HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190318plCC 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: 03/18/2019
Document dates: 02/27/2019 – 03/06/2019
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ED SHIKADA, CITY MANAGER
MARCH 4, 2019
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 -Authorize Transmittal of the 2018 Annual
Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element Progress Report for the Period of
January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 to the State of California's Office of
Planning and Research and the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD)
City Manager Report #9958 has incorrect attachments. The correct Attachments
are included in this memo and will be transmitted to the State of California's
Office of Planning and Research (QPR) and the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) following Council's review.
Planning and Community Environment
Ed Shikada
City Manager
Attachment A | 2030 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan: 2018 Progress Report
2 0 3 0 C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N I M P L E M E N T A T I O N :
2 0 1 8 P R O G R E S S R E P O R T
* S = Short (< 5 years), M = Medium (5-10 years), L = Long (>10 years), IP = In Progress, R = Routine
** C = Complete, PC = Partially Complete, P = Pending, O = Ongoing
1
Program Program Text Lead
Department Priority * Level
of Effort
2018
Status** Notes
L A N D U S E E L E M E N T
Goal L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities, and open spaces.
L1.6.1 Review regulatory tools available to the City and identify
actions to enhance and preserve the livability of
residential neighborhoods and the vitality of commercial
and employment districts, including improved code
enforcement practices.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
S $$ P
The City recently completed a code
enforcement audit. An update of the
Palo Alto311 tool is also planned.
L1.8.1 Maintain and update as appropriate the 1985 Land Use
Policies Agreement that sets forth the land use policies of
the City, Santa Clara County, and Stanford University with
regard to Stanford unincorporated lands.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
S $ P
As part of the Stanford 2018 General
Use Permit – staff is requesting a
review and update to the three party
agreement.
Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of “community” with development designed to foster public life, meet citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability.
L2.2.1 Explore whether there are appropriate locations to allow
small-scale neighborhood-serving retail facilities such as
coffee shops and corner stores in residential areas.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
M $ P No action has been taken at this time.
L2.4.1 Amend the Housing Element to eliminate housing sites
along San Antonio Road and increase residential
densities in Downtown and the California Avenue area to
replace potential units from the sites eliminated.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department S $ PC
In March 2019, the City Council is
expected adopt an ordinance that
eliminates residential density
restrictions Downtown and California
Avenue Area. The Housing Element is
anticipated to be updated during its
regular update cycle.
L2.4.2 Allow housing at Stanford Shopping Center, provided
that adequate parking and vibrant retail is maintained
and no reduction of retail square footage results from
the new housing.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department S $ PC
Mixed Use development is already
allowed in the CC zoning district and
retail protections already exist.
Housing development would require
creative parking solutions to
accommodate all uses.
2 0 3 0 C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N I M P L E M E N T A T I O N :
2 0 1 8 P R O G R E S S R E P O R T
* S = Short (< 5 years), M = Medium (5-10 years), L = Long (>10 years), IP = In Progress, R = Routine
** C = Complete, PC = Partially Complete, P = Pending, O = Ongoing
2
Program Program Text Lead
Department Priority * Level
of Effort
2018
Status** Notes
L2.4.3 Allow housing on the El Camino Real frontage of the
Stanford Research Park. Explore multi-family housing
elsewhere in Stanford Research Park and near the SUMC.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
S $ P No action has been taken at this time.
L2.4.4 Assess non-residential development potential in the
Community Commercial, Service Commercial and
Downtown Commercial Districts (CC, CS and CD) and the
Neighborhood Commercial District (CN), and convert
non-retail commercial FAR to residential FAR, where
appropriate. Conversion to residential capacity should
not be considered in Town and Country Village.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
S $ PC
The Affordable Housing Combining
District (PAMC 18.30J) approved in
April 2018 creates new opportunities
for housing in the CC, CS, CD and CN
districts. Additionally, recent changes
were approved in the CD, CN and CS
districts that allow greater residential
floor area. Council directed staff to
evaluate other changes to non-
residential floor area to further
incentivize housing.
L2.4.5 Update the municipal code to include zoning changes
that allow a mix of retail and residential uses but no
office uses. The intent of these changes would be to
encourage a mix of land uses that contributes to the
vitality and walkability of commercial centers and transit
corridors.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department S $ P
Some changes have been made to
incentivize housing – a prohibition on
office uses has not been initiated at
this time
L2.4.6 Explore changing the Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) ordinances for both buildings of historic
significance and for seismic retrofits so that transferred
development rights may only be used for residential
capacity.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
M $ P
2 0 3 0 C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N I M P L E M E N T A T I O N :
2 0 1 8 P R O G R E S S R E P O R T
* S = Short (< 5 years), M = Medium (5-10 years), L = Long (>10 years), IP = In Progress, R = Routine
** C = Complete, PC = Partially Complete, P = Pending, O = Ongoing
3
Program Program Text Lead
Department Priority * Level
of Effort
2018
Status** Notes
L2.4.7 Explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing
density near multimodal transit centers.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
S $$ PC
A number of ordinances have been or
are pending adoption the achieve this
goal (Workforce Housing, Affordable
Housing and a variety of housing-
related ordinances that increase
housing density. It is anticipated
further changes may be required
through Council policy direction and
changes in State law.
L2.4.8 Identify development opportunities for BMR and more
affordable market rate housing on publicly owned
properties in a way that is integrated with and enhances
existing neighborhoods.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
S $$ O
The City continues to look for
opportunities on publicly-owned lots,
including partnerships such as the
Cubberley Master Plan detailed
below.
L2.5.1 Collaborate with PAUSD in exploring opportunities to
build housing that is affordable to school district
employees.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
M $ O
The City has partnered with PAUSD to
explore affordable housing to school
district employees through the
Cubberley Master Plan. Additionally,
the City set-aside $3,000,000 for a
potential teacher housing project on
County owned land. Recent adoption
of the Workforce Housing ordinance
may also provide opportunities for
school district employees on PF
zoned property owned or leased by
PAUSD.
L2.7.1 Review development standards to discourage the net
loss of housing units.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
S $ P
At the State level, there are various
bills are being considered that
discourage the net loss of units, such
as SB 166, and many initiatives for
anti-displacement laws.
2 0 3 0 C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N I M P L E M E N T A T I O N :
2 0 1 8 P R O G R E S S R E P O R T
* S = Short (< 5 years), M = Medium (5-10 years), L = Long (>10 years), IP = In Progress, R = Routine
** C = Complete, PC = Partially Complete, P = Pending, O = Ongoing
4
Program Program Text Lead
Department Priority * Level
of Effort
2018
Status** Notes
L2.8.1 Conduct a study to evaluate various possible tools for
preventing displacement of existing residents.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
M $$ PC
Although a study has not yet been
conducted, the City did pass a
relocation ordinance that ensures
tenants facing eviction relocation
assistance regardless of their income
levels. Also the City continues to
fund Project Sentinel through CDBG
funds to help prevent evictions or
displacements.
L2.8.2 Develop and implement a system to inventory the
characteristics of existing housing units and track
changes in those characteristics on a regular basis. Make
the information publicly available.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
M $$ P No action has been taken at this time.
L2.10.1 Collaborate with PAUSD to plan for space to
accommodate future school expansions or new school
sites, and evaluate zoning space to accommodate new
schools.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
IP $$ O
The City has partnered with PAUSD
on the Cubberley Master Plan to, in
part, accommodate future school
expansions or school sites.
Goal L-3: Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools, and/or other public
gathering places.
L3.2.1 Evaluate and implement strategies to prevent conversion
of residential and neighborhood-serving retail space to
office or short-term vacation rentals.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department IP $ PC
PAMC Section 18.40.180 ensures that
there is no net loss of retail space in
designated areas.
Policy action addressing short-term
vacation rentals is has not been
initiated at this time.
2 0 3 0 C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N I M P L E M E N T A T I O N :
2 0 1 8 P R O G R E S S R E P O R T
* S = Short (< 5 years), M = Medium (5-10 years), L = Long (>10 years), IP = In Progress, R = Routine
** C = Complete, PC = Partially Complete, P = Pending, O = Ongoing
5
Program Program Text Lead
Department Priority * Level
of Effort
2018
Status** Notes
L.3.5.1 Develop a program to assess and manage both the
positive and negative impacts of basement construction
in single family homes on the community and the
environment, including:
▪ Impacts to the natural environment, such as potential
impacts to the tree canopy, groundwater supply or
quality, and soil compaction.
▪ Safety issues such as increased surface flooding
increased groundwater intrusion with sea level rise,
emergency access and egress, or sewage backflows.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
S $$ PC
The City has been studying this issue
for several years and adopted
regulations in 2017 and more
recently February 2018 to address
the impacts dewater from basement
construction in the community. New
standards address a variety of the
objectives for this program and a
summary sheet is available online :
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica
x/filebank/documents/64867. The
City will continue to monitor this
issue.
Goal L-4: Inviting pedestrian scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the city’s
residential neighborhoods and employment districts.
L4.2.1 Study the overall viability of ground-floor retail
requirements in preserving retail space and creating an
active street environment, including the types of
locations where such requirements are most effective.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
M $$ P No action has been taken at this time.
L4.2.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of formula retail limits
adopted for California Avenue. Develop incentives for
local small businesses where warranted.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
M $$ P No action has been taken at this time.
L4.2.3 Explore and potentially support new, creative and
innovative retail in Palo Alto.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
L $$ P No action has been taken at this time.
2 0 3 0 C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N I M P L E M E N T A T I O N :
2 0 1 8 P R O G R E S S R E P O R T
* S = Short (< 5 years), M = Medium (5-10 years), L = Long (>10 years), IP = In Progress, R = Routine
** C = Complete, PC = Partially Complete, P = Pending, O = Ongoing
6
Program Program Text Lead
Department Priority * Level
of Effort
2018
Status** Notes
L4.4.1 Study the feasibility of using public and private funds to
provide and maintain landscaping and public spaces such
as parks, plazas, sidewalks and public art within
commercial areas.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department M $ PC
The Public Art Program provides
ongoing temporary exhibitions in
front of City Hall. Additionally, public
artworks are currently being
commissioned for both the
downtown and California Avenue
corridors.
L4.4.2 Through public/private cooperation, provide well-signed,
clean, and accessible restrooms.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
R $ P No specific action has been taken at
this time.
L4.4.3 Collaborate with merchants to enhance the appearance
of streets and sidewalks within all Centers. Encourage the
formation of business improvement districts and
undertake a proactive program of maintenance, repair,
landscaping and enhancement.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
R $$ P No specific action has been taken at
this time.
L4.4.4 Identify priority street improvements that could make a
substantial contribution to the character of Centers, such
as widening sidewalks, narrowing travel lanes, creating
medians, restriping to allow diagonal parking, and
planting trees.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
S $$$ P No specific action has been taken at
this time.
L4.5.1 Revise zoning and other regulations as needed to
encourage the preservation of space to accommodate
small businesses, start-ups and other services.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
M $$ P No specific action has been taken at
this time.
L4.5.2 Consider planning, regulatory, or other incentives to
encourage property owners to include smaller office
spaces in their buildings to serve small businesses, non-
profit organizations, and independent professionals.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
M $ P No specific action has been taken at
this time.
2 0 3 0 C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N I M P L E M E N T A T I O N :
2 0 1 8 P R O G R E S S R E P O R T
* S = Short (< 5 years), M = Medium (5-10 years), L = Long (>10 years), IP = In Progress, R = Routine
** C = Complete, PC = Partially Complete, P = Pending, O = Ongoing
7
Program Program Text Lead
Department Priority * Level
of Effort
2018
Status** Notes
L.4.6.1 Explore increasing hotel FAR from 2.0 to 3.0 in the
University Avenue/Downtown area and 2.5 in areas
outside of Downtown.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department M $$ P
No specific action has been taken at
this time. Recent Council direction to
staff suggests the City may be
revisiting this program objective to
incentive more housing over hotel
use.
L4.8.1 Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown. Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
S $$$ P This is anticipated to begin in Winter
2020.
L4.8.2 Study the feasibility of converting parts of University
Avenue to a pedestrian zone.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
S $$ P This will be considered as part of the
Downtown CAP.
L4.9.1 While preserving adequate parking to meet demand,
identify strategies to reuse surface parking lots.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
R $ P No specific action has been taken at
this time.
L4.9.2 Explore adding additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for retail
at Stanford Shopping Center.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
M $ P No specific action has been taken at
this time.
L4.10.1 Prepare a coordinated area plan for the North Ventura
area and surrounding California Avenue area. The plan
should describe a vision for the future of the North
Ventura area as a walkable neighborhood with multi‐
family housing, ground floor retail, a public park, creek
improvements, and an interconnected street grid. It
should guide the development of the California Avenue
area as a well-designed mixed use district with diverse
land uses and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
S $$$ O Currently underway.
2 0 3 0 C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N I M P L E M E N T A T I O N :
2 0 1 8 P R O G R E S S R E P O R T
* S = Short (< 5 years), M = Medium (5-10 years), L = Long (>10 years), IP = In Progress, R = Routine
** C = Complete, PC = Partially Complete, P = Pending, O = Ongoing
8
Program Program Text Lead
Department Priority * Level
of Effort
2018
Status** Notes
L4.10.2 Create regulations for the California Avenue area that
encourage the retention or rehabilitation of smaller
buildings to provide spaces for existing retail, particularly
local, small businesses.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
S $$ P No specific action has been taken at
this time.
L4.16.1 Maintain distinct neighborhood shopping areas that are
attractive, accessible and convenient to nearby residents.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
R $ P No specific action has been taken at
this time.
Goal L-5: High quality employment districts, each with their own distinctive character and each contributing to the character of the city as a whole.
L5.1.1 Explore with Stanford University various development
options for adding to the Stanford Research Park a
diverse mix of uses, including residential, commercial
hotel, conference center, commercial space for small
businesses and start-ups, retail, transit hub, and other
community-supporting services that are compatible with
the existing uses, to create a vibrant innovation-oriented
community.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department S $$ P No specific action has been taken at
this time.
Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces.
L6.1.1 Promote awards programs and other forms of public
recognition for projects of architectural merit that
contribute positively to the community.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department
L $ P
The existing ARB awards occur every
five years. The next ARB awards will
be in 2020. Staff is currently
considering historic preservation
awards.
L6.3.1 Develop guidelines for bird-friendly building design that
minimizes hazards for birds and reduces the potential for
collisions.
Planning &
Community
Environment
Department M $$ PC
While no specific regulations have
been implemented, through the
architectural review process, bird-
friendly conditions of approval are
and have been imposed on projects
where there is the potential for
collisions.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ng, Judy
Sent:Friday, March 1, 2019 1:14 PM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; Gaines, Chantal; Tanner, Rachael; Stump, Molly; Eggleston, Brad;
Hospitalier, Jon; Wong, Mike; Portillo, Rumi; Blanch, Sandra; Yuan, Dave; Howzell, Terence
Subject:3/4 Council Agenda Questions for Items 5 & 11
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff responses to inquiries
made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the March 4, 2019 council meeting agenda.
Item 5: Cubberley Community Center K Wing Re‐Roof Project – CM Tanaka
Item 11: Approve Organizational Development and Leadership Training
Consulting Agreements – CM Tanaka
Item 5: Cubberley Community Center K Wing Re‐Roof Project – CM Tanaka
1. How old is the current roof? Is there a warranty that is still in effect that could
be used for the repairs?
The current roof is a tar and gravel roof installed in 1993. This roof is 26 years
old and the warranty has expired.
2. According to the report, the area that needs to be replaced is 12,200 square
feet, and the total cost is $311,124, or about 26 dollars per square foot.
According to CostOwl (http://www.costowl.com/home‐improvement/roof‐
tar‐and‐gravel‐cost.html), this kind of re‐roofing costs $2.5‐$4.5 dollars per
square foot. Is $26 really reasonable for reroofing?
The referenced tar and gravel cost of $2.5 ‐ $4.5 per square foot is for a
residential home and this cost does not include demolition, dry rot repairs, new
deck insulation, pipe support replacement, exhaust vent replacement, and
gutter replacement. $4.5 per square foot is not a viable cost for this geographic
area even for residential roof replacement. Tar and gravel roofs do not meet
the current local building code and California Title 24 requirements for
commercial buildings. The actual contract cost is $23 per square foot without
the 10% contingency amount. $23 per square foot in Silicon Valley with
prevailing wage rates mandated by the City and State of California is
reasonable. Prevailing wage pay rates are governed by the State of California
for a given locality. The contract award is based on the lowest responsible
bidder.
3. Have any programs at Cubberley been impacted by the leakage?
2
Not yet. The current water leaks are confined to the wood structure beneath
the roofing material but not bad enough yet to enter the occupied space
below. The K Wing is currently occupied by a childcare organization.
4. What has been the total cost for roof maintenance thus far?
Roof maintenance costs have been minimal. Maintenance includes keeping the
roof and gutter clear of leaf debris. The repair costs mentioned in the staff
report refer to dry rot repairs that are included in the contract via a $10,000
allowance. Contract contingency may also be used for repairs that exceed the
allowance.
Item 11: Approve Organizational Development and Leadership Training Consulting
Agreements – CM Tanaka
1. Isn’t it an inherent conflict of interest for the City Manager to recommend these
consultants (e.g. MRG) when MRG will draft the City Manager's performance
review? Shouldn't the selection of the consultants be done by the City Council
CAO committee instead of the City Manager? What measures are in place to
prevent interests from spilling over?
To clarify, there are two separate contracts on the agenda (Consent Items 10 and
11) and neither contract involves the City Manager’s performance review.
Item 10 is a contract with MRG for specialized assistance to the Human Resources
Director and Human Resources staff. The purpose of this contract is to provide
HR assistance for highly sensitive and complex personnel matters handled in the
Human Resources Department. The reference to “performance management”
relates to assistance from MRG on activities such as providing advice to managers
on how to write sound and defensible performance evaluations and Performance
Improvement Plans (PIPs), responding to appeals, drafting grievance responses
or preparing for formal arbitration hearings related to performance or
misconduct.
Item 11 is a master agreement for 4 different firms to be available to Department
Directors and managers for coaching, process improvement and professional
development. In this context, the term “performance management” may refer to
employee performance such as in Item 10 above, or to broader organizational
management of systemwide work toward strategic goals and priorities in the
most effective manner possible.
The City Manager’s performance evaluation is conducted under an entirely
different contract which went through an RFP process conducted by the CAO
committee. The CAO committee provided oversight for the process and the City
Manager was not involved in that RFP or selection process in any way.
2. The original contract was for only 300 thousand dollars, and the contract is for
an additional 100 thousand, and we’ve only had them for two years, based on
dealings with other providers shouldn’t we have a number to go off of? Why
was the original contract estimate so off?
3
The pace of contract expenses is driven by service need, which was higher than
anticipated for two primary reasons:
1. Department Support ‐ Approximately $60k in consulting costs were
related to highly sensitive personnel situation that involved one work
group. This level of support was not anticipated when the contract was
originally established. The support included consultation between the
MRG consultant and the department head, case management for
performance issues and misconduct allegations, and research into
various of personnel issues related to this work group. All consultation
and advice provided by MRG was coordinated with the HR Director and
deemed necessary in accordance with City policies and protocols.
2. Formal and Informal Investigations ‐ The number of workplace
complaints investigated Citywide over the past two years was higher
than originally estimated. It is almost impossible to accurately predict the
number of complaints that will be received in any year. In addition,
investigations vary greatly by the scope, number of people involved and
the complexity of issues – which is also difficult to predict two years in
advance. Human Resources conducts some investigations using in‐house
staff and also has contracts with a variety of licensed investigators and
attorneys to assist when an outside investigator is warranted. in many
instances during the term of this contract, MRG was the most responsive
firm with the fastest turnaround for urgent or extremely sensitive
investigations. For that reason more investigations were charged to the
MRG contract than originally estimated. It should be noted that
investigators are generally similar in costs, regardless of the firm. The
market rate is about $10,000 for an average investigation if the case
doesn’t involve a large number of witnesses or large amounts of
research. Some investigations have run in the range of $30,000 to
$50,000. Therefore, contract costs can vary widely from year‐to‐year.
3. What incentives are in place for the consultants to do as well as they can for
labor negotiations, especially given the generous pay that has been consistently
given to unionized employees?
None of the firms or contracts in Item 10 or Item 11 are involved with City of Palo
Alto labor negotiations.
Organizational Development
4. What triggered the writing of these contracts besides transitions of
management? I would like to ask this question because understanding the root
of the problem is crucial to finding the correct solution. By understanding what
sparked the writing of these contracts, we can make sure the four consulting
firms are able to address these issues and are necessary to solving these
problems.
Due to recent employee turnover and an increasing number of vacancies
throughout the City, departments are in need of organizational development
professional services to maintain and enhance service deliveries, implement
continuous improvement programs and operate effective work teams. Resources
4
of this type is also increasingly necessary professional development tools for the
City to remain a competitive employer. With these contracts, staff will be able to
select the most suitable of the four consulting firms in a timely and cost‐effective
manner for specific needs. Recommendations for the addition of internal controls
or management procedures that consultants can help introduce to city
management teams. In addition, newly promoted members of the Executive
Leadership Team are strong candidates for professional coaching and support to
serve in interim positions, developing teams during this time of change and
growth.
5. What projects have these management consultants worked on with the city
previously? I would like to ask this question to understand what the
capabilities of the consulting firm are and what the relationship is between the
consultants and the city.
Bovo Tighe has provided organizational assessment, training, and
performance management services.
BluePoint Planning has provided strategic planning and workshop
facilitation services.
Management Partners has provided strategic planning and project
management services.
Municipal Resources Group has provided training, coaching, facilitated
performance evaluation, and general HR services.
6. How long has the city used management consultants to maximize productivity
and what impact has been seen because of these programs? I would like to ask
this question to understand why working with these consultants is necessary
and how we know progress has been made by working with these consultants.
The City has retained consultants for organizational development and training for
at least the past seven years. For example, a strategic planning and process
improvement initiative resulted in a coordinated plan to support a reorganization
including Development Services, Fire, Planning, Public Works, and Utilities. This
effort resulted in reduced wait time for permits and improved service deliveries.
Thank you,
Judy Ng
Judy Ng
City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329‐2105
Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org
1
Carnahan, David
From:Angela Dellaporta <asdellaporta@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 4, 2019 10:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ventura Neighborhood Survey regarding NVCAP
Attachments:NVCAP proposal W1 flat.pdf
Dear City Council Members,
In light of the Town Hall Meeting to be held in the our neighborhood on March 11, the Ventura Neighborhood
Association thought you might like to take a good look at the results of a survey regarding the NVCAP (and more), which
we circulated among our neighbors in January and February 2019.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XVFPrl5fwar‐MroC‐ehCJeZOsV3mwkB2jfSH8ql94u8/edit?usp=sharing
The results not only indicate the 51 respondents' actual answers, but are also in accordance with the general feelings
and opinions of all the neighbors we've been talking with for the past year.
In addition to the survey results, we are attaching a prototype design, made by one of our neighbors, which reflects
many of the ideas that the neighborhood likes.
ST
A
N
F
O
R
D
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
BY
B
I
K
E
JL
S
M
I
D
D
D
L
E
S
C
H
O
O
L
,
S
A
N
A
N
T
O
N
I
O
SH
O
P
P
I
N
G
C
E
N
T
E
R
BY
B
I
K
E
MIDTOWN PA BY BIKE
EL CARMELO SCHOOL
BARRON PARK SCHOOL
GUNN HIGH SCHOOL BY BIKE
GROUPON
FRY'S
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
A
V
E
SUPERIOR
COURT CLOUDERA
PARK BLVD
EL CAMINO
LA
M
B
E
R
T
A
V
E
OL
I
V
E
A
V
E
OR
E
G
O
N
E
X
P
Y
ASH STR
COORDINATED LIGHT
INTERSECTION
CONTROLED VEHICLE ACCESS
VEHICLE MAJOR CIRCULATION PATH
TWO LEVELS ABOVE GROUND
PARKING STRUCTURE
BICYCLE MAJOR CIRCULATION PATH
PEDESTRIAN MAJOR CIRCULATION
PATH
GREENERY BUFFER OR LANDSCAPED
PATH
PEDESTRIAN POINT OF INTREST, PARK
OR LANDSCAPED PLAZA
OFFICES OR COMMERTIAL AREAS
SERVING LARGER BAY AREA
SHOPS, RESTAURANTES OR
COMMERTIAL AREAS SERVING LOCAL
COMMUNITY
EXISTING , SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSING AREA
EXISTING , SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AREA
EXISTING OR PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH INTEGRATED PARKING
PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
AREAS WITH DETACHED OR UNDERGROUND PARKING
STRUCTURES
NVCAP
PROPOSAL W
NVCAP AREA
BRIDGE
John Bulware
Park expansion
over ATT land
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 3, 2019 11:49 AM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Attorney Harry Lehmann's letter to the Marin County on Feb 21st 2019
Attachments:Feb 21 letter for Marin Supervisors by Harry Lehmann.pdf
Dear All,
Here is the attachment of the letter that Mr. Harry Lehmann, a well reputed attorney wrote to the Marin county - "Limiting
the scope of Marin's financial risk for 5G litigation" .He was one of the many people who gave the testimony at the city hall
during the Verizon appeal hearing that happened on May 21st 2018
Thanks,
Amrutha
Harry Vere Lehmann
Principal Attorney
Marin County Supervisors
Room 329 Civic Center,
3501 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
Law Offices of Harry V. Lehmann PC
4 Vineyard Co urt
Novato, California 94947
February 21, 2019
Area Code 41 5
Telephone: 897-2121
Facsimile: 898-6959
Re: Limiting the scope of Marin's financial risk for 5G litigation
Dear Supervisors -
This is the last of three letters, together sent as a gift with my kindly intent being to
respectfully let your Board and County Counsel and our professional administrative policy
makers know about emerging factors in EMF litigation risk, which new factors, if not
skillfully addressed, will threaten the solvency of the County.
It was very decent of you to put on the Workshop and the turnout and messages
spoken showed readily that there is massive constituent objection to 5G. Rather than
complaining without suggested path, this letter offers a clearly defined strategy which is
suggested as the safest course for minimizing litigation exposure. Maybe your people won't
like it, I'm just pitching the best I can. In addition to the suggested overall strategy, actual
listed defenses are respectfully listed as items A -G starting at page 9 of this letter.
I write to authenticate this advice; that the County's safest course fo r limited litigation
exposure is, contrary to instinct, to immediately adopt an emergency moratorium on 5G
permits and installations, including installations alleged as co-location.
Consider the situation of an aircraft in climb-out, if due to excessive nose-high
attitude, it has entered into aerodynamic stall or has progressed beyond that to a spin. Flat
spins result in high energy contact with terrain unless the spin is interrupted.
The pilot's instinct, not wanting to crash to earth, is to pull back on the yoke, to keep
the nose in the instinctively desired direction, up hoping to get away from the approaching
terrain. As you probably know, the actual procedure required to break out of an aerodynamic
stall or resulting spin is to go against instinct and push the yoke forward to break the stall.
Based on clearly identifiable factors the current 5G risk posture of the County of
Marin resembles that of an aircraft in high stall at the edge of spin, instinct says pull back on
that yoke labeled 'settlement,' but the terrain rushing up at the County is an endless array of
1
ADA claims and other litigation if Marin voluntarily enters into a joint venture for SG
allowing telecom to merge microwave saturation machinery with publicly owned poles. The
term 'merge' is used here in the Doctrine of Fixtures context. Please avoid that exposure.
The legal basis for Marin County's liability for Dangerous Condition of Public
Property was presented in my letter to the Board dated February 4th and delivered to the
offices of your Board on the morning of February 5th, which letter is incorporated herein as
though more fully set forth. More explicitly, the County's risk comes from the math.
By the numbers.
After the Workshop and responsive to my letter, there was profuse Astroturfing with a
higher shill ratio than poker at a Nevada casino. I avoided reading it, however a person
whom I believe is known in her family as Starfleet Command was fascinated and read a few
troll shots to me. One implied that I cared about my political chances, but that train left the
station decades ago.
Another shill&troll, in a nicely focused hit piece, pitched that since in a legislative
submission I'd claimed that 50 presents national security impairments, and also because in a
2017 letter against SB 649 I had once mentioned possible mass casualties, 1 must be an
alarmist with claims to be laughed off. As it was read to me, an erudite person responded on
the national security issue with reference to the back doors in Huawei equipment. As to the
term 'mass casualties,' that's just arithmetic. Assume arguendo that three years from now
20,000,000 in California will be under constant saturation from 5G. Assume that only 3% of
those people become symptomatic in the first half dozen years of operation; that's 600,000
people, and conveniently using six years in example that works out to a hundred thousand
people a year. A phrase describing 'possible mass casualties' was just arithmetically
descriptive of what happens when even a small percentage of our very large population is
harmed. I don't know what that percentage will be, nobody can know the future for sure and
the three percent figure is used only for illustration here, although I personally believe it to be
justified, including through the findings of Dr. Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute,
Stockholm. See the ORJAN HALLBERG AND GERD OBERFELD letter at Electromagnetic
Biology and Medicine, 25: 189-191, 2006. Please consider the situation in Marin, even
using that same small percentage.
There are a quarter million people in Marin. The percentage of us whom in the future
will be electrosensitive to the point of material recognizable attributable symptoms is
unknown. For arithmetic illustration only, not as a stated epidemiological conclusion, using
the estimate of only 3% leads us to expect 7,500 Marin residents to be affected by microwave
exposure sickness the point of symptom in the near term.. And even if it's only one percent,
that's 2500 of our people. The connection between this radiation and the symptoms of
microwave exposure disease is well established. The NTP proof of causation of cancers in
rats was not surprising to professionals in this field, set as it was in the context of hundreds
of other studies showing EMF damage (see the UCSD School of Medicine letter incorporated
below citing 360 such sources), with other studies previously showing brain cancer
causation, see in particular the Norway study by Hardell, if memory serves that was in the
2
September 2013 edition of the International Journal of Oncology. Since this cause of their
illnesses is well known, injured people will seek legal relief. If the injured are 'only' 2500,
and 'only' one in five of those files an ADA claim or other litigation, that's still 500 cases
against Marin or other local pole owners. Yes, these are hypothetical extensions, no we can't
no exactly, and yes, although the percentage of people explaining their illness experiences at
the Workshop was clearly higher than three percent of those attending, that was not a random
sampling. Yet the resulting numbers of cases in this scenario are so large that even if this
situation whittled down to the claims resulting from one half of one percent of our people
being rendered ill, and again one in five filed ADA, that's still a big number, and for the
professional planner raises serious concern for the very reason that we can't project exactly
what is going to happen here, so that we face exposures the limit of which cannot be assured.
When our Supervisors and senior policy people examine whether the '500' cases
example just used for illustration is reasonable, consider that the arithmetic example was
based on an assumption of only one percent of our Marin population being sickened to the
point of material attributable symptoms, and only one in five of those hurt people pursuing an
ADA or other approach. Please also contemplate what happens if the percentage of our
Marin population with such alleged traceable symptoms is three percent, thus generating
7 5 00 hurt people and 15 00 filed cases by the same math. If those are spread over the six
years hypothetically used above, that's 250 cases per year. The work of Dr. Henry Lai and a
now by 2019 an overwhelming body of scientific evidence show a hazard level that was not
even considered remotely a serious risk when that Bill passed, Senator McCain voting
against it in tiny minority.
More than 360 peer-reviewed sources on microwave injury are attached.
In response to the natural desire of the policy-defining reader to have proof of
scientific concern, attached to this letter is the entire August 18, 20 17, 25 page letter in
opposition to SB 649 issued by Beatrice Alexandra Golomb, MD, PhD, Professor of
Medicine, UC San Diego School of Medicine. From a medical professional of impeccable
credential, this studied letter describes the medical consequences of mass installation of 5G,
with annotations supporting her conclusion that "If this bill passes, many people will suffer
greatly, and needlessly, as a direct result." Dr. Golomb's letter includes 360 citations to
peer-reviewed studies showing microwave radiation medical consequences, with 21 pages
out of 25 just for the citations.
I respectfully note that it solves for all variables in explaining a causation mechanism
for mutagenic DNA change if, in physic s terms, the damage is occurring through 'acoustic '
means, which is not about music this time, and has everything to do with vibration.
Consider how a microwave works, as can be found in any encyclopedia, the next is
from a World Book bought for our kids long ago: "Microwave oven is an appliance that
heats food by penetratiang it with short radio waves. These waves cause molecules in food
to vibrate rapidly. Friction among the moving molecules creates heat, which cooks the
food." This is, at a molecular level, shaken baby syndrome for all yo ur cells.
3
The last industry lobbyist I spoke with on this issue in Sacramento was painfully
unstudied in his underlying science dialogue, though he seemed like he'd be a terrific
grandfather. I will do my best next to fairly state the core telecom industry point on tissue
damage causation from cellular microwave: "Non-ionizing radiation does not have
sufficient power to displace an electron from its shell. Therefore it is impossible as a
matter of well-understood physics for microwave radiation to cause any direct non-
thermal ionic effect (meaning directly caused chemical change) in tissue."
To understand the industry argument it is necessary to remember valence from
our h igh school chemistry classes. J hope scientists who read this, chal lenging or not,
will fee l that the industry point, which is the basis for the FCC saf ety standards, has
been fai rly stated below:
I) The involved non-ioniz ing radiation does not have the ability to cause an
electron to jump shell , so that:
2) Since an electron cannot be forced from shell, there is no change in the ratio
between protons and e lectrons in the involved atoms, which ratio, in chemistry,
is 'valence.'
3) If there is no change in valence ratio, there is no possibility of forced ionic
recombination at an atomic level. Wi thout a change in valence there can be no
forced "ionic," or direct chemical change.
l j ust found the fo ll owing definition which gives us an adequate illustrati on:
"Ionic bonding is the complete transfer of valence electron(s) between atoms. It is a
type of chemical bond that generates two oppositely charged ions. In ionic bonds, the
[metal] loses electrons to become a positively charged cation, whereas the nonmetal
accepts those electrons to become a negatively charged anion."
In saying that it is impossible for non-ionizing radiation to force ionic injury to
tissue, the industry has been making a correct general statement of physical principle,
and then incorrectly extrapolating the industry pitch that: The only scientifically
sensible explanation for damage to tissue, due to the non-ionizing character of the
radiation, would be where prolonged close encounter caused microwave induced
thermal damage to tissue. Their whole scientific house of cards is built on the
foundation of that Joker.
There exist at least two rationally deduced and also scientifically supported
separate mechanisms through which, in fact, this non-ionizing radiation has sufficient
power to tear apart living tissue. T here is an annotated explanation of this in th e
Causation section of the July 19, 2017 letter submitted in opposition to SB 649,
which can be found at www.greenswan.org our embarrassingly out of date website,
Green Swan is our very own 'involuntary non-profit,' but I believe that we' 11 do well
4
once the new products based on the patents reach the market. l won't try to condense
that 10 page analysis from July of2017 here, but today, as in that July 19 letter, the
vibratory nature of DNA strand breakage appears illustrated from the University of
Maryland interferometer experiments of 1983 . As I recall it, citations in the letter, the
University of Maryland interferometer study showed that addition the of a 7.43
percent constituent of DNA into plain water (from DNA salts put into the resu lting
solution level of said 7.43 percent), caused a 24 fold (meaning 24 times) increase in
Specific Absorption Rate (how much energy the fluid absorbed), which change in
energy absorption was determined to be non-ionic, but rather 'acoustic.' Which
means, to my understanding and as best I can phrase it: A transmitted vibration within
a medium having the ability to do work at the recipient target within that same
medium. In the interferometer study mentioned here, there was molecular change by
DNA vi bration (energy absorption in the DNA molecule, measured as comparison
between the energy penetrating through the plain water compared to penetrating
through the DNA solution). Call me sentimental if you want, but I still REALLY
love the Ella Fitzgerald Memorex commercial from 1972, check it out.
As said in the July 19 letter, I believe that Dr. Trevor Marshall's work had
shown the core point of acoustic DNA damage before my conclusion was published,
all consistent with the authorities therein, excepting that to my embarrassment I
misspelled Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy's name, I haven't tried to correct that in such an
already public document, but I apologize. Derivati ve from th is absorptive quality of
DNA and synthetic DNA materials, the US Patent and Trademark Office recognized
issued U.S. Non-Provisional Utility Patent 9,960,799 on May I, 2018.
All these years the industry had been saying, ' the vibration won't hurt you, no
harm until you cook.' However, Dr. Henry Lai's findings from the University of
Washington School of Medicine proved that DNA strand is broken by exposure to
cellular signal, established beyond rational scientific doubt. Dr. Lai's findings have
never been disproved, and if industry could have, they would have. It is very worth
your time to Internet search for: 'Dr. Henry Lai Seattle Magazine,' and to find the part
in that article about where a disclosed industry memo pitched that the company
involved needed to 'war game,' against Dr. Lai, as part of a concerted and focused
effort to discredit him. Some of these people are nothing more than manipulative
materialists who care for nothing but stature and wealth.
There are solid reasons for respecting the calcium ion analysis from Dr. Martin
Pall, late of the University of Washington School of Medicine: Please see a 15 minute
video of his 2015 presentation at The Commonwealth Club event organized by EMF
safety expert Camilla Rees, https://vimeo.com/132870272 . Dr. Pall is a credentialed
scientist, I am not. I respectfully agree Dr. Pall's calcium ion conclusions, hardly
surprising that tissue damage is multi-axial with DNA strand breakage and calcium
ion cell damage both taking place. For compact access to Dr. Pall's scientific studies on
the effects of EMF see: https://www.ncbi.nlm .nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC378053 l/. For the
5
serious academic, see: https://europaem.eu/attachments/article/l 3 l/2018-04 EU-EMF20 l 8-
5US.pdf .
Please keep the scope of litigation narrow.
Marin County has talented lawyers at County Counsel, there are very many other
employees of high talent in the building Litigating with telecom is narrow in scope and
narrow in personnel necessary to address a small group of related cases which are no more
challenging than any other set of a few coordinated important cases. If Marin is sued by
telecom, that's only a few lawsuits.
Alternatively, in contractually allowing telecom permissively to use regional entity
utility poles our county cannot comfortably rely on permit immunities and other traditional
governmental defenses, because any such voluntarily compliant public entity has direct
involvement as a participant in the tort, due to joint venture, doctrine of fixtures et al,
leaving pole owners permanently open to Claims for such WHO-defined injuries, cases
unknowable number, without end.
Consolidation has taken place from the MDL and the transfer to the 9th. Marin's SG
litigation with Big Telecom (via the FCC puppets) is narrow in scope, as it is now in the 9th
Circuit. Should Big Telecom 's really sue Marin over an emergency moratorium, they walk
into the den of lions, and the scope of the suits involved, very likely consolidated, will be
very narrow. Thus, the scope of litigation if Marin fights diligently only involves a handful
of your skilled lawyers and/or limited outside counsel covered by the insurance pool.
I am personally aware of many people, including in Marin, each who has sufficient
documentation of EMF sensitivity and negative medical consequence to morally and legally
justify an ADA complaint, to mention just one possible course of action. That gentleman
from Inverness tellingly testified about how microwave exposure causes potentially deadly
variances in operation from titanium surgical instrument in his chest.
Our county faces a permanent multiplicity of long term litigation from microwave
sickness claimants if Marin voluntarily cooperates with telecom on SG. If our county will
simply say no to SG, the scope of litigation will remain narrow, at least for several years.
Furthermore, if the county were ultimately forced by the federal government into SG
acceptance, such a forced local entity would have a stronger argument for federal
reimbursement than an entity which just went along for the ride. Unfortunately the ultimate
approach of such local SG acceptance is that either the telecom 's liability will be shifte d to
the local taxpayers, or in the instance of a reimbursement from the feds, telecom's liability
exposure would be shifted to the federal government, in either instance a disastrous outcome.
Please consider the moral queasiness each Board member would forever after feel if in
grasping for defenses against these avoidable lawsuits you were to resort to claiming, against
the health of your constituents, that the 1996 Act also protects local governments as well.
6
Cooling the Mark -Big Telecom 's Hidden Persuaders
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity refers to health effects attributed to electromagnetic
fields (EMF) exposure and has been formally named "idiopathic environmental intolerance
attributed to electromagnetic fields" by the World Health Organization. I am personally
aware of substantial settlement awards in EMF workplace injury situations in California and
awards for electromagnetic disability involving high degrees of expert diagnosis. I remember
a teacher who can no longer teach in a faraway District from here, which District "tested"
the WJFJ in the classroom only when the students and their Chromebooks were absent,
and therefore the routers were in standby state. Similar forms of false 'scientific' testing
have shown up in many counties, including in my opinion in Petaluma schools.
This isn't sunburn. Keep in mind that the NTP study specifically reported glioma
cells. Some claims will result from life-ruination glioblastoma cancers. And note that the
positive finding in the NTP study of cancer causation in the NTP study, rather than being a
surprise to those who have long studied in this issue, was a result long widely expected a few
examples our of hundreds follow: The Lund University finding of violation of the blood-
brain barrier in rodents at very low wattage was back in 2003, the extremely remarkable book
by former Motorola antenna scientist Robert C. Kane, published in 2000, Cellular Telephone
Russian Roulette which appeared impossibly scarce for a while but is now available used, is
the most pioneering book of all on this subject. The first letter on WIFI dangers to the
LAUSD by Dr. Herbert of the Harvard Medical School was way back in 2013, referencing
more than a thousand studies showing EMF damage, the Norway study led by Hardell
definitively showing an increased rate of brain cancer in cell phone users was published in
the International Journal of Oncology in September of2013. In the introduction to his heroic
book, the late (brain cancer) Robert C. Kane notes: "Never in human history has there been
such a practice as we now encounter with the marketing and distribution of products
hostile to the human biological system by an industry with foreknowledge of these effects."
The fact of microwave damage to biology was well established long before the NTP report.
How is it possible not to recognize such a risk? The March 29, 2018 investigative
report in The Nation, How Big Wireless Convinced Us Cell Phones Are Safe is the finest
investigative journalism that I've seen in my life. For those who first thought of Woodward,
be sure to read Len Colodny's history of Watergate, titled Silent Coup. Conditioned memes
and legends are the biggest of big businesses. Our government was released from statutory
restraint years ago and can now lawufully engage in propaganda to its citizens, and whether
the blood flows into pockets from the Left or the Right, it comes through the beating heart of
America's giant corporations, and some are outright dumb. Consider PG&E for example.
Precision advertising has taught us to shuffle concerns about microwave cancer into
the round bin with the Fringe sign on it. Our societal tardiness to recognize this hazard
results in large part from advertising and it's related appendage, industry sponsorship of
7
research. So part of this risk ignorance has been advertizing feedback so careful that Jacques
Ellul, God rest hi s soul, would have appreciated the precision.
That's why CTlA ditched Dr. Carlo after he told them, 20 years ago, about the cancer
risks he'd found. Please kindly read the 3/29/18 article from The Nation. Was it all in bad
faith ? In 20-20 hindsight it is always easy to condemn past mistakes in the light of new
insights, but the devotional team spirit cultivated within the wildly profitable field of telecom
was often coupled with a sincere belief in the minds of competent engineers that the nature of
the radiation involved meant it could not cause non-thermal damage to flesh. That issue has
already been treated explicitly, and you already have exhaustive data from the contents of
links supplied by many constituents besides me.
Based on the Workhop the constituent viewpoint is two hundred people in ratio to
three out-of-town shills. Once the now available science information is understood by an
interested person, there's no need for a sales pitch. I don't like being involved in this 5G
issue, it is difficult and unhappy work which has presented personal security challenges but
this is unavoidably necessary for me for moral grounds, study sometimes causes knowledge
which inherently compels action by those concerned with their souls.
An understanding of group psychology is integral to serious modem corporate PR and
political campaign practice and Big Telecom is glad to influence our views; best of all if the
media-conditioned public has been sufficiently trained to treat polite dissenting views as
'fringe.' I'm old enough to have read Vance Packard when The Hidden Persuaders was new,
of course there is Walter Lippman's bare statement that: "The real environment is altogether
too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance" between people and their
environment. People construct a pseudo-environment that is a subjective, biased, and
necessarily abridged mental image of the world (Lippmann, 1922: 4)." August Bullock's
The Secret Sales Pitch is the best modem work I've seen. The reality is that a true expert
campaigner can cause new phrases and outlooks to be long remembered. For example, the
late great Lyn Nofziger used to horribly pun 'better a Harry Lehmann than a bald priest.'
Please concentrate on forgetting that pun. That is an example of the same sort of skill that
telecom is paying for to form your views. NMFR.
Additional defenses for the County of Marin lawyers to contemplate for all EMF suits.
Without even scant lip service to Due Process, the FCC is waging a national
Condemnation campaign to seize property rights belonging to cities and counties, local
Districts, and other public entities and private entities. The term 'Condemnation' is used in
the normal legal descriptive sense of a public entity taking private property the owner of that
property being entitled under Due Process to access to the courts for replevin, with such just
compensation being essential both under statutory law in all State jurisdictions and also on
Constitutional grounds. I make no attempt here to exhausti vely provide all of the many
defenses which are readily familiar. What follows, A through E, are five less obvious
defense approaches.
8
A-The defense of moral conduct.
I respectfully suggest an additional lawful basis for rejection of 50 which is not
prohibited by the 1996 Act, namely that the installation of 5G given the totality of
circumstances, is immoral, and Marin elects not to allow 5G installation on moral
grounds. What are they going to say to that? Will telecom come argue that morality no
longer matters? And we certainly do have room in our laws for morality in civil matters, it is
called 'equity.' It is complete seriousness suggested that if sued, in defense of its moratorium,
the County of Marin may respond, so long as there is an actual record of proceedings to same
effect that: 'Based on the totality of the circumstances, the County of Marin has placed a
moratorium on 50 on moral grounds.' I know that your linear thinkers will cringe, but I've
been an M. Scott Peck fan for almost 30 years, and WTF are they going to say to that one? It
is mostly self-admitted ego defense for me to say this, but before you decide to reject any
idea just because of initial perceived unusual level of novelty, please examine U.S. Patents as
next listed: 9,997,824, 9,960,799, 9,747,884, 8,890,697, 9,191,055, 9,379,757, 9,564,680,
and 9,065 ,900. None of those have to do with 50, all of them have to do with portable
equipment and their Applications were filed before I'd even heard the term '50.' As a result
of my study in that work, I am morally required object to radiation saturation of Marin.
There appears no moral wiggle room on this one, it is immoral to irradiate people in
order to sell them instant access to Bonanza reruns. It came to our attention during the long
hard fight against SB 649 that discussions were ongoing between telecom and the cable
industry. I wasn't a fly on the wall, my then and current comprehension of the situation is
that telcom's goal to be covert all of the services we may now subscribe and enjoy to 50
wireless. Cuts out a lot of cable people, for one example. It is in the nature of invention
that the greatest accomplishments come from unexpected quadrants.
B-The defense of Separation of Powers.
Telecom's own bought and paid for smurf choir now chants that neither cities,
counties nor citizens can have access to the courts over being fried by their signals. Telecom
relies here on the odious 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act, Section 704, which has
been often often interpreted by industry to prohibit the courts from even entertaining any
claims based on adverse health consequences. This is a massive violation of the basic
concept of Separation of Powers.
The FCC claims that their pet Act is so powerful that now the Executive Branch can
preclude the courts from even having jurisdiction over any tower-siting issues. Our system
of courts has never been perfect and never will be perfect, but the courts are the safety net
protecting us from the excesses of governance. It is extremely important that the issue of
Separation of Powers, in this instance the severe overreach of the federal Executive Branch
be fought in any litigation over 50 with telecom.
9
1
Carnahan, David
From:Melinia Honjo <meliniahonjo@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 4, 2019 4:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Boulware park expansion-ATT lot purchase
Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members,
I urge you to purchase the property across the street from Boulware Park in Ventura and add that to our parkland.
Please make sure that prospective competitive buyers know that the lot is zoned PF and that Council has NO
intention whatsoever of changing the zoning to make it attractive for investors. Let’s keep our PF zones Public
Serving. Additionally, cleaning up the park will be good for families and those who wish to use it for recreational
activities. I walk my dogs in the park 3 times a day every day, and will be expecting my first child soon, an
expansion of the park is a worthwhile investment and Boulware park is one of the smallest parks in Palo Alto.
Expanding it will be good for the neighborhood and for the city.
Thank you,
Melinia Honjo- Ventura resident
1
Carnahan, David
From:California High-Speed Rail <Central.Valley@hsr.ca.gov>
Sent:Thursday, February 28, 2019 1:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:California High-Speed Rail March 2019 Construction Update
To view this email as a web page, go here.
99 Realignment Complete
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California High-Speed
Rail Authority held a ribbon-cutting ceremony in February to mark the completion of the
State Route 99 Realignment in Central Fresno. Read the March Construction Alert to
learn about the impact these changes are making for traffic through the area or watch
the video below to see it for yourself.
2
LEARN MORE
Impacts of the 99
Realignment
LATEST VIDEOS
NEW AERIAL PHOTOS
The March Construction update also includes new aerial photos of several of our
projects in Madera and Fresno Counties. There are more aerials of each of these
projects on the individual project pages on BuildHSR.com.
Featured Project: Garces
Highway
Work gets underway on abutments at
what will be a high-speed rail crossing
over Garces Highway, just outside the
town of Wasco in Kern County.
CHECK IT OUT
3
Road Closure Alerts
Faces of HSR
HSR.ca.gov
TONI TINOCO
California High-Speed Rail
(559) 274-8975
Toni.Tinoco@hsr.ca.gov
DAN GALVIN
California High-Speed Rail
(559) 490-6863
Dan.Galvin@hsr.ca.gov
CENTRAL.VALLEY@HSR.CA.GOV | BUILDHSR.COM
This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority
770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US
Privacy Policy
Unsubscribe
1
Carnahan, David
From:william macy <wwmacyj@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 4, 2019 10:24 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Castilleja expansion
A while back I attended a city council meeting in which Castilleja expansion was discussed. Several students discussed
the benefits of women's education. I got the feeling that the students had been deceived by the school's administration
into believing that women's education rather than the effect of the school's expansion on a residential neighborhood
was the issue at hand. High school students are unlikely to have independently developed an opinion on an issue like
this. I would have been more impressed by a student who chastised the school administration for requesting her to
make a presentation that misrepresented the issue. The student might have gone on to praise her education that gave
her the skill to detect the deception and the self confidence to present her contrary point of view in a public meeting.
William Macy
151 Melville Ave
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gregory Brail <greg@brail.org>
Sent:Wednesday, February 27, 2019 8:47 PM
To:Planning Commission; Council, City; City Mgr; Eileen Goodwin
Subject:Charleston Rd is the fourth most dangerous grade crossing in California
Attachments:WBAPS_2019227232751.pdf
Council and others:
I've been emailing about grade‐crossing safety with other members of the CAP, and I've recently come across some
alarming federal statistics.
According to data models produced by the Federal Railway Administration, Charleston Road is the fourth most
dangerous grade crossing in California, and is more dangerous than every grade crossing in New York, New Jersey, and
Connecticut.
The attached report shows the top 30 grade crossings in California, ordered by "predicted collisions." Charleston Road is
the fourth most dangerous in the state by this measure, with E. Meadow at #5 and Churchill at #15.
Since 2011, six people have been killed at Charleston Rd ‐‐ four pedestrians and two drivers.
The #1 crossing in California by this measure is in Los Angeles county. The state government is funding a project to
replace it:
https://www.whittierdailynews.com/2019/02/19/even‐without‐the‐high‐speed‐train‐states‐most‐dangerous‐grade‐
crossing‐in‐santa‐fe‐springs‐will‐get‐fixed/
Furthermore, if I create a brand new report that includes New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, Charleston Road still
comes at #4. In fact, the grade crossing in Long Island where three people were killed this week doesn't even show up in
the top 30.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/02/26/us/ap‐us‐train‐vehicle‐collision.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/nyregion/at‐rail‐crossings‐in‐new‐york‐area‐a‐constantly‐lurking‐
danger.html?module=inline
You can generate your own reports here:
https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/webaps/default.aspx
We have not talked about safety very much in the context of grade separation. I believe that is a mistake, and one that
not only our City but our County and State should help address.
Greg Brail
Edgewood Drive
CAP member
Annual WBAPS
WEB ACCIDENT PREDICTION SYSTEM
Accident Prediction Report for
Public at-Grade Highway-Rail Crossings
Including:
Disclaimer/Abbreviation Key
Accident Prediction ListCollision History
Abbreviated Inventory ProfileState and National Contact List
Provided by:
Federal Railroad Administration
Office of Safety Analysis
Highway-Rail Crossing Safety & Trespass Prevention
Date Prepared:2/27/2019
Data Contained in this Report:
STATE: CA
2018
U.S. Departmentof TransportationFederal RailroadAdministration
USING DATA PRODUCED BY WBAPS
(Web Accident Prediction System)
WBAPS generates reports listing public highway-rail intersections for a State, County, City or railroad ranked by predicted collisions per year. These reports include brief lists of the Inventory record and the collisions over the last 10 years along with a list of contacts for
further information. These data were produced by the Federal Railroad Administration's Web Accident Prediction System (WBAPS).
WBAPS is a computer model which provides the user an analytical tool, which combined with other site-specific information, can assist in determining where scarce highway-rail grade crossing resources can best be directed. This computer model does not rank crossings
in terms of most to least dangerous. Use of WBAPS data in this manner is incorrect and misleading.
WBAPS provides the same reports as PCAPS, which is FRA's PC Accident Prediction System. PCAPS was originally developed as a tool to alert law enforcement and local officials of the important need to improve safety at public highway-rail intersections within their
jurisdictions. It has since become an indispensable information resource which is helping the FRA, States, railroads, Operation Lifesaver and others, to raise the awareness of the potential dangers at public highway-rail intersections. The PCAPS/WBAPS output
enables State and local highway and law enforcement agencies identify public highway-rail crossing locations which may require additional or specialized attention. It is also a tool which can be used by state highway authorities and railroads to nominate particular
crossings which may require physical safety improvements or enhancements.
The WBAPS accident prediction formula is based upon two independent factors (variables) which includes (1) basic data about a crossing's physical and operating characteristics and (2) five years of accident history data at the crossing. These data are obtained from the FRA's inventory and accident/incident files which are subject to keypunch and submission errors. Although every attempt is made to find and correct errors, there is still a possibility that some errors still exist. Erroneous, inaccurate and non-current data will alter WBAPS accident prediction values. While approximately 100,000 inventory file changes and updates are voluntarily provided annually by States and railroads and processed by FRA into the National Inventory File, data records for specific crossings may not be completely current. Only the intended users (States and railroads) are really knowledgeable as to how current the inventory data is for a particular State, railroad, or location.
It is important to understand the type of information produced by WBAPS and the limitations on the application of the output data. WBAPS does not state that specific crossings are the most dangerous. Rather, the WBAPS data provides an indication that conditions are such that one crossing may possibly be more hazardous than another based on the specific data that is in the program. It is only one of many tools which can be used to assist individual States, railroads and local highway authorities in determining where and how to initially focus attention for improving safety at public highway-rail intersections. WBAPS is designed to nominate crossings for further evaluation based only upon the physical and operating characteristics of specific crossings as voluntarily reported and updated by States and railroads and five years of accident history data.
PCAPS and WBAPS software are not designed to single out specific crossings without considering the many other factors which may influence accident rates or probabilities. State highway planners may or may not use PCAPS/WBAPS accident prediction model. Some States utilize their own formula or model which may include other geographic and site-specific factors. At best, PCAPS and WBAPS software and data nominates crossings for further on-the-ground review by knowledgeable highway traffic engineers and specialists. The output information is not the end or final product and the WBAPS data should not be used for non-intended purposes.
It should also be noted that there are certain characteristics or factors which are not, nor can be, included in the WBAPS database. These include sight-distance, highway congestion, bus or hazardous material traffic, local topography, and passenger exposure (train or
vehicle), etc. Be aware that PCAPS/WBAPS is only one model and that other accident prediction models which may be used by States may yield different, by just as valid, results for ranking crossings for safety improvements.
Finally, it should be noted that this database is not the sole indicator of the condition of a specific public highway-rail intersection. The
WBAPS output must be considered as a supplement to the information needed to undertake specific actions aimed at enhancing highway-rail crossing safety at locations across the U.S. The authority and jurisdiction to appropriate resources towards the safety
improvement or elimination of specific crossings lies with the individual States.
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Third Floor West
Washington, DC 20590
The lists produced are only for public at-grade highway-rail intersections for the entity listed at the top of the page. The parameters shown are those used in the collision prediction calculation.
RANK:
PRED COLLS:
Crossings are listed in order and ranked with the highest collision prediction value first.
The accident prediction value is the probability that a collision between a train and a highway vehicle will occur at the crossing in a year.
CROSSING:The unique sight specific identifying DOT/AAR Crossing Inventory Number.
RR:The alphabetic abbreviation for the railroad name.
CITY:The city in (or near) which the crossing is located.
ROAD:
NUM OF COLLISIONS:
The name of the road, street, or highway (if provided) where the crossing is located.
DATE CHG:The date of the latest change of the warning device category at the crossing which impacts the collision prediction calculation, e.g., a change from crossbucks to flashing lights, or flashing
lights to gates. The accident prediction calculation utilizes three different formulas, on each for (1) passive devices, (2) flashing lights only, and (3) flashing lights with gates. When a date is shown, the collision history prior to the indicated year-month is not included in calculating the accident prediction value.
WD:The type of warning device shown on the current Inventory record for the crossing where:
FQ=Four Quad Gates; GT = All Other Gates; FL = Flashing lights; HS = Wigwags, Highway Signals, Bells, or Other Activated; SP = Special Protection (e.g., a flagman); SS = Stop Signs; XB = Crossbucks; OS = Other Signs or Signals; NO = No Signs or Signals.
Number of total trains per day.
Total number of railroad tracks between the warning devices at the crossing.
TTBL SPD:The maximum timetable (allowable) speed for trains through the crossing.
HWY LNS:
HWY PVD:
AADT:
Is the highway paved on both sides of the crossing?
The number of highway traffic lanes crossing the tracks at the crossing.
The Average Annual Daily Traffic count for highway vehicles using the crossing.
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Third Floor West
Washington, DC 20590
ABBREVIATION KEY
for use with WBAPS Reports
The number of accidents reported to FRA in each of the years indicated. Note: Most recent year is partial year (data is not for the complete calendar year) unless Accidents per Year is 'AS OF DECEMBER 31'.
HWY LNS:
AADT:The Average Annual Daily Traffic count for highway vehicles using the crossing.AADT:
TOT TRNS:
TOT TRKS:
U.S. Departmentof TransportationFederal RailroadAdministration
PUBLIC HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSINGS RANKED BY PREDICTED
RANK PRED CROSSING RR COUNTY
17*16 15 14
DATE
CHG
TOT TOT
TRK
W
D
TTBL
SPD
HWY
PVD
HWY
LNS
AADT
ACCIDENTS PER YEAR AS OF 12/31/2017*
13
*Num of Collisions: Most recent year is partial year (data is not for the complete calendar year) unless Accidents per Year is 'AS
OF DECEMBER 31'.
TRNCOLLS.
ROADCITYSTATE NUM OF COLLISIONS
BNSF CA LOS ANGELES SANTA FE SP ROSECRANS/MAR
Q
2 1 1 0 2 GT 79 6YES1082 31,32410.507869 027656A
PCJX CA SAN MATEO BURLINGAME BROADWAY 2 2 2 0 0 GT 79 6YES942 28,00020.502966 754879V
UP CA CONTRA COSTA RICHMOND S CUTTING Bl 3 2 1 1 0 GT 79 5YES543 19,51330.488895 751678U
PCJX CA SANTA CLARA PALO ALTO CHARLESTON
ROAD
1 1 1 1 2 GT 79 4YES942 20,00040.453802 755011Y
PCJX CA SANTA CLARA PALO ALTO E MEADOW DR 1 2 1 0 1 GT 79 4YES942 9,33150.361302 755010S
UP CA LOS ANGELES DIAMOND BAR FAIRWAY DRIVE 1 0 2 1 1 GT 65 5YES422 23,49060.357441 810883N
NCTC CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO HAWTHORN
STREET
1 1 0 1 1 GT 50 3YES502 24,75070.283290 026866L
BNSF CA RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE CHICAGO AV 1 0 1 1 0 GT 60 5YES1063 9,84680.262565 026476Y
UP CA ALAMEDA SAN LEANDRO WASHINGTON av 0 2 0 0 2 GT 75 5YES241 20,85890.248598 749743X
BNSF CA LOS ANGELES SANTA FE SP LOS NIETOS Rd 1 1 0 1 0 GT 79 4YES1102 13,775100.248570 027650J
SDTI CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO 29TH ST 0 0 1 0 0 03/16 SS 30 2YES1202 2,000110.248430 661892A
SCAX CA LOS ANGELES BALDWIN PARK RAMONA BLVD 3 0 0 0 0 GT 70 6YES421 19,771120.237645 747282J
NCTC CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO PALM STREET 0 2 1 0 0 GT 50 2YES2704 6,000130.235283 026861C
BNSF CA RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE MISSION INN AV 0 1 2 0 0 GT 60 4YES1063 4,765140.234052 026485X
PCJX CA SANTA CLARA PALO ALTO CHURCHILL AVE 3 0 0 0 0 GT 79 3YES942 12,000150.232362 754998E
PCJX CA SAN MATEO REDWOOD CITY WHIPPLE AVE 1 1 0 0 0 GT 79 7YES942 36,000160.223286 754935A
SCRT CA SACRAMENTO RANCHO CORD ZINFANDEL DR.0 0 2 0 0 GT 55 6YES1462 27,962170.222689 753538Y
SCRT CA SACRAMENTO RANCHO CORD BRADSHAW RD 1 1 0 0 0 GT 55 6YES1462 25,595180.221741 753524R
PCJX CA SANTA CLARA SUNNYVALE MARY AVE 0 1 1 0 0 GT 79 8YES962 17,000190.219642 755037B
UP CA SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO POWER INN ROAD 1 0 0 1 1 GT 79 4YES361 32,227200.211882 752887F
UP CA ALAMEDA OAKLAND HIGH STREET 0 1 2 0 0 GT 79 4YES243 20,658210.209416 749712Y
NCTC CA SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO WASHINGTON
STR
0 0 2 0 0 GT 65 4YES2704 17,000220.209409 026857M
UP CA VENTURA CAMARILLO LAS POSAS ROAD 0 2 2 0 1 GT 79 2YES161 8,244230.208901 745870K
BNSF CA KINGS HANFORD 7TH St 0 0 0 2 1 GT 45 4YES462 9,443240.205842 028424N
SCAX CA SAN BERNARD SAN BERNARD RIALTO AV 1 0 0 0 0 03/17 GT 30 4YES881 11,478250.205527 026440R
SCAX CA LOS ANGELES GLENDALE DORAN AVE.1 1 0 1 0 GT 79 2YES832 6,500260.202897 746804B
BNSF CA MERCED WINTON WINTON WY 0 2 0 1 0 GT 79 4YES461 10,111270.195246 028706E
PCJX CA SAN MATEO MENLO PARK RAVENSWOOD
AVE
0 0 1 1 0 GT 79 4YES942 25,000280.194002 754991G
PCJX CA SAN FRANCIS SAN FRANCIS 16TH & 7TH 1 0 0 1 0 GT 40 6YES882 10,000290.193705 754749Y
UP CA SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA AGNEW RD 1 0 1 0 1 GT 60 4YES301 11,725300.189308 749965G
26 24 24 13 138.016563TTL:
TEN YEAR COLLISION HISTORY AT PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS ON THE
ACCIDENT PREDICTION LIST
Crossing Date/Time Railroad City/hwy Highway User/ User Speed Type Track/ Train Speed Weather Circumstances/ View of Track Obstructed Warning Devices/ Operating?Interc/ Lights # Killed / # Injured
027656A
11/19/17
7:0PM
ATK SANTA FE SPRINGS
ROSECRANS BLVD
PEDEST MAIN
070MPH
60 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
11/08/17
9:23PM
BNSF SANTA FE SPRINGS
ROSECRANS/MARQURADT 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
005MPH
70 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
12/22/16
6:26PM
BNSF
ROSECRANS/MARQUAR 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
040MPH
55 F
CLOUDY
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
10/09/15
2:30PM
BNSF SANTA FE SPRINGS
ROSECRANS/MARQUAR
PEDEST MAIN
048MPH
104 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
03/15/13
12:50AM
BNSF SANTA FE SPRINGS
ROSECRANS/MARQUAR 000MPH
PEDEST MAIN
049MPH
58 F
CLOUDY
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
01/07/13
11:45PM
BNSF SANTA FE SPRINGS
ROSECRANS/MARQUAR 010MPH
AUTO MAIN
045MPH
47 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
05/09/12
4:10AM
BNSF SANTA FE SPRINGS
ROSECRANS/MARQUAR
PEDEST MAIN
050MPH
61 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK BY HWY USRNOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
1
11/04/09
6:50AM
SCAX SANTA FE SPRINGS
ROSECRANS AVE 000MPH
TRUCK MAIN
057MPH
68 F
FOG
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
Total Accidents:8
754879V
01/10/18
8:46AM
PCMZ BURLINGAME
BROADWAY 000MPH
TRK/TRL MAIN
057MPH
53 F
CLOUDY
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
08/23/17
9:25AM
PCMZ BURLINGAME
BROADWAY 000MPH
VAN MAIN
070MPH
63 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
08/04/17
8:49AM
PCMZ BURLINGAME
BROADWAY 000MPH
TRUCK MAIN
073MPH
61 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
07/21/16
10:26AM
PCMZ BURLINGAME
BROADWAY 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
070MPH
70 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
NO
0
0
03/28/16
8:25AM
PCMZ
BROADWAY 000MPH
TRUCK MAIN
035MPH
60 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
10/01/15
4:21PM
PCMZ BURLINGAME
BROADWAY 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
058MPH
78 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
09/25/15
5:28PM
PCMZ BURLINGAME
BROADWAY AVE 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
067MPH
80 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
04/24/09
7:30PM
UP BURLINGAME
BROADWAY STREET 000MPH
OTH VEH MAIN
050MPH
53 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
10/06/08
7:19AM
PCMZ BURLINGAME
BROADWAY AVE 000MPH
TRK/TRL MAIN
061MPH
68 F
CLOUDY
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
0
0
Total Accidents:9
TEN YEAR COLLISION HISTORY AT PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS ON THE
ACCIDENT PREDICTION LIST
Crossing Date/Time Railroad City/hwy Highway User/ User Speed Type Track/ Train Speed Weather Circumstances/ View of Track Obstructed Warning Devices/ Operating?Interc/ Lights # Killed / # Injured
751678U
05/20/17
12:51PM
ATK RICHMOND
CUTTING BLVD
PEDEST MAIN
079MPH
77 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
05/09/17
10:28AM
ATK RICHMOND
; CUTTING BLVD 030MPH
TRK/TRL MAIN
079MPH
73 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
NO
0
0
01/13/17
6:15PM
ATK RICHMOND
CUTTING BLVD
AUTO MAIN
047MPH
51 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
1
11/01/16
1:53PM
ATK RICHMOND
CUTTING BLVD
PEDEST MAIN
079MPH
67 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
08/04/16
5:50PM
UP RICHMOND
S CUTTING BLVD
PEDEST MAIN
045MPH
55 F
CLOUDY
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
10/10/15
1:45PM
UP RICHMOND
CUTTING BLVD 003MPH
OTH SPC MAIN
038MPH
68 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
05/03/14
1:39PM
ATK RICHMOND
CUTTING BLVD
PEDEST MAIN
050MPH
70 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
01/25/11
12:35PM
ATK RICHMOND
CUTTING BLVD 000MPH
TRK/TRL MAIN
078MPH
60 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
NO
0
0
12/01/08
5:58AM
ATK RICHMOND
CITY ; CUTTING BLV 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
038MPH
50 F
FOG
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
NO
0
0
11/03/08
5:53PM
ATK RICHMOND
CITY ; CUTTING BLV 025MPH
AUTO MAIN
078MPH
55 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK BY HWY USRNOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
NO
1
0
Total Accidents:10
755011Y
02/12/18
7:22PM
PCMZ MOUNTAIN VIEW
CHARLESTON ROAD 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
075MPH
52 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
10/05/17
8:45PM
PCMZ MOUNTAIN VIEW
CHARLESTON ROAD 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
040MPH
75 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
12/23/16
5:57PM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
CHARLESTON ROAD 000MPH
PKUP TK MAIN
077MPH
56 F
RAIN
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
01/25/15
12:45PM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
CHARLESTON RD 000MPH
PEDEST MAIN
057MPH
65 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
10/15/14
5:38PM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
CHARLESTON RD 070MPH
PEDEST MAIN
070MPH
75 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
03/25/13
6:37AM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
CHARLESTON RD 000MPH
PEDEST MAIN
079MPH
50 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
NO
1
0
01/08/13
1:3AM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
CHARLESTON RD 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
055MPH
50 F
FOG
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
11/20/12
5:28AM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
CHARLESTON ST 000MPH
PEDEST MAIN
050MPH
60 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
1
0
04/15/11
5:0PM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
; CHARLSTON ROAD 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
074MPH
63 F
CLOUDY
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
Total Accidents:9
TEN YEAR COLLISION HISTORY AT PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS ON THE
ACCIDENT PREDICTION LIST
Crossing Date/Time Railroad City/hwy Highway User/ User Speed Type Track/ Train Speed Weather Circumstances/ View of Track Obstructed Warning Devices/ Operating?Interc/ Lights # Killed / # Injured
755010S
01/19/17
4:15PM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
EAST MEADOW DRIVE 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
050MPH
50 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
10/16/16
9:27PM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
EAST MEADOW DRIVE 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
050MPH
64 F
CLOUDY
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
09/19/16
6:4PM
PCMZ MOUNTAIN VIEW
EAST MEADOW DRIVE 000MPH
PKUP TK MAIN
075MPH
79 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
1
09/13/15
9:25PM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
EAST MEADOW DRIVE 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
060MPH
60 F
CLOUDY
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
0
0
02/08/13
7:30PM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
EAST MEADOW DR 000MPH
PEDEST MAIN
079MPH
50 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
1
0
05/05/09
8:20AM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
EAST MEADOW DRIVE
PEDEST MAIN
077MPH
60 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
NO
0
0
Total Accidents:6
810883N
03/02/17
2:20PM
UP CITY OF INDUSTRY
FAIRWAY DRIVE 035MPH
AUTO MAIN
004MPH
75 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
NO
YES
0
1
09/01/15
3:4PM
UP CITY OF INDUSTRY
FAIRWAY AVENUE
TRK/TRL MAIN
040MPH
84 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
0
4
08/21/15
12:45PM
UP INDUSTRY
FAIRWAY DR 000MPH
TRK/TRL MAIN
038MPH
83 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
YES
0
0
04/28/14
12:32PM
UP CITY OF INDUSTRY
FAIRWAY DRIVE 000MPH
TRK/TRL MAIN
039MPH
70 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
YES
0
0
04/20/13
7:46AM
UP CITY OF INDUSTRY
FAIRWAY DRIVE 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
035MPH
65 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
YES
0
0
07/25/12
6:20PM
UP CITY OF INDUSTRY
FAIRWAY DRIVE 000MPH
TRK/TRL MAIN
049MPH
72 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
0
0
12/04/09
5:30PM
UP CITY OF INDUSTRY
FAIRWAY DR. 000MPH
TRK/TRL MAIN
050MPH
75 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
Total Accidents:7
026866L
06/24/17
11:35PM
ATK SAN DIEGO
HAWTHORNE ST
PEDEST MAIN
030MPH
64 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
OTHER
GATES
NO
YES
YES
0
1
01/18/16
1:45PM
ATK SAN DIEGO
HAWTHORNE ST 000MPH
OTH VEH MAIN
040MPH
64 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
1
01/21/14
10:10AM
ATK SAN DIEGO
HAWTHORNE ST
PEDEST MAIN
040MPH
68 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
YES
1
0
08/02/13
10:30PM
NCTC SAN DIEGO
HAWTHORN 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
005MPH
65 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
NO
0
0
01/11/08
11:37AM
ATK SAN DIEGO
HAWTHORNE ST
PEDEST MAIN
046MPH
73 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
NO
1
0
Total Accidents:5
TEN YEAR COLLISION HISTORY AT PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS ON THE
ACCIDENT PREDICTION LIST
Crossing Date/Time Railroad City/hwy Highway User/ User Speed Type Track/ Train Speed Weather Circumstances/ View of Track Obstructed Warning Devices/ Operating?Interc/ Lights # Killed / # Injured
026476Y
01/28/18
11:0PM
BNSF RIVERSIDE
CHICAGO AV 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
039MPH
68 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
0
0
12/12/17
6:5PM
BNSF RIVERSIDE
CHICAGO 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
048MPH
65 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
0
1
10/07/15
6:14AM
BNSF RIVERSIDE
CHICAGO AVE
PEDEST MAIN
037MPH
70 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
0
1
11/18/14
5:30PM
BNSF RIVERSIDE
CHICAGO AVE 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
027MPH
69 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
0
0
06/30/12
3:55PM
BNSF RIVERSIDE
CHICAGO AVE 000MPH
PEDEST MAIN
041MPH
80 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
NO
NO
YES
1
0
08/10/10
3:55PM
BNSF RIVERSIDE
CHICAGO AVE 001MPH
OTH VEH MAIN
019MPH
86 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
YES
0
1
01/30/10
2:10AM
BNSF RIVERSIDE
CHICAGO AVE 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
050MPH
45 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
YES
0
0
Total Accidents:7
749743X
07/22/16
5:49PM
ATK SAN LEANDRO
WASHINGTN&CHAPMAN 000MPH
PEDEST MAIN
075MPH
75 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
NO
1
0
05/24/16
1:20PM
ATK SAN LEANDRO
WASHINGTN&CHAPMAN
OTH VEH MAIN
079MPH
61 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
NO
2
0
10/23/13
9:6AM
ATK SAN LEANDRO
WASHINGTN&CHAPMAN
PEDEST MAIN
060MPH
51 F
CLOUDY
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
NO
1
0
01/31/13
4:2PM
ATK SAN LEANDRO
WASHINGTON & CHAPMAN 020MPH
AUTO MAIN
079MPH
61 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK BY HWY USRNOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
NO
NO
NO
0
0
Total Accidents:4
027650J
01/11/17
6:44AM
SCAX NORWALK
LOS NIETOS ROAD 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
049MPH
51 F
RAIN
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
OTHER
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
1
09/10/16
11:5PM
BNSF SANTA FE SPRINGS
LOS NIETOS ROAD 020MPH
AUTO MAIN
002MPH
68 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK BY HWY USRNOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
0
1
12/17/14
5:3AM
SCAX SANTA FE SPRINGS
LOS NIETOS ROAD 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
055MPH
55 F
RAIN
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
03/06/10
9:38PM
BNSF SANTA FE SPRINGS
LOS NIETOS ROAD 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
038MPH
52 F
RAIN
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
YES
0
0
10/17/09
9:10PM
ATK SANTA FE SPRINGS
LOS NIETOS ROAD 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
070MPH
66 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
NO
0
0
01/06/08
10:45PM
ATK SANTA FE SPRINGS
LOS NIETOS ROAD 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
062MPH
47 F
RAIN
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
0
0
Total Accidents:6
661892A
11/08/15
1:37PM
SDTI SAN DIEGO
COMMERCIAL STREET
PEDEST MAIN
027MPH
74 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
STOP SIGNS
NO
YES
1
0
Total Accidents:1
TEN YEAR COLLISION HISTORY AT PUBLIC AT-GRADE CROSSINGS ON THE
ACCIDENT PREDICTION LIST
Crossing Date/Time Railroad City/hwy Highway User/ User Speed Type Track/ Train Speed Weather Circumstances/ View of Track Obstructed Warning Devices/ Operating?Interc/ Lights # Killed / # Injured
747282J
11/07/17
11:4AM
SCAX BALDWIN PARK
RAMONA BLVD
PEDEST MAIN
043MPH
74 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
1
0
09/22/17
7:37PM
SCAX BALDWIN PARK
RAMONA BLVD 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
040MPH
68 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
08/05/17
10:19PM
SCAX BALDWIN PARK
RAMONA BLVD 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
010MPH
70 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
NO
YES
0
0
09/28/12
7:37PM
SCAX BALDWIN PARK
RAMONA BLVD
PEDEST MAIN
025MPH
72 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
TOPOGRAPHY
GATES
YES
YES
1
0
Total Accidents:4
026861C
10/28/16
8:25AM
ATK SAN DIEGO
PALM ST 000MPH
PEDEST MAIN
050MPH
70 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
TOPOGRAPHY
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
1
06/14/16
9:25AM
ATK SAN DIEGO
PALM ST 000MPH
OTH SPC MAIN
045MPH
70 F
CLOUDY
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
09/16/15
6:5AM
ATK SAN DIEGO
PALM ST 025MPH
AUTO MAIN
040MPH
70 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
02/08/12
6:15AM
ATK SAN DIEGO
PALM ST
PEDEST MAIN
045MPH
60 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
NO
1
0
Total Accidents:4
026485X
07/04/16
5:4PM
BNSF RIVERSIDE
MISSION INN AVE 006MPH
OTH SPC MAIN
031MPH
85 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
0
1
11/06/15
10:49PM
UP RIVERSIDE
MISSION INN AVE 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
003MPH
51 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
0
0
05/21/15
11:13AM
BNSF RIVERSIDE
MISSION INN AVE 005MPH
OTH SPC MAIN
046MPH
64 F
CLOUDY
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
PASSING TRAIN
GATES
YES
YES
1
0
Total Accidents:3
754998E
10/16/17
9:5AM
PCMZ SAN MATEO
25TH AVENUE 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
040MPH
72 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
06/15/17
1:44PM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
CHURCHILL AVENUE 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
045MPH
72 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
05/22/17
5:40PM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
CHURCHILL AVENUE 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
075MPH
75 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
04/15/10
5:41PM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
; CHURCHILL AVE 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
056MPH
68 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
11/24/09
6:4PM
PCMZ PALO ALTO
; CHURCHILL AVE 000MPH
AUTO MAIN
057MPH
60 F
CLEAR
TRN STRUCK HWY USR
NOT OBSTRUCTED
GATES
YES
YES
YES
0
0
Total Accidents:5
1
Carnahan, David
From:jeffrey lipkin <repjal@att.net>
Sent:Wednesday, March 6, 2019 11:09 AM
To:jeffrey lipkin
Cc:Lydia Kou; Council, City
Subject:2019 City Council Priorities
One year later, I still see no action on number one, two, three or four.
I especially care about one, and I would add the need for an RPP program in our neighborhood near the cut‐through.
Jeff Lipkin
On Feb 3, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Jeffrey Lipkin <repjal@att.net> wrote:
Thanks for your letter to constituents.
In brief,
1. I want to see immediate action on speed humps along Georgia Avenue on both sides of the cut‐
through to Gunn. This is disgraceful no matter what one’s political predilections.
2. I support more housing along El Camino ‐ between Stanford and Mountain View. Most of the property
is way underutilized, and some is wasteland. I would give preference to seniors, police, teachers, civil
servants, and firemen. Mountain View has done a much better job in this regard.
3. I think that most citizens are smoking a dangerous form of opium when they support the billion dollar
alternatives for grade separations at the tracks.
4. I would eliminate the city airport and golf course, which are wasteful luxuries at city expense,
including the lost opportunity to contribute the land to housing (as above) and transportation (to link
the development by transportation to California Avenue).
Sincerely yours,
Jeff Lipkin
On Feb 3, 2018, at 1:10 AM, Lydia Kou <lydiakou@lydiakou.emailnb.com> wrote:
Letters from Lydia
2
Jeffrey ‐‐
I want to wish you Happy New Year, and at the same time, I apologize for the late wishes. The
holidays turned out to be a forced rest for us – our family had a family cold. We’re all recovered and
rested. I hope you are all well.
Please put this date on your calendar and help inform City Council what you would consider a
priority or priorities for 2018.
City of Palo Alto City Council Retreat
Saturday, February 3, 2019
9:00 am – 3:00 pm
El Palo Alto Room, Mitchell Park Community Center, 3700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto
Agenda https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63222
This year, there is much to be aware of and for you to determine whether this is YOUR vision for
YOUR city…a place that you decided to call home for your family, a place that you could feel safe in
all aspects, a place that you thought you could find peace and quiet enjoyment.
3
There is an aggressive plan/priority to build housing by deregulating and providing flexibility by
changing zoning and relaxing the City’s building codes. Much of the negative cumulative impacts are
deflected by the rationale that it is a regional matter. Here is a link to the draft Housing Work
Plan https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63027. Page 27 will show all the
deregulation. How will this impact your neighborhood and quality of life? The City is big on talking
about “sustainability”, is this kind of growth sustainable? How will the City address parking? How
will the City address the cut through traffic into our neighborhoods? How will the City fund all City
services and infrastructure needs? The growth plan below is for the years 2018 – 2035.
Many of you already know of Stanford University’s aggressive growth plan, today is the last day to
provide your comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Stanford is proposing the
following:
2,275,000 net new square feet of academic and academic support facilities;
3,150 net new housing units/beds which amounts to approximately 4 million square feet
40,000 square feet of childcare and childcare related facilities; and
Stanford University proposes that the 2018 General Use Permit include an option to
allow Stanford to construct a 2,000‐space parking supply reserve, subject to Planning Commission
review and approval, if any one of the following conditions apply: 1) Stanford is achieving its No Net
New Commute Trip goal; 2) such parking would not result in a substantial increase in peak‐hour
commute trips; or 3) unforeseen circumstances occur due to changes in background conditions
would require provision of additional parking.
If you haven’t already done so, it is due today by 5:00pm. Send your comments
to David.Rader@pln.sccgov.org
The City of Palo Alto has also passed its Comprehensive Plan which will increase traffic congestion
and decrease air quality which are identified as “significant unavoidable” impacts. This is what has
been adopted in spite of the “significant unavoidable impacts:
Three million square feet of new employment workspace (1.3 million square feet is the
new Stanford University Medical Center which is not opened yet and we don’t know what
traffic impacts it will bring yet)
10,240 to 11,890 new employees
11,240 to 13,260 new population
4,710 to 5,580 new housing units (no square footage has been provided)
The City’s finances are supposedly in good shape, yet there is going to be dips in the coming years
starting next fiscal year. The General Fund, your tax dollars is funding the growth mitigation. You
have to ask why are we mitigating so much and at the same time, having to physically change our
lifestyle in order to accommodate all the negative cumulative impacts.
A friend said they were looking to move to Nevada and their friends in Nevada said that there are
many from California moving to Nevada, but the Nevada residents do not want to openly welcome
Californians because 1) the real estate prices will escalate, and 2) Californians who have identified
the area to be suburban, quiet and peaceful, no traffic congestions and parking issues will then try
to change the area to become urban and metropolitan. This is what happened in Colorado and
Washington State.
Is this what you want for Palo Alto? Is this why you moved to Palo Alto?
4
Lydia Kou
http://www.lydiakou.com/
Vote for Lydia Kou ∙ 708 Matadero Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306, United States
This email was sent to repjal@att.net. To stop receiving emails, click here.
You can also keep up with Lydia Kou on Twitter or Facebook.
Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 27, 2019 7:35 PM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Gaines, Chantal; Shikada, Ed; Chris Logan; Dave Shen; Greg Brail;
Inyoung Cho; Megan Kanne; Kari Hodgson; Mandar Borkar; Parag Patkar; Patricia Lau; Philip Burton;
Carrasco, Tony
Subject:Conservative designs lead to big costs
Attachments:California high-speed rail has a cost problem. Was it the big bridges copy.pdf
Over the last several months, CARRD has pointed out repeatedly that the height assumptions being used by
Caltrain (which are derived from HSR) are much more conservative (higher) than needed.
Attached is article on how the High Speed Rail consultant's assumptions are causing cost overruns in the
construction projects currently underway in the Central Valley.
When engineers design without financial and economic objectives, they design conservatively -- always, and
why not from their point of view?
What lessons can we learn from what is occurring in the Central Valley?
2/27/2019 California high-speed rail has a cost problem. Was it the big bridges?
https://slate.com/business/2019/02/california-high-speed-rail-has-a-cost-problem-was-it-the-big-bridges.html 1/5
Menu
BEFORE OUR SPECIES IS EXTERMINATED
Why Did California Build Such Tall Bridges Over Its
High-Speed Train Tracks?
By HENRY GRABAR
FEB 26, 2019 •6 02 PM
TWEET
SHARE
COMMENT
High enough for ya?
CHSRA
California’s lagship high-speed rail project is in trouble. The state only has enough money to complete
the route’s middle segment, running through the agricultural heartland of the Central Valley, but not
to connect to Los Angeles and San Francisco, the major population centers on either end. Part of the
problem: The budget has soared, with the Central Valley segment alone—thought to be the easiest
one to complete—leaping from $6 billion to $10.6 billion.
Popular in Slate
METROPOLIS
2/27/2019 California high-speed rail has a cost problem. Was it the big bridges?
https://slate.com/business/2019/02/california-high-speed-rail-has-a-cost-problem-was-it-the-big-bridges.html 2/5
1 Every Law Professor With a Twitter Account Says Congressman Matt Gaetz Just Committed Witness Tampering
2 Michael Jackson’s Legacy Shouldn’t Survive Leaving Neverland. Here’s Why It Will.
3 Dear Care and Feeding: I’m Worried My Eighth-Grader Is Getting Handsy With His Girlfriends
4 Michael Cohen Live: Watch Trump’s Former Attorney Testify Before the House Oversight Committee
On Feb. 17, the HSR watchdog Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis shared an interesting observation about the
beleaguered project, which is currently under construction in the Central Valley. New bridges over the
train tracks—mostly roads, which cross from one side to the other every couple miles or more often—
were required to clear the top of the rails by 27 feet.
A Shinkansen 700 series train car—the kind that whips passengers around Japan at 200 mph—is 12
feet and 1 inch high. The new bridges over the new California high-speed rail tracks are so high you
could slide two Shinkansens beneath them, stacked on top of each other. Is it normal to build so much
room between the top of a train and the bottom of a bridge?
Broadly speaking, yes, because that space will be taken up with electrical equipment—the web of
wires that supplies power to the train. At the same time, California may be building the highest high-
speed rail overpasses in the world, which re lects the project’s unusual structure—speci ically, its
designers’ relative indi erence to construction costs compared to future maintenance costs.
Goldstein Alexis is a co-founder of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design, an advocacy
group that has scrutinized the California High Speed Rail Authority for a decade and warned about
some of its questionable practices—in particular the reliance on the contractor-industrial complex,
wherein a handful of irms are responsible for both designing and building (not to mention lobbying
for) so many U.S. rail infrastructure projects. They have been very poorly supervised by CAHSR, a
November state audit concluded.
More broadly, the results of this arrangement have been disastrous by international
standards. American rail is considerably more expensive than comparable projects in Europe. “We end
up overbuilding everything,” Goldstein Alexis suggested. “And once you overbuild, there are knock-on
e ects.”
It was the world’s megacontractor-extraordinaire, WSP USA (then known as Parsons Brinckerho )
that made the 27-foot bridge standard for the project in its 2009 design criteria. (WSP declined to
speak with Slate for this story, and directed questions to the CHSRA, which runs the project.)
If you’ve been to the Central Valley recently, you might have noticed the enormous mounds of dirt that
constitute the overpass foundations. Bigger bridges cost more—not just because they require bigger
supports, but because the state has to buy enough land to build long, gentle ramps bringing the road
2/27/2019 California high-speed rail has a cost problem. Was it the big bridges?
https://slate.com/business/2019/02/california-high-speed-rail-has-a-cost-problem-was-it-the-big-bridges.html 3/5
up to the crossing height. (Interstate highways require 16 feet of vertical clearance, for comparison.)
Land acquisition has been a problem for CAHSR. So have, in at least two instances, the design and
construction of the overpasses.
Earlier studies in California had envisioned an HSR corridor with lower bridges, including a 2004 EIS
that set out a vertical clearance of 21 feet. A 2013 study by the Center for Transportation Research at
the University of Texas suggested high-speed rail in that state could be designed with “at least 19 feet
of clearance.” France’s SNCF—whose o er of assistance was turned down by California a decade ago—
manages with just over 21 feet of clearance to run its world-class TGV trains.
Still, several engineers suggested 27 feet was within the range for high-
speed rail clearances. “They look very average against norms for global
railways,” said Noel Dolphin, an engineer with the Swiss railway electri ication irm Furrer + Frey. He
said California’s bridges came out to perhaps a half-foot higher than what he would have designed,
but that the di erence in cost would be minimal.
“Of course [higher clearance] makes it more expensive, but the marginal increase is negligible
compared to many other cost overruns,” said Roberto Illanes, an engineer working on a di erent
stretch of the project.
On Monday, I spoke with Frank Vacca, the chief of rail operations for the California High Speed Rail
Authority. The trains would draw their electricity from a contact wire 17.5 feet above the track, he said.
The catenary—the collection of related electrical equipment—occupied the next ive feet. There are
three feet of clearance for the feeder wire. Finally, there’s a foot and change of electrical clearance.
There are ways to design overhead wires that require less space. For example: In Japan, Shinkansen
trains get 25 feet of room under bridges, but by attaching the catenary to the overhead structure, the
height can be lowered to 23 feet. In California, by contrast, engineers committed to have free-standing
electrical equipment under overhead bridges. “A limited amount of excessive o set in the Structure
Gauge is not normally a concern,” they wrote, “so in case of doubt, it is better to err in the direction of
more clearance rather than less clearance.”
Does that make the bridges higher above the tracks and more expensive to build? Yes. But, says
Vacca, because the bond proposal that funded the HSR project requires the system to cover
operations and maintenance with ticket sales, there was a strong incentive to reduce the kind of
variable design that would require more care down the road. “Our construction design requirements
tend to build a system that’s optimized the use of construction one-time costs as opposed to long-
term maintenance costs,” he said. Spend now, save later. Or at least that was the idea.
This post has been updated with information from the SNCF.
Support our journalism
Help us continue covering the news and issues important to you—and get ad-free podcasts and bonus segments, members-only content, and other
great bene its. Join Slate Plus
Tweet Share Comment
California Transportation
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 4, 2019 3:44 PM
To:UAC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; Planning Commission
Subject:Fw: 03-06-19 UAC meeting -- agenda items
Commissioners,
At your 03-06-19 UAC meeting, Item IX.1 is a discussion item about the City's electric undergrounding program. (Why
wasn't it an action item?)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=66781.38&BlobID=69605
Here's the staff report:
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69596
The staff report provides (page 7) a map (February 2019) of the districts that are scheduled to be undergrounded in the
next 32 years. That's not much progress for 32 years. I hope commissioners will ask about that.
The staff report says that, today, 55 percent of the City's electric wires are undergrounded, but when all the proposed
districts are completed, it will be 60 percent.
A 09-07-11 staff report says (page 2)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30141
that about 2,400 residences had been converted from aerial to undergrounded, and about 14,050 residences remained to
be undergrounded. Was that accurate? (For example, did it include MDU residences?) What is the statistic
today? What will it be in 2051, according to staff's current plan?
The staff report says, "... underground electric equipment has a design life of 30 to 40 years." What is the design life of
the analogous electric equipment if it isn't undergrounded? In underground districts that are refurbished with above-
ground pad-mount transformers, what is the design life of those transformers?
The staff report says undergrounded electric cable has a design life of about 40 years. What is the design life of aerial
electric cable?
What makes our undergrounded electric cable wear out more quickly than aerial cable? The City's first undergrounded
districts used direct-buried electric cable, and that was why the cable had a relatively short life. Which underground
districts (if any) still have direct-buried electric cable? Anyway, why does electric cable in conduit wear our more quickly
than aerial cable?
The staff report says (page 3) says these districts will include "electric and fiber optic substructure." Will the fiber optic
substructure include conduit for municipal FTTP fiber? Will premises owners be given the opportunity to install conduit for
FTTP to their premises? I remember that this was done for Underground District #41 (2008). What other underground
districts was it done for?
This 01-13-16 staff report on undergrounding includes references to previous documents about undergrounding, which I
think should be considered a best practice.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50531
It also includes (page 4) a map (January 2014) of all underground districts. Is there a more recent version that includes all
existing and planned underground districts through 2051?
The staff report says that the City's undergrounding program is funded with 2 percent of electric revenues. It seems to
imply that the undergrounding program should pay for not only new underground districts but also for refurbishing old
underground districts. ("Funding and staffing needs required for the Overhead to Underground Conversion Program by
the future policy decisions or other initiatives undertaken by the Electric Engineering Division. The ability to complete
these projects has already been impacted and delayed by approximately 5-7 years due to unanticipated projects such as
the Caltrain Electrification, Grade Separation Project and small cell development, and issues related with current
2
underground rebuild projects and aging infrastructure.") But, I infer, it should not have to pay for refurbishing aerial
districts. Why does that make sense?
The maps on pages 8-13 show the six proposed new underground districts. Properties that currently receive overhead
electric service are shown in red. Where do the properties not shown in red get their electricity from?
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
-------------------
PS: At the 12-12-18 PTC meeting, during a discussion of Item 4 (proposing a City code change to mirror an FCC order
about small cells) (see verbatim minutes, pages 79-110)
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68690
a member of the public, Bill Ross, mentioned electric undergrounding, and later the PTC discussed it
further. Commissioner Riggs (page 105, line 1) complained about how slow the undergrounding program is going, and
wondered how it could receive more funding. He referenced PTC's 05-18-18 meeting
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65785
where the commissioners wanted to know why the City continues to pay for pole maintenance if districts will eventually be
undergrounded anyway. Commissioner Waldfogel recommended referring it to UAC.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 3, 2019 12:37 PM
To:Clerk, City; Council, City
Subject:Fw: 2000 Leahy, Sanders amicus brief to Supreme Court on TCA
Attachments:Leahy, Sanders 2000, red. size, Supreme Court amicus brief.pdf; Leahy, Sanders amicus brief 2000,
final.doc; Leahy, Sanders, Jeffords, amicus excerpts, 2000.doc
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: nbeety@netzero.net <nbeety@netzero.net>
To: "vkattamuri@yahoo.com" <vkattamuri@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019, 10:25:39 PM PST
Subject: 2000 Leahy, Sanders amicus brief to Supreme Court on TCA
A big thank you to Arthur Firstenberg for sending this document to me.
Patrick Leahy, Bernie Sanders, James Jeffords, Tom Tancredo and state and local officials filed an amicus brief to the
U.S. Supreme Court in the year 2000 to support a lawsuit against the 1996 Telecommunications Act including Section
704.
This was one of a series of actions by officials, groups, and individuals to address Congress and FCC violation of state
and local rights -- a bi-partisan issue.
The amicus brief argument:
“Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and implementing Federal Communications Commission
Regulations, are unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment in that they commandeer state and local zoning authorities to
approve, or disapprove, building permits under specific federal mandates.”
“…In general, amici urge that this issue is of great importance because of the dramatic increase in the siting, construction
and use of telecommunications and radio towers in communities throughout the United States. The location of such
towers near homes, schools, farms, churches, hospitals, airports, highways, and the whole host of work and home
environments is of great importance to the State, to local governments and citizens. There is significant concern by
homeowners living near potential tower sites regarding financial harm they would suffer from reductions in the value of
their property if the towers were to be built.
In addition, there is growing public and scientific concern over the adverse effects of radio frequency emissions emanating
from cellular phone facilities and, of course, there have been many newspaper articles about car accidents involved
drivers talking on a cell phone. Also, it is our understanding that while the FCC has established standards for the “thermal
effects” from such radiation the FCC has not issued emission standards based on non-thermal biological effects at below-
hearing levels which may cause biological harm.”
This is very timely. These arguments and their language are as relevant and powerful today as they were then.
It is highly significant that these federal, state and local officials, and cities and towns put their considerable weight behind
this lawsuit.
I believe that this brief with Bernie Sanders’ name on it could really help in certain areas and with certain groups, as well
as the clout of these other important officials and entities, and help in our local, state, and national fights, to gain attention
to the issues involved and to garner respect. These officials and entities were fighting for state and local rights against
federal preemption, and advocating for local governments’ authority to protect the health and safety of residents in the
face of questionable FCC exposure limits, limits that were questionable in 2000.
Attached are the amicus brief and the Word doc version I typed up, as well as some excerpts from the brief.
2
The lawsuit was: Citizens for the Appropriate Placement of Telecommunications Facilities, et al v. Federal
Communications Commission and the United States of America. The case number before the U.S. Supreme Court – No.
00-393.
The lawsuit petitioners were: David Fichtenberg, pro se, of Olympia, Washington, Michael C. Worsham, pro se, of Forest
Hill, Maryland, and Cellular Phone Task Force, Arthur Firstenberg and Richard Targow, Counsel of Record.
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, though the issues were clear.
I think this can be helpful to us.
Nina Beety
Leahy, Jeffords, Sanders 2000 amicus brief excerpts “Argument:
Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and implementing Federal
Communications Commission Regulations, are unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment in that they commandeer state and local zoning authorities to approve, or disapprove, building permits under specific federal mandates.”
…State and local zoning authorities, under principles articulated in New York v. United
States by this Honorable Court, may not have their processes commandeered to implement a federal policy issued by the Federal Communications Commission which seeks to override local control over health, safety and local land use issues regarding
the siting of personal wireless services facilities (PWSF), such as cell phone towers, by compelling an outcome determine by the Congress – the mandatory issuance, or non-issuance, of local construction permits if certain federal conditions are met. …The authority of the Federal Communications Commission to commandeer the
actions of local zoning authorities and mandate that they issue, or not issue, building permits precludes such local authorities from exercising power regarding health, safety and local land use issues and is not consistent with the Tenth Amendment of the Unites States Constitution.
…This case is thus a challenge to the Constitutionality of section 704(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S. C. § 332(c)(7)) and to the implementing regulations of the Federal Communications Commission. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7), is an
attempt to compel State or local zoning officials to address the alleged public policy problems (as determined by the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission) regarding the shortage of personal wireless services facilities (PWSF) even when granting building permits for additional PWSF in some circumstances would be inconsistent with state decisions designed to protect the health and safety of local
residents. In general, amici urge that this issue is of great importance because of the dramatic increase in the siting, construction and use of telecommunications and radio towers in communities throughout the United States. The location of such towers near homes,
schools, farms, churches, hospitals, airports, highways, and the whole host of work and home environments is of great importance to the State, to local governments and citizens. There is significant concern by homeowners living near potential tower sites regarding financial harm they would suffer from reductions in the value of their property if the towers were to be built.
In addition, there is growing public and scientific concern over the adverse effects of radio frequency emissions emanating from cellular phone facilities and, of course, there
have been many newspaper articles about car accidents involved drivers talking on a cell phone. Also, it is our understanding that while the FCC has established standards for the “thermal effects” from such radiation the FCC has not issued emission standards
based on non-thermal biological effects at below-hearing levels which may cause
biological harm. … However, the Constitution and its Tenth Amendment does not permit the Congress to destroy this partnership of the Federal government (the Federal Communications
Commission, in this matter) with the sovereign states and does not allow local or state
process to be commandeered to blindly implement the federal goal of promoting more cellular phone service in the face of plenary police power held by the states. … Yet, under our Constitution, Congress may not “conscript state governments as its
agents.” Id. at 178.
This is a typed version of the amicus curiae brief. Every attempt was made to prepare an accurate version of the original. I apologize for inadvertent errors made in typing.
NO. 00-393
-------------------------------------------------------- IN THE Supreme Court of United States
-----------------------------------------------
CITIZENS FOR THE APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, et al., Petitioners,
v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------- On Petition for a Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court of Appeals
For the Second Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PATRICK LEAHY, JAMES JEFFORDS, BERNARD SANDERS, TOM TANCREDO, JEAN ANKENEY, WILLIAM DOYLE, JAMES LEDDY, JANET MUNT, J.WINTHROP SMITH,JR., BRYAN SULLIVANT, DEAN CORREN, DAVID DEEN,
RICHARD PEMBROOKE, DAVID ZUCKERMAN, JOHN WITWER, PAUL TONKO, FRANK EGGER, PHIL MENDELSON, CHARLES SANTOS, TOM AMMIANO, VERMONT LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS, CONNECTICUT RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL, et al.
------------------------------------------------------------ SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY Counsel of Record
United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-4242
-------------------------------------------------------------
i.
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, by requiring State or
local zoning authorities to issue, or not issue, building permits for the construction of
personal wireless service facilities under specific federal mandates or limitations have thereby commandeered state governmental processes in violation of the Tenth Amendment as interpreted by this Court in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
ii. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTION PRESENTED…………………………………………….i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………..iii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE………………………………………1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT…………………………………………3 ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………7
Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and implementing Federal Communications Commission Regulations, are unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment in that the commandeer state and local zoning authorities to approve, or disapprove, building permits under specific federal mandates.
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………...9
iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page Cases: Petersburg Cellular Partnership v. Board of Supervisors
205 F.3d 688 (4th Cir. 2000)……………………………3,5,8,10
New York v. United States,
505 U.S. 144 (1992)……………………….…………….passim
Printz v. United States
521 U.S. 898 (1997)…………………………………….…4,8,9 Statutes:
47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)……………………………………………passim ____________________________________________________
1 BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PATRICK J. LEAHY AND OTHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION
Pursuant to rule 37.2 of the Rules of this Court, amici curiae submit this brief in support of the Petitioners.1 -------------------------------------------------------
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE Patrick J. Leahy is a resident of Vermont and represents that state in the Senate of the United States of America, along with Senator James Jeffords. Congressman Bernard Sanders also represents Vermont as a Member of the United States House of
Representatives. Congressman Tom Tancredo, represents Colorado as a member of the United States House of Representatives. Additional amici are: Jean Ankeney, Vermont State Senator; William Doyle, Vermont State Senator; James Leddy, Vermont State Senator; Janet Munt, Vermont State Senator, J. Winthrop Smith Jr., Connecticut
1 Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Rule of the Court, Petitioners and Respondents have consented to the filing of this brief and their consent letters are filed herewith. No counsel for either party authored this brief amici curiae, either in whole or in part. Furthermore, no persons other than amici curiae contributed financially to the preparation of this brief.
State Senator; Bryan Sullivant, Colorado State Senator; Dean Corren, Vermont State Representative; David Deen, Vermont State Representative; Richard Pembroke, Vermont State Representative; David Zuckerman, Vermont State Representative; John
Witwer, Colorado State Representative; Paul Tonko, New York State Assemblyman;
Frank Egger, Mayor of Fairfax, California; Phil Mendelson, Washington D.C. Councilmember; Charles Santos, El Cajon, California, Councilmember; Tom Ammiano, San Francisco, California, County Supervisor; the Vermont League of Cities and Towns; the Connecticut River Watershed Council; sixty-eight Vermont cities and towns; and one
Colorado city. These federal, state and local representatives are residents of the region
which they represent and have an interest in the proper application of federal law nationally, as well as specifically in Vermont, Connecticut, Colorado, New York, California, and the District of Columbia, and thus seek to provide guidance in this matter as friends of this Honorable Court. Further, these towns and officials seek not to be
commandeered by the Federal Communications Commission to issue, or not to issue,
building permits but instead to be able to protect the interests of residents in the exercise of state control over health, public safety and land use matters through a proper balancing of local interests with a federal goal of promoting more celluar(sic) phone service. Petitioners are “Citizens for the Appropriate Placement of
Telecommunications Facilities” of Charlotte, Vermont, together with a number of other
community citizens organizations and other citizens. State and local zoning authorities, under principles articulated in New York v. United States by this Honorable Court, may not have their processes commandeered to
implement a federal policy issued by the Federal Communications Commission which
seeks to override local control over health, safety and local land use issues regarding the siting of personal wireless services facilities (PWSF), such as cell phone towers, by compelling an outcome determine by the Congress – the mandatory issuance, or non-issuance, of local construction permits if certain federal conditions are met. As is
carefully articulated in an opinion by the Honorable Judge Niemeyer regarding the siting of a cellular phone tower in Nottoway County, Virginia, “the imposition of that federal standard [the federal tower siting provision at issue in this matter, i.e. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B] on the [zoning] Board commandeers its legislative process, and thus the [provision] is unconstitutional.”2 Petersburg Cellular Partnership v. Board of Supervisors,
205 F.3d at 706 (4gh Cir. 2000). SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Amici respectfully submit this brief to urge the Court to grant the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari.3 We respectfully urge that the Court of Appeals decision be reversed as
2 Judge Widener concurred in the order of Judge Niemeyer to reverse and remand the case to the district court with instruction to vacate its writ of mandamus but for different reasons. Judge Niemeyer
determined that 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) [reprinted in Appendix A-30 of the petition for writ of certiorari submitted by Whitney North Seymour, Jr., for petitioners, Docket No. 00-393] is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. 3 The amici in this matter commend fellow petitioners for writs of certiorari: David Fichtenberg, petitioner, pro se, of Olympia, Washington; Michael C. Worsham, petitioner, pro se, of Forest Hill, Maryland; and Cellular Phone Taskforce, Arthur Firstenberg and Richrad Targow, Council of Record. The amici on this
inconsistent with principles articulated by this Court in New York v. United States and by the Fourth Circuit in Petersburg Cellular Partnership v. Board of Supervisors, 205 F.3d 688 (4th Cir. 2000) and that 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B) be declared unconstitutional. The
authority of the Federal Communications Commission to commandeer the actions of
local zoning authorities and mandate that they issue, or not issue, building permits precludes such local authorities from exercising power regarding health, safety and local land use issues and is not consistent with the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Review is also sought to resolve the direct conflict between the
Second Circuit decision and a recent opinion by Fourth Circuit Judge Niemeyer in
Petersburg, 205 F.3d 688. This case is thus a challenge to the Constitutionality of section 704(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)) and to the implementing
regulations of the Federal Communications Commission.4 In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), this Court determined that under the Tenth Amendment, Congress could not directly compel states to pass legislation or carry out a federal regulatory program to address the critical problem of the shortage of hazardous radioactive waste disposal sites.5 In this matter Congress enacted legislation regarding the siting of
cellular phone towers that imposed conditions and limitations on State or local zoning
authorities designed to carry out federal goals. For example, under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B) State or local zoning authorities may not refuse to issue a permit if doing so would “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service,” nor can such authorities refuse to act “on any request for authorization to
place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period
of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality…,” and any local decision must be “in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.”
Basically, section 332(c)(7)(B), and the FCC implementing regulations, flatly mandate that State or local zoning authorities implement several federal requirements or limitations regarding the issuance of building permits. It is this type of direct commandeering of state functions which was found to be unconstitutional in New York v. U.S. (regarding nuclear waste sites) by this Court and unconstitutional in Petersburg,
(regarding the siting of cellular phone towers) by the Fourth Circuit. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)), is an
brief urge this Honorable Court to carefully consider the additional points brought out in those petitions.
4 The Vermont Congressional delegation filed a brief amici curiae supporting a petition for a writ of certiorari in a case involving the siting of a radio broadcast tower containing cellular phone facilities in the town of Charlotte, Vermont (Graeme Freeman, et al., v. Burlington Broadcasters, Inc., et al, 2000 U.S. Lexis 6516, October 2, 2000) in which the petition for certiorari was recently denied. Tenth Amendment
issues were raised in that brief but the major argument presented was that Congress did not provide the Federal Communications Commission with any authority to preempt local and state authority over the siting of radio broadcast towers and further that towns have the authority to enforce zoning agreements made before construction of a radio broadcast tower with the owner of the radio broadcast tower who subsequently violated those agreements in the operation of tower facilities. 5 Also see Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
attempt to compel State or local zoning officials to address the alleged public policy problem (as determined by the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission) regarding the shortage of personal wireless services facilities (PWSF)
even when granting building permits for additional PWSF in some circumstances would
be inconsistent with state decisions designed to protect the health and safety of local residents. In general, amici urge that this issue is of great importance because of the dramatic
increase in the siting, construction and use of telecommunications and radio towers in
communities throughout the United States.6 The location of such towers near homes, schools, farms, churches, hospitals, airports, highways, and the whole host of work and home environments is of great importance to the States, to local governments and citizens. There is significant concern by homeowners living near potential tower sites
regarding financial harm they would suffer from reductions in the value of their property if the towers were to be built.7 In addition, there is growing public and scientific concern over the adverse effects of radio frequency emissions emanating from cellular phone facilities and, of course, there
have been many newspaper articles about car accidents involving drivers talking on a cell phone.8 Also, it is our understanding that, while the FCC has established standards for the “thermal effects” from such radiation the FCC has not issued emission standards based on non-thermal biological effects at below-heating levels which may cause biological harm.9
Amici urge that the United States Constitution delineates, in many instances, the respective roles of the federal government, the States, or the people, and that granting the petition for writ of certiorari in this matter will allow this Honorable Court to ensure that the priciples(sic) set fourth(sic) in New York v. United States are properly applied by
the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission with respect to the sovereign states regarding issues of public health and safety, and local land use
6 Note, Wireless Facilities Are A Towering Problem, 40 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 975, 979 (1999). 7 See note 6 and “Cell Towers Are Sprouting in Unlikely Places,” The New York Times, January 9, 2000 (fears that property values could drop between 5 and 40 percent because of neighboring cell towers); “Quarrel over Phone Tower Now Court’s Call,” Chicago Tribune, January 18, 2000 (fear of lowered
property values due to cell tower); “The Future is Here, and It’s Ugly; a Spreading of Techno-blight of Wires, Cables and Towers Sparks a Revolt,” New York Times, September 7, 2000; “GTE Wireless Loses
Lawsuit over Cell-phone Tower,” The Houston Chronicle, February 23, 1999 (property values depreciate by about 10 percent because of the tower); “Tower Plan Ripped,” Anchorage Daily News, December 3, 1999 (tower could lower property values). 8 Mark Alpert, “Biophysics-Radiation Hazards: Worrying About Wireless,” Scientific American, p. 20-21 (September 2000) This article discusses animal studies on the possible carcinogenic effects of cell phone radiation. Indeed, maximum emission standards set by many other countries throughout the world are
more protective – lower – than FCC permitted levels. See pages 9 and 10 of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Whitney North Seymour, Jr., Counsel of Record, Docket No. 00-393.
9 For example, the United Kingdom Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, commissioned by the British Government, recommended that children under age sixteen be discouraged from using cell phones in a report issued on April 28, 2000 (available at http://www.iegmp.org.uk). That report also recommends that cell phone antenna not be built near schools, hospitals and residences. Also see note 8.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 4, 2019 10:28 AM
To:Ro Khanna; press_harris@harris.senate.gov
Subject:Fw: Vaccine Ingredients...60 by age 6
Subject: Vaccine Ingredients...60 by age 6
Vaccine Ingredients
In the first 6 years of life your child can receive the following in some 60 vaccines: and it does
not list the secret peanut oil maybe responsible for the deadly peanut allergy in past 30 years.
60 vaccines by age 6 can have:
• 17,500 mcg 2-phenoxyethanol (antifreeze)
• 5,700 mcg aluminum (a known neurotoxin)
• Unknown amounts of fetal bovine serum (aborted cow blood)
• 801.6 mcg formaldehyde (carcinogen, embalming agent)
• 23,250 mcg gelatin (ground up animal carcasses)
• 500 mcg human albumin (human blood)
• 760 mcg of monosodium L-glutamate (causes obesity & diabetes)
• Unknown amounts of MRC-5 cells (aborted human fetal cells and DNA)
• Over 10 mcg neomycin (antibiotic)
• Over 0.075 mcg polymyxin B (antibiotic)
• Over 560 mcg polysorbate 80 (carcinogen which causes ovarian failure)
• 116 mcg potassium chloride (used in lethal injection to shut down the heart and stop breathing)
• 188 mcg potassium phosphate (liquid fertilizer agent)
• 260 mcg sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
• 70 mcg sodium borate (Borax, used for cockroach control)
• 54,100 mcg of sodium chloride (table salt)
• Unknown amounts of sodium citrate (food additive)
• Unknown amounts of sodium hydroxide (Danger! Corrosive)
• 2,800 mcg sodium phosphate (toxic to any organism)
• Unknown amounts of sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate (toxic to any organism)
• 32,000 mcg sorbitol (Not to be injected)
• 0.6 mcg streptomycin (antibiotic)
• Over 40,000 mcg sucrose (cane sugar)
• 35,000 mcg yeast protein (fungus)
• 5,000 mcg urea (metabolic waste from human urine)
• Other chemical residuals
From, "What The Pharmaceutical Companies Don't Want You To Know About
Vaccines" - By Dr. Todd M. Elsner
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, health writer, NO Toxins for Children,
photowrite67@yahoo.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 6, 2019 7:48 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Fwd: Renewable Natural Gas
"Studies show that when renewable natural gas is used in tandem with electrification the
outcome is more cost effective than getting rid of all gas appliances in homes and commercial
buildings."
California must make use of ‘renewable’ natural gas. Here’s how
https://calmatters.org/articles/commentary/renewable-natural-gas/
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Tuesday, March 5, 2019 3:21 PM
To:Dan Richard; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Daniel Zack; Mayor;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; newsdesk; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com;
bearwithme1016@att.net; beachrides; Mark Standriff; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com;
Mark Kreutzer; huidentalsanmateo; terry; Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Split-Role re Prop. 13 will be on 2020 ballot. Prop. 13 S/B left alone!
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 2:48 PM
Subject: Fwd: Split‐Role re Prop. 13 will be on 2020 ballot. Prop. 13 S/B left alone!
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 2:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: Split‐Role re Prop. 13 will be on 2020 ballot. Prop. 13 S/B left alone!
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 2:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: Split‐Role re Prop. 13 will be on 2020 ballot. Prop. 13 S/B left alone!
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 1:15 PM
Subject: Split‐Role re Prop. 13 will be on 2020 ballot. Prop. 13 S/B left alone!
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Tues. March 5, 2019
To all‐ The sons are at it again. The School and Communities First initiative will be on the 2020 ballot. KCBS
reported this a few days ago. Big assault on Prop. 13! WHAT could be more deserving of higher property taxes on all of
us than the schools, and, of course, the communities? The article points out the clever name. By 1975 home owners who
2
had their mortgages paid off were being run out of their homes by outrageous property taxes. We HAD to be #1 in the
country in schools, we needed big new fire and police stations, new fire trucks, big salaries for public employees. In 1978
the voters of California struck back (one article said a few years ago) and they passed Prop. 13. HOW sweet it is. No
more than a 2% hike per year in your home's property tax, and then, only if the value of the home had increase by that
much in the past year. If your home's value goes back down, your property tax was supposed to go back down.
I noticed in December, 2018, that my property tax increased by the full 2% this time because home values are
finally increasing in Fresno. Also, Prop. 13 allows a school district to put a bond issue on the ballot to build a big, new
school with the very best of everything for your neighbor's kids to attend, and the service on that debt can be added to
your property tax bill even if the value of your home has not increased. Don't think that people with kids militate for
such activity?. They sure do. "We have 3, 5, and 7 year‐ olds, and they will need a sprawling new $100 million middle
and high school campus in a few years. So we'll raise the alarm about the need for more and better schools in the
district and slug the cost to our neighbors. Just because we can"! "Then, after our kids graduate, we'll retire to Oregon
and get out from under the (still) high property taxes we are paying here in California". "So long, suckers, and thanks".
https://www.thebusinessjournal.com/blog‐split‐roll‐would‐roll‐up‐regions‐welcome‐
mat/?utm_source=Daily+Update&utm_campaign=aad2620c5c‐
EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_04_10_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fb834d017b‐aad2620c5c‐
78726753&mc_cid=aad2620c5c&mc_eid=97ada78405&utm_source=Morning+Roundup&utm_campaign=db373ccc29‐
EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_05_04_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_165ffe36b2‐db373ccc29‐
78450701&mc_cid=db373ccc29&mc_eid=7afa3a94f3
I saw a show years ago about people looking at houses in a town north up the Hudson R. Modest house. The
realtor read off the annual cost of owning it, mortgage, insurance, property taxes. That last item was $8,000 per year.
That caught my ear. My property tax is ~$1575 per year this time in probably the second most expensive zip code in
Fresno. Big difference. That $8,000 per year is common in the east, apparently, on modest homes, with no Prop. 13 to
protect the home owners. Let's protect Prop. 13 and tell the bastards running this split role scam what they can do with
themselves. If commercial property taxes rise, the businesses will just pass the cost on to us, their customers.
We need a Little Hoover Commission study on why the learning in Fresno schools is so dismal. Surely it's not the
fault of the parents who drink and stay out all night, who let their kids play video games to all hours, who don't provide
them with a desk, a chair, a light and a computer and have no idea of what education is. Could it be that the school
administrators here, by design, just happen never to meet with the parents and impress on them that the utter lack of
learning by their kids will blight their lives forever. I meet adults here in Fresno who have never heard of Silicon Valley,
of Hewlett‐Packard Co., of the Silk Road, of the Batann Death March, of Edward the VIII and Mrs. Simpson, who barely
recognize the name "Eisenhower", who don't have the remotest idea of what the annual defense budget is of the U.S.
They've never heard of Jackie Onassis. Meanwhile, the rich Republicans send their kids to the excellent Clovis schools
here. Gouging your neighbors with big new property tax bills by watering down Prop. 13 won't save your kids futures.
Parental involvement with their educations might start to. And parental involvement with the teachers and highly paid,
greedy administrators might help too, as with getting the incompetent ones fired. It's easy to let all of that slide. Get
your kids up, feed them, dress them and send them out the door. There, your job as a parent is done. The schools can
take it from there. BUT, the bastards with big influence on the school system make damn sure that your kid learns next
to nothing while their kid is totally focused on learning what it takes to succeed. What, you thought somehow your
wealthy neighbors want a level playing field in local schools? They don't want a level playing field in any other area of
life, so why would they want one wrt the schools?
Lie to them, cheat them, screw them six ways to Sunday, beginning with the schools their kids attend. Leave
them broke, barefoot and pregnant, or some variation thereof. Which political party does that sound like?
Sit on the Fresno City Council for one or two terms, move to the County Board of Supervisors, get elected to the
legislature. Never, ever propose tough oversight of corrupt, incompetent and bribe‐taking school administrators.
3
Gouging homeowners for more money for the schools isn't the answer to poorly prepared students coming out of those
schools. Taking on the administrators who make damn sure the schools are not doing the job is part of the answer.
Public information to parents‐ TV ads, e.g., telling them how important a learning environment at home is, is also part of
the answer. Electing public officials who will get deeply into the issue of school non‐performance and who know how to
address it is important. When candidates are just silent on this issue, vote them down.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, March 1, 2019 10:13 AM
To:susan.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Cindy Chavez
Subject:Measles 157 vs AUTISM 50-100,000 cases a year
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo. com
Congress working to eliminate all vaccine exemptions. Parents to lose
Constitutional right over children's health--no medical/religious exemptions
* Measles: 157 cases in 330 million people, 0
die versus
* Autism: 50,000-100,000 cases a year.
(Congress does not pay attention here)
* CDC reports no change in vaccination numbers for 5 years
* Vaccination rate steady at 91%, unvaccination is 1%
* Take action before March 4
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Autism Action Network <jgilmore@autismactionnetwork.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019, 8:42:41 PM PST
Subject: US Take Action: Bogus health threat hearing in DC prelude to end of
exemptions
From John Gilmore, Autism Action Network
On Wednesday the Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee of the US House of Representatives’
Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing, “ Confronting a Growing Health Threat: Measles
outbreaks in the US,” on the reported 157 cases of measles in a country of 330 million
people. Measles was considered a routine childhood inconvenience a generation ago. In the current
outbreak there have been no deaths, very few hospitalizations, and the paltry number of cases obviously
indicates that federal action is not necessary. Why not have a hearing instead on the out-of-control growth
of autism? Every year we see 50,000 to 100,000 new cases per year, but that public health
catastrophe does not seem to merit event a comment from Congress.
The full Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will present Tuesday, March 5, 10
am, 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building, a hearing entitled, “Vaccines Save Lives: What is Driving
Preventable Disease Outbreaks.” One quarter of the Senate will be present, including two declared
presidential candidates.
You can watch the Oversight & Investigations subcommittee hearing here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWWiFmIPcAw
The statements of witnesses and committee members sounded like they were written by Merck’s
public relations office. Testimony was limited to two federal public health bureaucrats.
Please click on the Take Action link below to send an email message to your Representative and both
US Senators from your state calling on them to stop wasting time with hearings on 159 cases of a mild
disorder and focus on real public health disaster like autism. And to leave religious and secular
exemptions alone.
http://capwiz.com/a-champ/issues/alert/?alertid=80616671&queueid=11815303736
2
Please call your your Representative in the House at their Washington DC office, and let them know
politely that you want religious and secular exemptions preserved and strengthened, not eliminated. And
that the House should be spending it’s time on 100,000 new cases of autism per year not 159 cases of
measles. Their names and numbers should be below.
Rep. Ro Khanna, (202) 225-2631 ( info@rokhanna.com in CA)
or your state senatore/representative in Wash. DC
And in this age of electronic communications old-fashioned letters have grown in the amount of
influence they have. Please write to your elected officials in Washington and explain how important
religious and secular exemptions are to your family.
Rep. Ro Khanna
221 CHOB Washington, D.C.,DC 20515-0517 . --to arrive before March 5
Clearly, the $20+ billion vaccine industry is creating hysteria over a trivial measles outbreak as a
pretext to eliminate vaccination rights in the US. It's a program that worked successfully in California,
France, Italy, Croatia and Romania, why not the rest of the United States?
But the facts just don't support the hype. "Overall vaccination coverage among young children
remained high and stable in the United States in 2017," according to the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report on October 12, 2018.
The vaccine industry's claim that measles vaccination rates are falling are not supported by the
federal government's own statistics. According to the CDC's National Immunization Survey, there was
no change in the percentage of children who received one or more MMR vaccines from 2013 through
2017, holding steady at around 91.5% with no statistically significant changes for the past 5 years.
Children who are unvaccinated make up less than 1% of all children and pose no threat to
achieving “herd immunity.”
Please share this alert with friends and family, and please post to social
networks.
And if you support the work of the Autism Action Network please donate at
www.autismactionnetwork.org
Other CA emails: or sene to those in your state
press_harris@harris.senate.gov
ca18aelma@mail.house.gov . (Anna Eschoo)
gavin@gavinnewsom.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:christopher jette <christopherjette@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 1, 2019 8:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Park expansion
Dear Mayor Filseth and City Council Members,
I urge you to purchase the property across the street from Boulware Park in Ventura and add that to our parkland. As a
neighbor within a block of this site, we are extremely excited about the expansion of park lands. Please make sure that
prospective competitive buyers know that the lot is zoned PF and that Council has NO intention whatsoever of changing
the zoning to make it attractive for investors. Let’s keep our PF zones Public Serving. Thank you.
Christopher Jette , Ventura resident
1
Carnahan, David
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 4, 2019 3:32 PM
To:Jonsen, Robert
Cc:JRosen@dao.sccgov.org; Aram James; RA@alexanderlaw.com; Binder, Andrew; Becchetti, Benjamin;
Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Carol@silverlaw.biz; Council, City; Kou, Lydia; Jay Thorwaldson;
Bill Johnson; Dave Price; Kleinberg, Judy; Drekmeier, Peter; Alex Kobayashi
Subject:PROTECTION for Women
Chief Robert Jonsen
PAPD
Dear Chief Jonsen:
Do you endorse Pepper Spray as an immediate defense for a woman specifically in the act of being physically
attacked?
I'm concerned about not being able to control the spray, and it back-firing. Is this why our Officers not carry
Pepper Spray?
Most critically, in lieu of Pepper Spray, what defense weapon should a woman carry to ward off an ongoing
attack?
Sincerely,
-Danielle
-----------------
Danielle Martell
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
(650) 856-0700
1
Carnahan, David
From:tom@tomvlasic.com
Sent:Tuesday, March 5, 2019 3:38 PM
To:Hoyt, George; Gail C Woolley
Cc:McFall, Jim; Flaherty, Michelle; Shimizu, Tim; Lait, Jonathan; Council, City
Subject:RE: Fan noise at 1693 Mariposa
Good Afternoon George,
Thank you for the clarifications relative to the fan noise at 1693 Mariposa. As you know the saga
continues with promises for the adverse neighborhood impacts to stop, without that ever happening. It
would have been good to know at our 2/12 meeting that after the shotcrete is applied there would be at
least 30 days of the fan noise to continue for the curing process, but we were told that the owner planned to stop the fan "next week," which would have been around February 20th. As you also know this noise has been going on for several months on a 24/7 basis and it is part of the roof construction operation. Thus, construction noise and operations continue on a 24/7 basis and that is not what is
permitted by City Code or the signs posted on the fence at the construction site. In the future, it would be
good for the building plan check process to question "unusual" (in this case to say the least) construction
techniques and find out if they require procedures that will conflict with City code standards, particularly noise and construction hours. Also in this case the City did have experience with a similar construction process at the owners Maybell property.
To say the neighborhood is frustrated is an understatement. We have been "patient" now for well over a
decade. We worked with the City council to get an ordinance in place that would, hopefully, bring closer
to this project, and others like it. That ordinance as originally adopted allowed relief from the ordinance
penalties only if such relief was granted by the City Council at a noticed public meeting. That requirement was, however, changed with a "housecleaning" of the City Code and that change was not highlighted for the residents that worked on the original ordinance or for the City Council. The ordinance change has allowed staff to grant relief from the penalties without involving the City Council or impacted
neighbors. This was a material change to the ordinance and not "housekeeping."
Again, thank you for responding to our inquiries and trying to push the owner of the subject project. I
fear, however, our frustration is simply going to continue and it will be interesting to see how the City proceeds relative to collecting the fines and actually imposing all the fines that should be accruing, especially in light of the fact that the property owner seems to do as he pleases with little if any regard for
the nighbors or any City pressures.
Regards,
Tom Vlasic Southgate
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Fan noise at 1693 Mariposa From: "Hoyt, George" <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Date: Tue, March 05, 2019 1:31 pm
To: Gail C Woolley <gailwool@pacbell.net>
Cc: Tom Vlasic <tom@tomvlasic.com>, "McFall, Jim" <jim@mcfallarch.com>,
"Flaherty, Michelle" <Michelle.Flaherty@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Shimizu, Tim" <Tim.Shimizu@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Lait, Jonathan"
2
<Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org> Thank you for your email Gail. I will take this opportunity to provide you and others with the latest information regarding this topic and respond to your previous email dated February 19th
(attached) regarding accrual of additional fines.
The city has requested payment of the deferred fine amount per the stipulated agreement. We are
still exploring options on what other steps we can take at this time. Regarding construction progress. I can report that our inspection staff approved the rebar ceiling
structure on February 27th. According to a conversation that I had with Mr. Feriante yesterday he
intends to start applying the shotcrete (concrete) next week. Once all of the shotcrete has been
applied it will need to cure to reach design strength before the fan can be turned off. I would
estimate that the fan could be running approximately 30 days form shotcrete being applied. That is the latest report.
George
George E. Hoyt, CBO | Chief Building Official | ADA Coordinator
Development Services 285 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2368 | E: George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org
“Awarded ISO Class 1 Rating - Highest Standards for Structural Safety” CASp-251 BCEGS
CLASS 1
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
-----Original Message-----
From: Gail C Woolley [mailto:gailwool@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 11:48 AM
To: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Tom Vlasic <tom@tomvlasic.com>; McFall, Jim <jim@mcfallarch.com> Subject: Fan noise at 1693 Mariposa
Good morning, George-
At our last meeting on February 12 we were told that the noise would end in one week. That week
passed and now two more have passed and still no relief for the neighbors to say nothing of progress on the roof. We’d like to know how much longer the City is going to allow this 24-hour intrusion to continue.
Thanks as always-
Gail
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Sent:Monday, March 4, 2019 9:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Redwood Tree Removal
The city roster doesn't identify anyone responsible for urban forest issues so I am sending this to the
City Council for review and disposition.
Our neighbor sent out this notice that a large redwood tree near her house was planned to be
removed. I believe that redwood trees over a certain size are protected from removal unless they are
diseased, damaged, or dying. It seems reasonable to have a city staff person or arborist check this
tree and see if it is one that is protected and can't be removed.
Thanks for your attention to this issue.
Regards, Bob Moss
Protected Redwood Tree Removal at 519 Georgia
Hi neighbors,
Last week I was saddened to discover the house next to us is to be torn down, and the enormous protected
Redwood tree out front is to be removed. I believe it is one of the largest redwoods in Barron Park, with a diameter
of well over six feet.
I have written a letter to the project manager, Elizabeth Foley. If you have concerns about this three being removed,
I highly encourage you to do the same. Her email address is efoley@m-group.us
I have also attached the link to the building proposal and tree removal.
https://aca.accela.com/paloalto/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, March 1, 2019 5:26 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Tanda, Wayne; Hur, Mark; Allen Akin; John Guislin; Norman H. Beamer; Greg Welch; Marion Odell;
Mary Dimit; Mary Gallagher; Becky Sanders; Sallyann Rudd; Malcolm Roy Beasley; Ronjon Nag; Ted
Davids; Jan Merryweather; Kuo-Jung Chang; Fred Kohler; Leslie Caine; Bruce Heister; Nancy Adler;
Susie and Gary Hornbeek; Susan Brian Anuskewski; Patrick Butler; Elaine Meyer; Rademps; Michael
Hodos; Mary Anne Baker; Len Baker; David Kwoh; Vita Gorbunova; Ana Carvalho; Paul Karol; Maureen
Brennan; Beth Rosenthal; Peter Rosenthal; Lauren Burton; Michael Harbour; Andres Mediavilla; Irv
Brenner; Fred Bisharat; Janine Bisharat; Tim Knuth; Deri McCrea; Debbie Wolter
Subject:Refinement of Downtown RPP
Dear Mayor Filseth, City Council and Mr. Shikada
Due to the turnover of Planning Director, Chief Transportation Officer and City Manager, a major
annual improvement to the Downtown RPP has been overlooked. Since October downtown
neighborhood leaders tried to bring this issue to the attention of Mr. DeGeus but he was overloaded
with other priorities.
We propose an immediate new limit at 858 non-resident permits with city manager authorized to
issue a maximum of 100 non-resident permits after consultation with stakeholders and approval by
city council.
This is consistent with existing city council policy noted in Council minutes during the past 3
years. An additional clarification from Council is needed. The annual review by Council should occur
in January each year so that Downtown RRP policies are determined well before sales begin each
year on the first of March.
March is important because it is start of annual budgeting. During the past few years, the budget
process has been negligent in allocating resources to parking mitigation such as
1. TMA
2. Valet/ambassador program for two of three garages. High Street garage has a high performing
valet program, so we know valet parking can work.
3. Pricing
4. Signage/wayfinding
On behalf of residents in Crescent Park, Downtown North, Professorville and University South, we
hope this issue can be agendized at the earliest possible time.
Thank you,
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
2
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Background:
Agenda from April 4, 2018 Council Meeting
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64227
On February 26, 2018 the City Council received a report on the Downtown Residential Preferential
Parking Program and requested that staff return with an amended resolution to reduce the number of
employee parking permits to 1,000 with another 100 held in reserve. The staff report can be found
at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63524 and the meeting minutes can be
found athttps://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63867.
Minutes from the April 4, 2018 Council Meeting
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43247.22&BlobID=65348
page 2: As of March 29, the Residential Preferential Parking Permit (RPP) Program permit vendor
had sold 766 of 1,000 employee permits for the Downtown RPP; 100 permits in addition to the 1,000
permits had been held in reserve. Employee permits available for sale were located in Zones 3 and
4.
Agenda from June 25, 2018 Council Meeting
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65535
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65674
page 1-2 : Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council A. Adopt a Resolution
(Attachment A) to amend the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Resolution
No. 9671, reducing the number of employee permits and making other clarifying changes (tracked in
Attachment A); B. Direct staff to make corresponding changes to the Administrative Guidelines for the
residential preferential parking programs; C. Discuss and provide direction on whether to maintain or
amend the Resolution to modify the prohibition on “re-parking” in the RPP district after two hours has
expired from the time of initial parking; and D. Find these actions exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15301 (Existing
Facilities) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Note: The attached draft resolution reflects
City Council direction on February 26, 2018 and appeared on the City Council’s agenda for adoption
on April 2, 2018. At that time, this item was pulled from Consent for further discussion. This agenda
item will allow the City Council to adopt the attached resolution, with or without modification regarding
the number of employee City of Palo Alto Page 2 permits. Some updated information has been
included in this report since the April 2, 2018.
page 3: Staff has become aware of another issue that warrants the Council’s attention. Specifically,
while the attached resolution prohibits those without permits from re-parking wiithin the same
Employee Parking Zone after two hours, staff recently learned that such a prohibition can only be
enforced if made explicit by signs installed in the RPP district (i.e., at RPP district entry points or
where existing RPP signs are posted) so that the public has adequate notice.
Minutes from Council Meeting June 25, 2018
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66220
3
page 18: SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Filseth moved, seconded
by Council Member DuBois to: A. Adopt a Resolution to amend the Downtown Residential
Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Resolution No. 9671, reducing the number of employee permits
to 1,000, with 200 permits in reserve, and making other clarifying changes, including permit allocation
as outlined in the At-Places Staff Memorandum; B. Direct Staff to make corresponding changes to the
Administrative Guidelines for the residential preferential parking programs; C. Direct Staff to amend
the Resolution to modify the prohibition on “reparking” in the RPP District after two hours has expired
from the time of initial parking; and D. Find these actions exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15301 (Existing
Facilities) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED
PASSED: 5-3 Fine, Kniss, Tanaka no, Scharff absent
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeb Eddy <jeb@mac.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 27, 2019 5:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:REMINDER: Please do a web search = TED Greta
— 11 worthwhile minutes about climate change and her voiceless generation.
Thanks!
Jeb Eddy
2579 Cowper St.,
Palo Alto, CA
94301
650‐319‐5241
1
Carnahan, David
From:jeffrey lipkin <repjal@att.net>
Sent:Wednesday, March 6, 2019 10:37 AM
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Jeneen Nammar; Kathy Anderson; Council, City
Subject:RPP program on Georgia Avenue near the Gunn student cut-through
I live on Georgia Avenue near the Gunn cut‐through for bikes and students.
I strongly support an RPP program for this neighborhood, and especially for this block.
The City established a parking prohibition from 9 AM ‐ 10 AM on school days in order to discourage student parking, but
it failed to think of the residents.
We have a single car‐width driveway, and to accommodate a busy schedule plus visiting care workers and domestic
help, on many days we have to be in constant shuffling of cars in and out of our driveway.
We and our help have received and paid many, many tickets when our schedules or health did not permit this.
Some residents have addressed this problem by expanding their driveways to three car‐widths ‐ do you really think this
is a satisfactory solution ‐ to reduce the yards and greenery because you don’t have an RPP program to put cars on the
existing street pavement?
If so, then you don’t belong in this City.
Jeff Lipkin
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, March 1, 2019 6:11 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Michael Eager; Patrick Slattery; Allen Akin; John Guislin; Shikada, Ed; Tanda, Wayne
Subject:RPP Issues for FY19/20 Workplan and Budgets
Attachments:EGP RPP Priorities 2019-2 (4).pdf; Downtown RPP Work Plan and Budget Request Submitted to
Finance Committee March 2019.docx
to: Palo Alto Council Finance Committee
Ed Shikawa, City Manager
Wayne Tanda, Transportation Consultant
From: Neilson Buchanan, Michael Eager, Pat Slattery, Allen Akin and John Guislin
Leaders from Evergeen Park/Mayfied and Downtown RPPs met with Wayne Tanda on February
27. The purpose of this meeting was to submit RPP needs to city staff who are in the process of
finalizing workplans and budgets for the FY19/20 Council Priorities. We were pleased with Mr.
Tanda's effort to understand history and needs of our RPPs.
Mr. Tanda explained his role to support city manager and the yet-to-be-hired Chief Transportation
Officer who will be reporting directly to city manager hopefully by early summer. We reluctantly
acknowledge the need for the new CTO to be involved and buy into the priorities and budgets for his
department. Nevertheless, we think certain projects can be implemented on a faster track:
Valet/Ambassador Parking and Garage Wayfinding/Signage.
Attached are the RRP issues submitted to Mr. Tanda. Most of these issues have been under
discussion for over 4 years and we would like to present them briefly to the Finance Committee. Let
us know when you can agendize our issues so that we can keep our neighbors informed.
These are our top priorities for the coming year. We are deferring other issues in consideration of the
staff turnover and vacancies.
Please allocate resources to improve Evergreen Park, Crescent Park, Downtown North,
Professorville and University South neighborhoods.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
PALO ALTO RPPs
Resident Priorities Submitted Palo Alto City Council Finance Committee on behalf of Downtown RRP Neighborhoods
by Allen Akin
Neilson Buchanan [cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com] John Guislin
March 1, 2019
Commitment to on-going monitoring and improvement of RPP
systems that:
Gives priority to protecting residential neighborhoods
Uses pricing to incent use of city garages and lots
Supports low-wage workers and neighborhood serving business
Actions Required:
1. Commitment to annual reduction in number of non-resident permits sold, starting from a base of the actual number of non-resident permits sold in the most recent year.
No annual waffling by Council.
No buffer to accommodate commercial growth.
EXAMPLE: DTN RPP: Start with a 10% annual reduction. 2018-2019 858 non-resident permits sold. 2019-2020 858-85 = 773 maximum non-resident permits available.
This is a very moderate slope of reduction.
2. Annual professional audit of RPP documentation to ensure requirements are enforced and black-market activities are minimized.
3. Adoption within 12 months of a new pricing model that makes full-price non-resident
neighborhood permits at minimum twice as costly as the most expensive commercial parking option near the RPP area. NOTE: This excludes low-income permits, which should have moderate price increases over time.
4. Implement a process to give priority for non-resident permits to neighborhood serving
businesses. Council directed staff to do this two years ago and again last year. Please get this done in 2019.
5. Implement valet parking in targeted (promised) garages along with way finding to deliver maximum utilization of city parking garages and lots. 6. Re-examine the benefits of the dormant NTCP – Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program –
that set objective standards for neighborhood traffic volumes, speeds and cut-through percentages. Look at reviving and updating this program or using it as a model for other programs that would maintain objective neighborhood quality standards. 7. Establish a stakeholder group to address harmonizing parking and housing policies.
February 27, 2019
Dear City Council and Staff:
We would like to present our recommendations for the Evergreen Park and Mayfield Residential Permit
Program, as well as related parking issues.
1.Continue the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP and retain the number of non-residential permits at
the current level of 125 permits in Zones A,B,C,D; 125 permits in Zones E and F, and 40 permits
in Zone G.
2.Expand our RPP area to the west side of El Camino between Stanford Avenue and Park Blvd to
add 30-40 more spaces for the use of non-residents.
3.Non-residential permits in EGP/Mayfield should be sold with the same pricing structure as the
permits for non-residents in the Downtown RPP. RPP permits should be significantly more
expensive than garage permits.
4.When the new California Avenue public parking garage is completed, non-residential parking
permits in EGP/Mayfield should be eliminated.
5.Parking should be restricted and enforcement should be provided for Evergreen Park and
Mayfield just as it is for the Southgate neighborhood on days when there are games and major
events at Stanford University.
6.Implement a process to give priority to employees working in neighborhood serving businesses
when non-residential parking permits are sold in the EGP/Mayfield RPP.
7.Create dynamic informational signage for all public garages showing the number of vacant
spaces still available in the garage to improve garage utilization.
8.Implement valet parking in public garages to improve utilization of garage spaces.
9.Provide an annual professional audit of the EGP/Mayfield RPP to evaluate whether employees
purchasing non-residential parking permits meet criteria, including working in a registered
business in the area and income level.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Eager, on behalf of Evergreen Park and Mayfield residents
1960 Park Blvd, Palo Alto, CA 94306
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nancy Teater <nrt@hamilton.com>
Sent:Monday, March 4, 2019 9:21 AM
To:CPNA Group; rhamilton; Council, City; tyler.haskell@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:Senate Bill 50
I am alarmed by the language in SB 50 regarding single-family zoning. I know we have a housing
shortage, but I cannot imagine a four-story apartment building in my neighborhood. I live on
Hamilton Ave. fairly close to Joe Simitian's house. Allowing a developer to make decisions about
dense buildings in a single-family area is just plain wrong.
Nancy Teater, Palo Alto
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lauren Williams <laurenwilliams7@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 5, 2019 8:37 PM
To:BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org
Cc:planning.commission@pln.sccgov.org; Scott.Strickland@bos.sccgov.org;
christopher.hoem@bos.sccgov.org; derrick.seaver@bos.sccgov.org; donald.rocha@bos.sccgov.org;
Kristina.loquist@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City; City Mgr; Safe Routes; board@pausd.org; PTAC
President; Phillips, Peter; addisonschoolpta@gmail.com; JC Renners
Subject:Stanford GUP - Safe School Commutes (Addison Elementary School)
Attachments:Addison PTA GUP Safe Routes Letter Final.pdf
Honorable Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors & Planning Commissioners:
Please see the attached letter regarding the Stanford GUP and the impact on Safe School Commutes specific to Addison
Elementary School in Palo Alto, CA.
Thank you for your consideration,
Lauren Williams
Executive Vice President
Addison Elementary School PTA
cc: Addison PTA Executive Board
PTAC Executive Board
PTAC Traffic Safety Committee
Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto Board of Education
Palo Alto City Manager
ADDISON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PTA
650 Addison Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
addison.paloaltopta.org
March 5, 2019
Honorable Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors & Planning Commissioners:
Addison Elementary School PTA Executive Board asks you to consider protection of safe school
commutes as you review the GUP FEIR and Development Agreement. 402 students attend Addison.
70% of Addison Elementary School students walk, bike or scooter to school with 20% percent
bicycle/scooter and 50% walking. For this reason, school commute safety is a top priority of the
Addison school community. For your information, we have attached a Walk & Roll Suggested Routes to
School map that is used by Addison families.
We endorse comments related to Safe Routes to School in the Palo Alto Council of PTAs Traffic Safety
Committee letter dated January 15, 2019. We would like to make additional comments that address
specific concerns about possible impacts on Addison’s school commute routes. These are incorporated
in the list below:
1. Peak spreading and reverse commutes impact school commute safety. Please require Stanford to
make needed adjustments to analysis and commute trip measurement in order to fully capture
traffic impacts that occur throughout the day, including morning and afternoon school commute
times. Please ensure that proposed mitigations to Addison school commute routes are consistent
with the City of Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan and approved plans for
bicycle/pedestrian facility improvements.
2. Make contributions to necessary capital improvements at City intersections and to support grade
separations. Make fair share payments to the City in line with the City’s Transportation Impact Fee
requirements, including fair share contributions to Caltrain grade separation. In addition, we support
the city’s request for $1,000,000 to cost share the preparation of a Downtown Coordinated Area
Plan (Downtown CAP), including grade separation alternatives.
3. Provide funding assistance to the City for crossing guards at intersections that may warrant
crossing guards in the future due to Stanford GUP-related traffic impacts on PAUSD school routes.
4. Continue Cooperation with the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Partnership. Please extend that
cooperation to support future Stanford-affiliated PAUSD students.
5. Fund identified and not yet identified safe routes engineering improvements: Addison PTA supports
the City’s request that Stanford create an annual budget based on the agreed work program for
future improvements that benefit Stanford faculty, employees, staff and graduate students with
PAUSD students. Please ensure that the University remains responsive when new demands for
school travel are generated by new development, giving heightened attention to safety and
congestion impacts on school commute routes.
6. Support Partner Organizations: Provide technical and financial support to partner organizations
(e.g. local Shuttles and TMAs). Coordinate with the City of Palo Alto to support the City’s Shuttle
Program and enhance connections with the Marguerite Shuttle.
7. Ensure that school commute route safety is not impacted by car trip diversion. Two specific
examples of concern to the Addison community are:
• Mitigation Measure #66 , which acknowledges significant Level of Service (LOS), impacts at the
Middlefield/Embarcadero intersection in both the morning and evening peak times. It provides no
mitigation, stating that there is “No feasible mitigation measure.” An effect of increased congestion
at this intersection might be to divert auto traffic from the arterial to residential streets that are
designated school commute routes (see attached map). The likelihood of drivers quickly
discovering these alternate routes via new apps like Waze is highly probable. If it is not possible to
mitigate congestion impacts at Embarcadero/Middlefield, then we ask you to please study potential
bicycle/pedestrian safety impacts of auto traffic diversion to school commute routes.
• At Addison, we have observed traffic diversion from the Middlefield arterial at Lincoln/Middlefield.
Auto trips rerouted by Waze have probably reduced measurable impacts on Middlefield and instead
impacted Lincoln, a normally quiet residential street that also is a designated school commute route
(see attached map), resulting in a recent increase in accidents, from 2 annually from 2015-2017 to
over 15 in 2018. This is neither good for Palo Alto’s Safe Routes to School program or for
Stanford’s stated intent to create mode shift. In-town bicycle/pedestrian routes must be protected
from this kind of auto traffic intrusion—consistent with SB375 and AB32 and City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Goal T-4: Protect streets and adopted school commute corridors that
contribute to neighborhood character and provide a range of local transportation options. See also
Comp Plan Policy T6.4.1: Consider the Adopted School Commute Corridors Network and adopted
Walk & Roll maps when reviewing development applications and making land use and
transportation planning decisions. Incorporate these requirements into city code when feasible.
Thank you for considering our requests.
Sincerely,
Lauren Williams
Executive Vice President
Addison Elementary School PTA
e: laurenwilliams7@gmail.com
t: 415-652-9281
cc: Addison PTA Executive Board
PTAC Executive Board
PTAC Traffic Safety Committee
Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto Board of Education
Palo Alto City Manager
One Mile
1/2 Mile
1/4 Mile
Heritage
Park
Johnson
Park
Cogswell
Plaza
Lytton
Plaza
Timothy Hopkins
Creekside Park
Scott
Park
Palo AltoHigh School
å
HomerTunnel
EmbarcaderoUnderpass
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
I 0 1/8 1/4 Miles
Caltrain
AddisonElementarySchool
San MateoCounty
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pal
o
A
l
t
o
Ave
n
u
e
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Linc
o
l
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cha
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hamilton Avenue
Ham
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Hal
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Chaucer Street
Ever
e
t
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Bo
y
c
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Li
n
c
o
l
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Mi
d
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
field R
o
a
d
Se
n
e
c
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Em
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Fife Ave
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lytt
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Fore
s
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hom
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
University Avenu
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Al
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
21 (6)
22 (7)22 (7)
7 (2)
5 (1)
12 (4)
16 (5)
6 (1)
14 (4)
19 (6)
24 (7)
34 (10)
34 (10)
6 (2)
9 (3)
8 (2)
AddisonElementary School
WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL
SUGGESTED ROUTES
Ped/Bike Bridge or Tunnel
Traffic Circle
Street/One-WayStreet
Enrollment Area
Traffic Signal
Parks andOpen Space
Caltrain Station
Est. Walking Time(Biking Time)XX (X)
Marked Crosswalk
County/City
Boundary
Crossing GuardLocation
Pedestrian-OnlyAccess
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
Bicycle Parking
Suggested Route(Walking and Biking)
School
All-Way Stop
Pedestrian Beacon
Caltrain
Mid
d
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Rd
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
Linc
o
l
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
Addison Elementary School
Addison Elementary School
Inset
See Inset
The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership
encourages parents to walk or bike with students and
use this mapping tool to explore options for commuting
from home to school. Parents are responsible for choosing
the most appropriate route based on their knowledge of
conditions on the route between home and school and
the experience level of their child.
For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes
Suggested Route (Walking Only)
Suggested Routes
Addison
Elementary
WALK
AND ROLL
TO
SCHOOLWear your helmet and buckle
it every time. It’s the law. To best
protect your brain, your helmet
must fit properly: snug and level
on your head, just above your
eyebrows.
Be predictable. Obey ALL stop
signs and traffic signals. Never ride
the wrong way. The best way to
avoid bike crashes as well as traffic
tickets is to follow the same rules
of the road as apply to car drivers.
Be alert. Watch out for drivers
turning left or right, or cars coming
out of driveways. Avoid car doors
opening in front of you by riding
out of the door zone. Yield to
pedestrians.
Be alert. Look for cars coming
from all directions before entering
the street - including behind you.
Cross at corners and crosswalks.
This is where drivers expect
pedestrians.
Don’t assume drivers see you.
Make eye contact before crossing
intersections.
City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School
www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes
saferoutes@cityofpaloalto.org
650.329.2156
Bike Safely
Drive Safely
Walk or Skate Safely
BIKELANE
check all directions
Slow down and use extra caution in school
zones and along commute routes! Signal your
turns and yield to pedestrians.
Help reduce traffic ongestion near Addison
and neighboring schools by carpooling with
a neighbor and avoiding the last minute rush
whenever possible.
Obey adult crossing guards and “No Right Turn
on Red” signs posted at designated school
intersections. This allows students to cross safely
without cars turning through crosswalks.
Don’t make U-turns and other unsafe
maneuvers that put other road users at risk.
When dropping off or pic ing up your student,
follow school guidelines and always ensure that
he/she exits or enters the car from the curb side.
Never double park, block access ramps or stop
where prohibited.
Avoid texting, phone calls and other
distractions when driving.
We welcome volunteers to help with Safe Routes
to School events and programs at this school!
Contact your PTA or email
saferoutes@cityofpaloalto.org.
Getting Around Traffic Circles
Cyclists should ride in the center of
the lane around a traffic circle. Yield
to pedestrians and vehicles already
in the traffic circle. Use the proper
hand signals to indicate to others
your direction of travel.
Parents: Help your student learn how to share
the road safely with other users. Children who
regularly practice safe walking and biking skills are
more likely to make safer choices as teenagers.
Obey adult crossing guards. They are there to
help everyone cross congested intersections safely.
January 15, 2019
Santa Clara County Supervisors
County Government Center
Tenth Floor -East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Palo Alto Council
.PT/I
c11crychild. 011cvoice.
Subject: Stanford University General Use Permit Environmental Impact Report
Honorable Supervisors,
We are writing on behalf of the Palo Alto Council of PT As to ask that the Stanford GUP EIR and Development
Agreement address impacts on safe school commutes for PAUSD students affected by Stanford's
development. These mitigations are recommended by the Palo Alto Council of PT As Traffic Safety Committee.
They specifically address transportation and safety mitigations which we ask you to include in the Stanford
GUP EIR mitigation plan and/or Development Agreement as appropriate.
1. Participate in Safe Routes to School Operating Costs/Crossing Guards: Identify and describe
the existing safe routes to schools activities, which include crossing guards at affected intersections.
Assist the City with the cost of school crossing guards required at major intersections that benefit
school-bound children of both city residents and Stanford affiliates.
2. Continue Cooperation with SRTS Partnership: Continue to coordinate with the City and the Palo
Alto Unified School District to define and implement improvements that reflect the most recent Safe
Routes to School recommendations. If an additional school is provided near Sand Hill Road for
students living in University housing on that side of campus, the current cooperation between Palo
Alto, the Palo Alto Unified School District, the Palo Alto PT As, and Stanford on Safe Routes to
School should be extended to access for any future school site as well.
3. Fund Identified and Not Yet Identified Safe Routes Engineering Improvements: As Stanford's
current funding for agreed improvements for safe access to schools has not been fully implemented,
the City asks that Stanford create an annual budget based on the agreed work program for future
improvements that benefit Stanford faculty, employees, staff and graduate students with children.
Ensure that the University remains responsive when new demands for school travel are generated by
new development, such as development on campus resulting in large bursts of new school children
as residential projects are completed.
4. Fund Bol Park Path Improvements: Consider the. financial impacts on paths through Sol Park that
are used on a daily basis for recreation and bicycle transportation by Stanford-residing adults as well
as Stanford-residing children attending Fletcher and Gunn schools. Support the most critical
modifications needed to provide connectivity between the Stanford Perimeter Trail and the Sol Park
Path. Stanford representatives should coordinate with Palo Alto staff to better define this project and
ensure that it does not include elements that are already covered by the $3.2 million agreement with
the County but does include funding for elements that are still critically needed for upgrading this
bikeway.
5. Support Partner Organizations: Provide technical and financial support to partner organizations
(e.g. local shuttles and Transportation Management Associations). Coordinate with the City of Palo
Alto to support the City's Shuttle Program and enhance connections with the Marguerite Shuttle.
6. Make Contributions to Transit and Transportation Infrastructure: Make contributions to
necessary capital improvements at City intersections and to support grade separations. Make fair
share payments to the City in line with the City's Transportation Impact Fee requirements. Provide
up-front funding to improve the efficiency, capacity-and reliability of Caltrain and the Palo Alto Inter-
Modal Transit Center, including fair share contributions to Caltrain grade separation.
7. Upgrade Analysis and Commute Trip Methodology: Identify the true traffic-related impacts of the
Project, so that the burden of responsibility does not shift from the University to Palo Alto and
surrounding communities. Require Stanford to make some needed adjustments to the University's
"no net new commute trips" to more accurately reflect the traffic impacts that occur all day and during
school commute peaks.
Finally, require fair share funding of grade separations to address safe routes issues for Stanford and
PAUSD. Growing numbers of Stanford commuters will be using Caltrain, creating demand for the capacity that
will be created by electrification and increased numbers of trains -necessitating grade separation locally.
Further, Stanford commuters who use all other modes rely heavily on rail crossings that are already severely
congested by train preemption. These crossings provide crosstown school commute routes for children who
walk, bike and ride Shuttles or buses to PAUSD schools. We understand it is possible that some impacts listed
here cannot be addressed in the Final EIR, so we ask you to please address those impacts in the
Development Agreement.
Thank you for considering our request.
CC: PTAC Executive Board
Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto Board of Education
Palo Alto City Manager
David Rader, Senior Planner, County of Santa Clara, Planning Office