
I counted at least 3 such interruptions, and to my dismay, it seems that these community members
calling for this measure are themselves, non-white.
As an Asian American member of the community, I would like to assure you that there is NO consensus
or overwhelming agreement among non-white residents in Palo Alto that implementing a curfew would
be a form of protection for people like me. In fact, I would find it extremely distressing, as there is no
evidence through decades of social science research that draconian enforcement and suppression of
liberties before an actual crime has been committed is a safe and effective way to deter crime. I urge the
city council to please think about the curfew issue seriously, instead of caving in to the particularly loud
voices of panicked residents.
Best,
Iris -- Iris Zhang | Stanford Sociology ihzhang@stanford.edu
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Paul Gumina <paul@svbusinesslaw.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 12:23 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Jeremias, Michel
Subject:Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project ("the Project"), Notice of Intent To Commence Litigation on
behalf of Mr. Yang Shen
Attachments:Notice to Palo Alto CC 6-2-20.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the Clerk of the City Council, City of Palo Alto.
Attached, please find a courtesy copy of corresondence served by US Mail on the City of Palo Alto today.
Thank you for your courtesy in forwarding this correspondence to the relevant persons in the City.
Sincerely,
Paul L. Gumina
Cell:
West Coast Business Law
The Law Offices Of Paul L. Gumina, P.C.
Main Office
560 W. Main St., Suite 205
Alhambra, CA 91801
Tel. (Toll Free):
Fax: 866‐894‐8867
: Paul@westcoastbizlaw.com
www.westcoastbizlaw.com
Please address correspondence to our Alhambra Office
San Jose Branch Office
1641 N. First St., Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95112
IRS Circular 230 disclosure:
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed
by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice
contained in this communication, unless expressly
stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any tax-related
matter(s) addressed herein.
Redacted
R
e
d
a
c
t
e
d
Redacted
The Law Offices Of
Paul L. Gumina, P.C.
Via U.S. Mail and Email To: June 2, 2020
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org;
Michel.Jeremias@cityofpaloalto.org
Clerk of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave, 6th Fl
Palo Alto, CA 94301
NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE LITIGATION
Re: Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project ("the Project")
Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") / Project Approval
District 4- SCL/SM-Newell Road BRLS 5100(017)
June 1, 2020 City Council Meeting, Action Item No. 7
Submitted On Behalf Of Shen Yang, 1499 Edgewood Drive, Palo Alto CA 94301
Pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21167.5, this letter will
serve as notice that Yang Shen ("Petitioner") will commence litigation against the City of Palo
Alto, California, and its City Council, ("Respondents").
This litigation will challenge the actions of Respondents taken at its Meeting on June 1,
2020. Petitioner challenges the certification of the FEIR and the approval of the Project on the
grounds that the Respondents' certification of the FEIR for the Project failed to comply with the
mandates set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code
§ 21000 et seq.), because, among other reasons: the Project's Statement of Overriding
Considerations did not contain the required findings; the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program failed to comply with CEQA guidelines because the plan does not mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment and is not designed to ensure compliance during project
implementation; the FEIR failed to contain a reasonable range of alternatives; and, the FEIR
improperly engaged in piecemeal review of the Project. Therefore, Respondents' certification of
the FEIR and approval of the Project constitutes an abuse of discretion and must be reversed.
This litigation will be commenced, among reasons, because the actions listed in the
preceding paragraph do not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.).
Very truly yours,
Paul L. Gumina
cc: Molly S. Stump, City Attorney of the City of Palo Alto, CA
West Coast
Business LawSM
www.westcoastbizlaw.com
Paul L. Gumina, Esq.
Robert Arthur, Esq.
Of Counsel
Offices in San Jose and
Los Angeles County,
California
560 W. Main St., Suite 205
Alhambra, CA 91801
Telephone:
Facsimile:
E-Mail: paul@westcoastbizlaw.com
Redacted
Redacted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss.
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address
is 560 W. Main St. Suite 205, Alhambra, CA 91801. June 2, 2020, I served the foregoing documents,
described as follows:
Letter from Paul Gumina to City Council, City of Palo Alto, CA, dated 6/2/2020 (Notice of Intent To Commence Litigation.)
on the interested parties to said action by the following means:
(By Mail) By placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, for
collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices, in the United States Mail at
560 W. Main St., Suite 205, Alhambra, California, addressed as shown below. I am readily familiar
with this business's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the U.S.
Postal Service, and in the ordinary course of business correspondence would be deposited with the
U.S. Postal Service the same day it was placed for collection and processing.
(By Personal Service) By personally delivering a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to the addressees shown
below.
(By Hand Delivery) By causing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to be delivered by hand to the
addresses shown below.
(By Overnight Delivery) By placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, with delivery charges prepaid, to be
sent by UPS NEXT DAY AIR, addressed as shown below.
(By Email) By transmitting a true copy thereof electronically by e-mail sent from paul@westcoastbizlaw.com to
the parties at the email address(s) listed below.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 2, 2020
in Alhambra, California.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH PERSON SERVED:
Clerk of the City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave, 6th Fl
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Michel Jeremias, P.E.
Senior Engineer, Dept. of Public Works
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Michel.Jeremias@cityofpaloalto.org
X
X
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jerry Hearn <hearnbo@redshift.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 2, 2020 12:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Newell Road Bridge decision
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Members of the Council,
Thank you for approving the project and certifying the EIR last night. While I can understand the objections of the
neighborhood residents, particularly regarding traffic, this project needs to move forward as quickly as possible. As it is,
the construction date is pushed out to 2021 at the earliest, which means that Pope Chaucer will not be under
construction until at least the following year. As those of us who attend JPA meetings know, all the projects aimed at
dealing with the flooding issue are moving forward in tandem, not in sequence, so they will all fall in place in an order
that is hydraulically appropriate, as Michel noted in response to a question last night. Traffic is, indeed, an issue that we
all need to deal with. One potential answer to the problem is increased bicycle use, and the JPA has worked diligently to
include bike transportation improvements where possible in all its projects, which is common in many Asian and
European countries. As this project moves forward, I hope that significant effort will go into addressing the traffic issue
along the Newell Road corridor as a result of the thoughtful comments of the bridge neighbors.
Again, thank your for playing your role in moving this project forward.
Jerry Hearn
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 10:32 PM
To:Greg Tanaka; Council, City
Subject:Option A vs. Option B
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
To the Council,
No objection whatsoever to Option, provided there is no delay in approving the project. Maximum bike safety is a
positive.
Respectfully,
Steve Bisset
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:sue garadis <sgaradis@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 4:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Yes to Alternative 2
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I am desperate to have the flood problem solved as soon as possible. Yes to Alternative 2, Sue Garadis, 1420 Hamilton
Sent from my iPhone
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Elizabeth Kim <kmevel703@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 1, 2020 8:26 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:On-Going Support for the Children's Theater
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I wanted to thank you for your efforts on behalf of the Children's Theater. One mainstage show and a few others is
better than nothing.
I did want to encourage you that before you make a decision on how many performances, etc. we see what the
community can do to support this theater and its performances. I know the FOPACT has put together a proposal for
fundraising. Could we try this before making decisions on what happens to the theater.
I know that personally speaking, I would get very involved in fundraising if the choice were between no shows or shows
only if the funds were raised.
I ask that you consider this.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Kim
169 Tasso Street, Palo Alto