HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190401plCC701-32
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: 04/01/2019
Document dates: 03/06/2019 – 03/20/2019
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Donald A. Barr <barr@stanford.edu>
Sent:Friday, March 8, 2019 3:46 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lee, Elena; Ken Graham
Subject:Including space for expansion of the Mayview Community Health Center in the North Ventura
Coordinated Area Plan
I am writing to share with you the proposal I have developed in collaboration with Ken
Graham, CEO of the Mayview Community Health Center, to include in the North Ventura
Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) plans for a major expansion of the clinic site in Palo Alto
operated by Mayview. As you may be aware, for many years Mayview has operated a small
clinic facility in the Santa Clara County Courthouse located on Grant Avenue in Palo Alto. As
described on their website (http://www.mayview.org/ ), “MayView Community Health Center
is a nonprofit primary care clinic devoted to providing high‐quality healthcare to low‐income
families and individuals throughout northern Santa Clara County, regardless of their ability to
pay.” Certified as a Federally Qualified Health Center Lookalike, Mayview is the only such
facility in Palo Alto.
Mayview currently occupies approximately 5,000 square feet of space within the Courthouse.
Because of this space limitation, Mayview is not able to have a sufficient number of care
providers to meet the needs of the many patients who rely on the clinic for their care. This
includes a substantial number of children. There is a major need for Mayview to have a
substantially larger facility in order to meet three pressing needs:
1) To increase space for physicians and other licensed professionals to provide medical care to
patients who rely on the clinic;
2) To establish a dental facility to provide dental care for these patients – especially their
children (Mayview would become the only dental provider in Palo Alto that accepts Medi‐Cal
insurance);
3) To establish behavioral health and social work services for Mayview patients.
In order to meet these pressing needs, the leadership of Mayview is requesting that the
NVCAP include space for a new clinic facility that would include approximately 25,000 square
feet of office and clinic space. As many of the patients who use Mayview for their care rely on
public transportation, it would be optimal for such a facility to be located as close as possible
to El Camino Real.
2
In order to make maximum use of this amount of ground floor space, the Leadership of
Mayview has been in contact with the leadership of Palo Alto Housing, and has agreed that the
proposed new clinic facility could occupy the ground floor, with Palo Alto Housing constructing
3‐4 floors of low‐income housing above the clinic. In addition to the much‐needed enlarged
clinic facility, this would enable the creation of approximately 50 new affordable housing units.
If you have any questions about this request, please contact either Donald Barr
(barr@stanford.edu), who is acting on behalf of Mayview, or Ken Graham, CEO of Mayview
(kgraham@mayview.org).
COUNCIL MEETING [!]
March 18, 2019 1 !!!!!IZl~R-ec-e"!"iv-e""!'d """'B-ef~o-re-M!""'e-e-ti~n-g
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO: HONORABLE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
FROM: ED SHIKADA, CITY MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 18, 2019
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1-Connecting Palo Alto Schedule and Criteria Update
Staff received a list of questions related to Action Item 1 on the March 18, 2019 [Rail] Committee
of the Whole meeting agenda, "Connecting Palo Alto Grade Separations Recommendations:
Adjust Schedule, Update Selection Criteria, and Review Terms for Upcoming Contract
Amendment with AECOM to Increase Funds and Timeline for Additional Engineering and
Outreach Services." Staff prepared responses to the questions and they are listed below.
In addition, staff included information from the City Attorney's Office about the procedures
applicable to the Council Committee of the Whole.
A. Responses to Council Questions
The following are the staff responses to questions raised by Council.
Ql. The [report] section on the EIR says we need to do the whole EIR at once. Can we get more
detail on why we can't do phasing? Does the EIR include Palo Alto Ave? Should the EIR include
changes to existing separations?
• Due to economies of scale and the importance of having a complete project for
environmental review, one environmental document will address the crossings that
comprise the "Project." We use the term environmental document rather than EIR, as
the specific type of environmental document has not yet been determined. The project
will be the preferred alternatives selected at Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, and
Churchill Avenue, as well as other elements determined to be integral to the project. The
environmental review is expected to commence in 2019 and be completed in 2021. This
environmental document will address changes to existing grade separations such as
changes proposed to Embarcadero Road.
1of5
• The planning process to ultimately select a preferred grade separation alternative at Palo
Alto Avenue is expected to begin this year and culminate in 2020. The environmental
document for the preferred grade separation will likely begin in 2021 and be completed
in 2023.
Q2. Are we expecting a new report on funding options before this meeting? What funding
milestones should be on the schedule?
• A section on funding was included in the report to the Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) on
March 13, 2019. The presentation was shared with Council in a March 15, 2019 Memo
(https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=68056.83&BloblD=6
9884). The presentation is available on the Connecting Palo Alto website at:
https://pagradesep.com/wp-content/u ploads/2019/03/20190313-
Pa loAlto CAP mtg v4 Optimized.pdf. The funding information was an update from the
last funding discussion. It provided information on how other communities funded or plan
to fund the environmental document grade separations and included information about
recent business tax initiatives in other communities. A funding plan will be needed to
participate in the allocation of Measure B Grade Separation funding for design and
construction costs. An Implementation Plan for the allocation of these funds is being
developed by the VTA and is anticipated to be adopted in early 2020.
Q3. On the AECOM contract, the tasks listed for the additional money appear to be work that
we've already done. What future work do the additional funds get us? How much funding was
left in the Hatchmott contract when cancelled if any?
• The additional tasks listed are mostly a result of extending the original project (contract)
study duration from the end of 2018 to April 2019 for a decision on a preferred solution.
The change translates to additional time/budget required for project management,
additional meetings and studies. The proposed amendment also includes additional data
collection and alternatives analysis that were not included in the original contract
scope/budget.
The Mott MacDonald contract had $676,209 remaining out of the $1,504,395 contract
amount. The remaining funds were returned to the Railroad Grade Separation capital
project budget.
Q4. Is there an updated traffic forecast that can be provided to Council? When will we understand
the impact of potentially closing Churchill Ave?
• A preliminary traffic analysis has been completed and presented to the CAP at its meeting
of 3.13.19. The PowerPoint presentation can be viewed online at:
https://pagradesep.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/20190313-
PaloAlto CAP mtg v4 Optimized.pdf. This work remains ongoing, including responding
2 of5
to comments on the analysis as well as continued evaluation of potential mitigation
measures.
QS. What form of community outreach is expected over the next several years? What should be
on the updated schedule?
Charleston, Meadow, Churchill Crossings:
• Prior to selection of a preferred alternative for each -One more community meeting
is scheduled on March 27th. At City Council discretion, more CAP and community
meetings could be added (such as adding up to 2 more CAP meetings and 1 more
community meeting).
• Prior to award of environmental document contract -Community engagement to be
determined.
• During environmental document phase -Community engagement to be determined.
• Design and construction phase -The roles and responsibilities of the City, VTA, and
Caltrain need to be determined including the form and timing of community outreach,
thus community engagement is to be determined.
Palo Alto Avenue Crossing:
• Community engagement to be determined as the coordinated area plan effort is
organized and implemented.
Q6. What staff do we have working on this? Is our staffing situation accounted for in the
schedule?
• Interim -Staffing includes partial time of an Assistant to the City Manager, a Project
Engineer, a Transportation Programs Manager, and a consultant.
• Permanent -Staffing includes the Chief Transportation Official (ideally filled by end of
May), a proposed new senior engineer position in the Office of Transportation (under
consideration for recommendation to the City Council in the FY 2020 budget; if approved,
it could be filled by September 2019), and an existing project engineer. Collectively the
full-time equivalency is about 1.5 positions by the end of the 2019 calendar year.
• AECOM team: The City's contract with AECOM allowed for a very diverse team to be
assigned to work on the grade separation project and that team continues to analyze the
materials as directed by the City's team based on City Council direction. Staffing changes
at the City has not impacted that work.
Staff have currently been redeployed from other transportation programs in order to support
prioritization of rail decisionmaking process.
B. Council Rail Committee of the Whole -Process and Procedures
This FAQ addresses the procedures that apply to the Rail Committee of the Whole.
1. Who is on the Rail Committee of the Whole? The Rail Committee of the Whole
is the entire Council (7 members).
3of5
2. Are any Council Members recused from participating in the work of the Rail
Committee? Mayor Filseth and Council Member Kniss are recused from rail items at this time,
including at the Committee of the Whole and at the Council. Recused Council Members are
required to leave the dais.
3. What vote thresholds are required at the Committee of the Whole? Under the
City Charter, affirmative votes of four or more Council Members are required for approval of
contracts, environmental documents, grant applications, projects, and records of land use action,
and adoption of ordinances and resolutions. (Charter, Art. Ill, Sec. 7.) Four votes are required for
these types of decisions even if absences or recusals reduce the number of Council Members
participating in the item, with limited exceptions. Other motions or actions may be taken by vote
of a majority of those present and voting (i.e., 3 members if 5 are present). This might include,
for example, direction to staff to conduct further study and return to Council.
In Palo Alto, Council committees are utilized for items that benefit from longer and more
in-depth discussions than are typically possible during a Council meeting. Committees do their
work through recommendations to Council or, sometimes, feedback to staff. Committees cannot
take final action of the type described by Article Ill, Section 7 of the Charter.
Standing and ad hoc committees are composed of less than a majority of Council (three
or two Council Members). There is nothing in state or local law, however, that prevents Council
from designating its entire membership as a committee, often called a Committee of the Whole.
A Committee of the Whole may provide a useful tool for longer and more in-depth discussions
than is generally available at a regular Council meeting on Monday night. When Council began
using the Committee of the Whole structure several years ago, the meetings were structured as
study sessions and scheduled on a different night of the week.
On the Rail Committee of the Whole, some topics are likely appropriate for in-depth study
and discussion without the need for a motion or vote. If the Committee chooses to express its
view by voting on a motion, it may do so, but those votes are recommendations to Council or
interim direction to staff. The Committee may pass a motion on a vote of a majority of Members
present and voting, but where a motion in Committee is supported by only three Council
Members, Council Members should be mindful that ultimate project approval or legislation will
require four votes.
4. If the Rail Committee of the Whole votes in favor of a motion by 4-1 or 3-2, is
that item placed on the Council's Consent or Action agenda? The Council's Procedures and
Protocols are silent on how recommendations from a Committee of the Whole should be
agendized. (In contrast, the Procedures and Protocols provide that items recommended
unanimously by the Council's standing or ad hoc committees are placed on the Council's Consent
agenda, unless the committee votes that the item should be placed on Action.) If the Rail
Committee of the Whole makes a recommendation to Council with less than unanimity, we
recommend that the Committee address the procedural issue that is not addressed in the
4 of5
Procedures and Protocols, namely, direct whether the item should be placed on the Consent or
Action agenda.
5. How will the March 18 agenda items be addressed by the Committee? Tonight,
the Rail Committee of the Whole will consider three topics: (a) accept adjustments to the
schedule; (b) if desired, make recommendations to amend the decision criteria; and (c) discuss
an upcoming amendment to AECOM's contract.
The first item regarding the schedule is an informational and discussion item that does
not require action from either the Committee or Council. If it wishes, the Committee may provide
direction to staff or a recommendation to Council in the form of a motion that may be passed by
a majority of those present.
The decision criteria were previously adopted by Council, and any amendment would
similarly require approval by Council. The criteria were not enacted through legislation, and are
a statement of intent of Council to address the rail decisions in a certain manner. They may be
adopted and amended by a majority of those present.
The discussion about AECOM's services is a preliminary discussion of a contract
amendment that has not yet been prepared. The Committee can provide feedback on staff's
recommendation, whether through individual comments or direction approved by a majority of
those present. Staff will endeavor to incorporate the Committee's input. When the contract is
prepared, it will be placed on the Consent agenda consistent with normal practice. Approval will
require a vote of 4 Council Members.
Ed Shikada
City Manager
5 of5
TO:
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
1
FROM: ED SHIKADA, CITY MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 18, 2019
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1-Connecting Palo Alto Schedule and Criteria Update
Staff inadvertently left out Attachments A and B for the Connecting Palo Alto Grade Separation
agenda item for the March 1gth Council Committee of the Whole. The attachments are attached
to this memo (Attachment A: Redlined Version of Evaluation Criteria from September 11, 2017;
and Attachment B: Example of Evaluation Criteria Usage in the Evaluation Matrix).
In addition to the aforementioned attachments, staff also wanted to share recent documents
related to Connecting Palo Alto Grade Separation. The documents include:
1. A Letter from City Manager Ed Shikada to the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
regarding grade separation funding; and
2. The PowerPoint presentation from the March 13, 2019 Rail Community Advisory Panel
(CAP) meeting which details traffic mitigation information related to Churchill Avenue.
The PowerPoint also includes the full animation for the citywide tunnel
(https://vimeo.com/ursci/review/322224263/53a894a056) and some finance updates.
Ed Shikada
City Manager
Attachments
1of1
Attachment A: Redlined Version of Evaluation Criteria from September 11, 2017
Attachment B: Example of Evaluation Criteria Usage in the Evaluation Matrix
Evaluation Matrix as of December 2018:
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650.329.2392
March 13, 2019
Nuria Fernandez
General Manager
Santa Clara ValleyTransportation Authority
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134-1906
Re: Request for Measure B Grade Separation Funding
Dear General Manager Fernandei,
It is our understanding that VTA is currently developing your multiyear capital budget, and our
staff learned last week that the unallocated portion of the $7.0 million that was earmarked for
the FY 2018-19 biennium period will be carried over to the FY 2020-21 biennium budget. The
purpose of this letter is to request an allocation of $4 million from these funds in FY 2020/21 to
support grade separation planning in the City of Palo Alto. I am addressing this request to your
office, as there does not yet appear to be a system for handling requests of this nature.
An extensive community engagement process to select a preferred alternative is drawing
toward completion, with the City then proceeding with Project Approval I Environmental
Document (PA/ED) preparation later this calendar year. The estimated cost for the PA/ED
phase ranges between $3 million and $6 million. As such we would like to request a minimum
of $3 million to support PA/ED for project development at three of our four existing at-grade
rail crossings at Churchill Avenue, Charleston Road, and Meadow Drive.
VTA staff has indicated that the Authority has allocated $500,000 from the $7.0 million, for the
contractual services required to develop the Implementation Plan. The remaining balance of
$6.5 million remains unallocated. Since the City of Mountain View has completed its
preparation of environmental documents, the Cities of Palo Alto and Sunnyvale are the only
eligible applicants for the allocation of these funds. VT A staff has indicated that any unused
funds in a biennium budget cycle will automatically be carried over to the next biennium
budget cycle.
As you know, VTA staff is recommending that $31 million be included in the second FY
biennium budget cycle (FY 20/21) for the design of the two eligible projects in Mountain View
in order to keep moving these projects forward. The design of the Rengstroff Avenue project
would be allocated $24 million and the design of the Castro Street project allocated $7 million.
C ityOf Pa loAlto.org
Printed with soy·based Inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine.
To account for the possibility that either or both the projects in Palo Alto and Sunnyvale would
move into the design stage during the FY 20/21 Biennium cycle, we support the position taken
at today's meeting of the VTA Technical Advisory Committee that any funding for FY 20/21 not
be allocated until the Implementation Plan is adopted by VTA.
The City's fourth eligible project, the rail crossing at Palo Alto Avenue is part of a
comprehensive land use/transportation planning process to commence in 2019 with a
preferred alternative selected in 2020. The preparation of an EIR for that project is expected to
commence in 2020 or 2021. While the cost of environmental clearance is unknown at this time,
the Coordinated Area Plan specified under the Palo Alto Municipal Code is expected to be a
multimillion dollar effort. We are seeking funds for this effort from several sources, so are
requesting $1 million from VTA to develop a preferred alternative for the Palo Alto Avenue
existing at-grade crossing.
Please ask your appropriate staff to contact me at ed.shikada@cityofoaloalto.org or Chantal
Cotton Gaines at Chantal.gaines@cityofoaloalto.org or (650) 329-2280 to discuss any follow-up
information needed and next steps, as well as if you have any questions or would like to discuss
this issue further. I look forward to our staff continuing to work together on this important
program.
Sincerely,
Ed Shikada
City Manager
Cc: Chantal Cotton Gaines, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Palo Alto
Wayne Tanda, Consultant, City of Palo Alto
Jason Kim, Senior Transit Planner, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
03.13.19
Community Advisory Panel Meeting # 7
……..
Agenda
§Welcome and Introductions
§Community Conversations
§Financial Update
§Traffic Analysis for Churchill Closure
§Citywide Tunnel Alternative
§Churchill Pedestrian/Bike Crossing Alternatives
§Overview of March 27th Community Meeting Agenda
§Summary of Action Items
§Adjourn & Thank you
2
Community Conversations
q CAP Community Interactions
q Emails to the City
3
Finance and Funding
Outline
Gross Receipt Tax
Per Employee Tax
Comparable Grade
Separation Projects in
Nearby Cities
Finance and Funding
San
Francisco
Mountain
View Cupertino
Gross Receipt Tax $1180 $0 $0
Per Employee Tax $0 $6 $10
Matrix of taxes by city ($ million)
Finance and Funding
Gross
Receipt
Tax
“Gross receipts refers to the total amount of money
received from doing business in San Francisco and
includes amounts derived from sales, services,
dealings in property, interest, rent, royalties,
dividends, licensing fees, other fees, commissions and
distributed amounts from other business entities.”
Finance and Funding
San Francisco
___________
Gross Receipt Tax
&
Business
Registration Fee
Ordinance
(Proposition E)
When?April, 2014
Purpose
The tiered rate structure better distributes the tax
burden.
A diversified tax base increases revenue stability.
Who?
Business with Gross Receipts > $1,120,000
Business with Payroll expenses > $300,000
Estimate
Approximately $880 million*
*Overall gross receipts tax was to be revenue neutral and phase out the
payroll expense tax.
Finance and Funding
San Francisco
___________
Homeless Services
Gross Receipts Tax
(Proposition C)
When?November, 2018
Purpose
Support services for homeless people and prevent
homelessness
Housing ≈ 50%, Mental health services ≈ 25%, residential
shelters and hygiene ≈ 10%, homelessness prevention ≈
15%
Estimate Additional $250 - $300 million annually
Who?
For businesses that pay a gross receipts tax, additional
0.175% - 0.690% on those gross revenues over $50
million.
For businesses that pay the administrative office tax, an
additional tax of 1.5 percent of their payroll expense
Finance and Funding
Per
Employee
Tax
“A per-employee tax is a progressive tax system
under which larger companies pay higher rates than
small businesses.
Finance and Funding
Mountain View
___________
Per-Employee Business
Tax
(Measure P)
When?November, 2018
Purpose
Fund critical City needs (reducing traffic congestion,
enhancing bicycle/pedestrian friendly routes, housing
affordable)
Estimate Additional $6 million annually of which Google pays $3.3
million
Who?
A progressive tax system with larger companies paying
higher rates than small businesses.
Number of Employees Business License Tax
1 $75
2-25 $75 + $5/per employee over 1
26-50 $195 + $10/per employee over 25
51-500 $445 + $75/per employee over 50
501-1,000 $34,195 + $100/per employee over 500
1,001-5,000 $84,195 + $125/per employee over 1,000
5,001 +$584,195 + $150/per employee over 5,000
Finance and Funding
Cupertino
___________
Per-Employee Business
Tax
When?November, 2020
Purpose Improve the City’s transportation infrastructure and
alleviate local traffic congestion
Estimate Additional $8 - $10 million annually of which Apple would
pays $7-9 million
Who?
A progressive tax system with larger companies paying
higher rates than small businesses.
Number of Employees Base Rate Employee Rate
0-9 $ 150 $ -
10-49 $ 250 $ -
50-99 $ 500 $ -
100-249 $ 500 $ 50.00
250-499 $ 500 $ 75.00
500-999 $ 500 $ 100.00
1,000-4,999 $ 500 $ 125.00
5,000+$ 500 $ 150.00
Finance and Funding
Other examples
of
headcount taxes
•City of Sunnyvale
•Redwood City
•San Jose
Comparable Grade Separation Projects in Nearby Cities
Examples of funding
sources obtained or
proposed for projects
in the region
Projects Completed
§San Bruno
Projects in Construction
§San Mateo
Projects in Planning
§Burlingame
§Mountain View
§Menlo Park
Comparable Grade Separation Projects in Nearby Cities
San Bruno
funding sources
obtained
Project Summary:
§Elevate Caltrain tracks above three crossings; three
pedestrian underpasses; new elevated Caltrain station
§Project cost of $155 million
§Completed in 2014
Funding Summary:
§Regional funds - $92.4 million
•San Mateo County Transportation Authority (Measure A)
§State funds - $55.9 million
•High Speed Rail / Proposition 1B / Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program / Caltrans+CPUC Section 190
§Federal funds - $6.6 million
•Federal Transit Administration
Comparable Grade Separation Projects in Nearby Cities
San Mateo
funding sources
obtained or proposed
Project Summary:
§Hybrid approach: Raise tracks; lowering of the road
grade; allow for east-west street connections; new
elevated Caltrain station
§Project cost of $180 million
§Estimated completion date of 2020
Funding Summary:
§Local Funds - $12 million
•City of San Mateo Transportation Impact Fees
§Regional funds - $74 million
•San Mateo County Transportation Authority (Measure A)
§State funds - $94 million
•High Speed Rail Proposition 1A ($84 million)
•Caltrans/CPUC Section 190 ($10 million)
Comparable Grade Separation Projects in Nearby Cities
Other general funding
strategies proposed
Burlingame
§Estimated project alternative costs range from $250 to $910 million
§Preferred alternative was $250 million
§Preliminary design expected to be complete by end of 2019
Mountain View
§Estimated project cost of $120 million (in 2014)
§Entering preliminary environmental review and engineering phase
Menlo Park
§Estimate project cost for three crossings is $390 million while single
crossing was estimated at $200 million, former preferred by City
§Draft project study report released at end of 2018
Across projects similar funding concepts:
§Regional:San Mateo County Measure A / Santa Clara County
Measure B
§State:Caltrans/CPUC Section 190
§Local:Transportation impact fees and value capture approaches
Comparable Grade Separation Projects in Nearby Cities
Summary findings of
funding strategies
•Federal funds have been limited for projects
completed or under construction
•High speed rail funds have been critical for projects
completed or under construction, but this will likely
be an unreliable source of future funds
•Regional transportation measure funds have been
and will continue to be a critical funding source for
projects
•Local funding sources such as transportation impact
fees have been used / are proposed for use, but have
yet to be a large contributor comparative to total
project costs
•Total project costs for similar projects were $250
million or less, which makes it challenging to identify a
percentage share from different funding sources
given the larger price tag of project
Traffic Study Review
Topics 2/13/19 CAP
§Data Collection
§Evaluation of Existing Traffic
Conditions
Topics for today (3/13/19 CAP)
§Evaluation of Year 2030 Traffic
Conditions with Churchill Closure
§Mitigations for Impacted
Intersections
18
Existing Traffic Volume at Alma Street/Churchill Avenue
Total Trips Diverted due to Churchill Ave Closure
§AM Peak (8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.) = 706 vehicles
§PM Peak (5:15 p.m. – 6:15 p.m.) = 776 vehicles
Trip Distribution
1. XX% - AM Trip
Distribution
2. (XX%) - PM Trip
Distribution
3.XX – AM Trip
Volume
4.(XX)– PM Trip
Volume
157 (97)
33 (29)
11
(10)
11
(10)
123 (174)
172
(266)
20
(19)
20
(19)20
(19)
20
(19)
119 (113)
Intersections Mitigated as a Group
§#3 - Alma Street/Lincoln Avenue
§#4 - Alma Street/Embarcadero Road
§#8 - Alma Street/Kingsley Avenue
CMP Intersections
§#19 - El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road
§#24 - Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road
§#21 - El Camino Real/Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road
Intersections Mitigated Individually
§#22a/#22b - Alma Street/Oregon Expressway
§#15 - Embarcadero Road/Cowper Street
Intersections at unacceptable LOS due to Churchill Ave Closure
Intersections
Intersections Mitigated as a Group
Existing Plus
Project
Year 2030 Plus
Project
Existing Plus
Project
Year 2030 Plus
Project
Existing Plus
Project
Year 2030 Plus
Project
#3: Alma Street/Lincoln Avenue #4: Alma Street/Embarcadero Road #8: Alma Street/Kingsley Avenue
Operating at LOS F in AM and PM Peak for:
–Existing
–Year 2030
–Year 2030 Plus Project
Westbound left turns at the 3 intersections are experiencing highest
delay (LOS F)
Alma Street/Kingsley Avenue meets Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant for
Year 2030 Plus Project scenario
Intersections Mitigated as a Group
Existing Geometry and Mitigation for Intersection 3, 4, and 8
•Individual mitigations for each intersection did not
show as much benefit as mitigating as a group
•Right in/out at Alma St/Lincoln Ave
•Divert left turning vehicles at Lincoln Ave and add
left-turn lane on Embarcadero Rd for vehicles
turning onto Alma St (removal of parking)
•Signalize Alma St/Embarcadero Rd and Alma
St/Kingsley Ave with one controller
Existing Layout Proposed Layout
#Int.Peak
hour Existing Year 2030
Year 2030 Plus Project
Without
Mitigation
With
Mitigation
3 Alma
St/Lincoln Ave
AM F F F C
PM F F F C
4
Alma St/
Embarcadero
Rd
AM F F F D
PM F F F D
8 Alma
St/Kingsley Ave
AM F F F D
PM F F F D
Resulting LOS for Intersection 3, 4, and 8
Concept –Near Term
Concept –Long Term
CMP intersection
Operating at LOS F in AM and PM
Peak for:
–Year 2030 (PM Peak Only)
–Year 2030 Plus Project
Intersection 19 -El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road
Existing Plus Project Year 2030 Plus Project
Existing Geometry and Mitigation for El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road
•Install additional westbound left turn
lane and northbound right turn lane
•Optimize signal timings
Existing Layout Proposed Layout
#Intersection Peak
hour Existing Year 2030
Year 2030 Plus Project
Without
Mitigation
With
Mitigation
19
El Camino Real/
Embarcadero
Rd
AM E E F E
PM E F F E
Resulting LOS for El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road
CMP Intersection
Operating at LOS F in AM and PM
Peak for:
–Year 2030 (AM Peak Only)
–Year 2030 Plus Project
Intersection 21 - El Camino Real/Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road
Existing Plus Project Year 2030 Plus Project
Existing Geometry and Mitigation for El Camino Real/Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road
•Install westbound right turn lane
from Oregon Expressway to El
Camino Real
•Optimize signal timing
Existing Layout Proposed Layout
#Intersection Peak hour Existing Year 2030
Year 2030 Plus Project
Without
Mitigation
With
Mitigation
21
El Camino
Real/
Oregon
Expressway
AM E F F F
PM E E F F
Resulting LOS for El Camino Real/Oregon Expressway-Page Mill Road
CMP Intersection
Operating at LOS F in AM and PM
Peak for:
–Year 2030
–Year 2030 Plus Project
Intersection 24 –Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road
Existing Plus Project Year 2030 Plus Project
Existing Geometry and Mitigation for Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road
•Remove southbound thru/right lane and
install exclusive right turn lane
•Modify signal phasing to include overlaps for
SB right turn and EB right turn
•Convert northbound right turn lane into
shared thru/right turn lane
•Add an additional northbound receiving lane
Existing Layout Proposed Layout
#Intersection Peak
hour Existing Year 2030
Year 2030 Plus Project
Without
Mitigation
With
Mitigation
24
Oregon
Expressway/
Middlefield
Rd
AM E F F F
PM E F F F
Resulting LOS for Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road
Operating at LOS F in AM and PM
Peak for both on/off ramps in:
–Existing
–Year 2030
–Year 2030 Plus Project
Alma St/Oregon Expressway EB
Ramp meets peak hour signal
warrant for all scenarios
Intersection 22 -Alma Street/Oregon Expressway
Existing Plus Project Year 2030 Plus Project
Existing Geometry and Mitigation Alma Street/Oregon Expressway
•Signalize both on/off ramps with
one controller
Existing Layout Proposed Layout
Resulting LOS for Alma Street/Oregon Expressway
#Int.Peak
hour Existing Year 2030
Year 2030 Plus Project
Without
Mitigation
With
Mitigation
22a
Alma St/
Oregon
Ave
AM F F F A
PM F F F A
22b
Alma St/
Oregon
Expy EB
Off Ramp
AM F F F C
PM F F F C
Operating at LOS F in AM and PM
Peak for:
–Existing
–Year 2030
–Year 2030 Plus Project
Northbound and Southbound
movements experiencing highest
delay (LOS F and E, respectively)
Intersection 15. Embarcadero Road/Cowper Street
Existing Plus Project Year 2030 Plus Project
Existing Geometry and Mitigation for Embarcadero Road/Cowper Street
•Right in/out for Cowper St in NB and SB
direction
•Divert NB left/NB through and SB left/SB
through movements to Embarcadero Rd /
Waverly St
Existing Layout Proposed Layout
Resulting LOS for Embarcadero Road/Cowper Street & Embarcadero Road/Waverly Street
#Int.Peak
hour Existing Year 2030
Year 2030 Plus Project
Without
Mitigation
With
Mitigation
15
Embarcadero
Rd/
Cowper
St
AM F F F B
PM F F F B
16
Embarcadero
Rd/
Waverly St
AM C C C C
PM D C C C
Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE)
§Measure of traffic impact on residents along a roadway
§Based on daily average conditions and uses average daily traffic (ADT) volumes to determine
amount of daily traffic that could be added to a roadway before residents would perceive the
increase in traffic
2 segments will see an impact due to the closure of Churchill Avenue during
Existing Plus Project and Year 2030 Plus Project scenarios
§Emerson Street, from Channing Avenue to Addison Avenue
§Emerson Street, from Lincoln Avenue to Kingsley Avenue
TIRE Analysis
TIRE Analysis
#3 - Alma Street/Lincoln Avenue
§Restrict left turn and provide right turn only for
Lincoln Ave
#4 - Alma Street/Embarcadero Road
§Add left turn lane and signalize
#8 - Alma Street/Kingsley Avenue
§Signalize intersection
#19 - El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road
§Add additional WBL turn and NBR turn lane
§Optimize signal timings
#24 - Oregon Expressway/Middlefield Road
§Install SBR turn lane and modify signal phasing
to include NBR and SBR turn overlaps
Summary of Traffic Mitigations
#21 - El Camino Real/Oregon Expressway-
Page Mill Road
§Install WBR turn lane and optimize signal
timing
#22a/#22b - Alma Street/Oregon
Expressway
§Signalize intersections
#15 - Embarcadero Road/Cowper Street
§Restrict left turn and through movements
for NB and SB at Cowper, reroute trips to
Embarcadero /Waverly
Current List of Grade Separation Alternatives
Meadow / Charleston Trench
o Lower the railroad below the roadways
at Meadow and Charleston
Meadow / Charleston Hybrid
o Partially lower the roads and partially
elevate the tracks at Meadow and
Charleston
Meadow / Charleston Viaduct
o Raise the railroad above the roadways
at Meadow and Charleston on structure
List as of January 22, 2019 City Council
Meeting
47
Citywide Tunnel
o Lower the railroad below the
roadways in a tunnel
Churchill Ave. Closure
o At-grade crossing to be fully or
partially closed at Churchill Ave with
a grade separation for Bike/Ped
connectivity
South Palo Alto Tunnel
o Tunnel south of Oregon Expressway
under Meadow and Charleston
Twin Bore Tunnel Design Assumptions
§22-foot vertical clearance from the track top-of-rail to the contact wire resulting in a 34-foot outside diameter
tunnel.
§15-foot minimum clearance between the twin bores at the portals resulting in a 49-foot track spacing.
§34 feet of clearance between the twin bores at locations beyond the portals.
§10-foot minimum distance between the top of the tunnel and the ground surface at the portals.
§Minimum distance of 34 feet between the top of the tunnel and the ground surface at locations beyond the
portals.
§The bore pit for launching the Tunnel Boring Machines is a minimum 100 feet wide by 44 feet deep.
§Track slope is 2% for portal approach tracks.
§Minimum track slope of 0.3% for tunnel drainage.
§Pump station will be located at the tunnel low point to drain the seepage flows and firewater in the event of a fire.
§The underground station will be mined with individual openings to the surface for vent shafts, stairways and
elevators.
48
Citywide Tunnel
49
To San Francisco To San Jose
Tunnel Example Section – Twin Bore Tunnel
Tunnel Example Section – North Portal Launch Pit (looking North)
Tunnel Example Section – South Portal Launch Pit (Looking North)
Tunnel Example Section – South Portal Subway Box (Looking North)
Tunnel Example Section – California Avenue Station (Looking North)
Citywide Tunnel Animation
55
Tunnel Animation
56
Citywide Tunnel Evaluation Matrix
Impact
Criteria Comments
A Improve East-West Connectivity q All at-grade crossings fully separated (Meadow, Charleston, Churchill)
B Reduce traffic congestion and
delays
q All at-grade crossings fully separated (Meadow, Charleston, Churchill)
q Alma St permanently narrowed from 4 to 2 lanes in the areas of the north
portal. For the south portal area, Alma St will be permanently narrowed
from 5 to 3 lanes.
C Provide clear, safe routes for
pedestrians and bikes
q Reduced conflicts for bikes/peds with railroad
q Reduced lanes on Alma Street near north and south portal
D Support continued rail operations q A temporary railroad track (shoofly) required near the north and south
portals.
q Tunnel will have high maintenance costs and risks to train operations
E Finance with feasible funding
sources q Based on estimated range of construction costs (K)
F Minimize right-of-way acquisition q Tunnel requires subsurface acquisition for structural elements
q Significant right-of-way impacts for construction of the temporary track
near the north and south portals.
G Reduce rail noise and vibration q Tunnel eliminates train horn noise and warning bells
q Potential noise impact related to ventilation system, pump station, and
generators.
H Maintain or improve local access q Stanford Station game day service eliminated
q Embarcadero undercrossing will need to be re-built
I Minimize visual changes along the
corridor
q Tunnel has train below grade – landscaping option limited to bushes or
plants with shallow root systems
J Minimize disruption and duration
of construction 7+ years
q Embarcadero must be rebuilt and Adobe creek reconfigured before
construction of the tunnel begins
q Tunnelhas extended road closures for Alma Street during construction
q Duration assumes construction with one tunnel boring machine.
K Order of Magnitude Cost $2,500M to 3,800M*
q Does not include costs associated with rebuilding Embarcadero and
reconfiguring Adobe Creek.
* Total Preliminary Construction Costs in 2018 dollars
(Subject to Change)
Improvement
Citywide
Tunnel
Legend:
57
Tunnel Engineering Impacts
Engineering Impacts
L Creek/Drainage/
Groundwater Impacts
qRequires diversion of Adobe creeks resulting in the need for pump stations
qNumerous regulatory agency approvals required for creek diversion
qGroundwater impacts include disruption to natural flow and potential to
disperse existing contamination
qPump stations also required to dewater the tunnel
qIncreased risk of flooding due to pump stations
M Long Term Maintenance
qIncreased maintenance costs due to:
•Pump stations for creek diversions
•Pump stations for tunnel dewatering
•Below ground railroad alignment
N Utility Relocations qMajor utility relocations for Alma Street
O Railroad Operations Impacts
during Construction
qTemporary track (shoofly) is required at north and south portals
p Local Street Circulation
Impacts during Construction
qAlma St closed near north and south portals
Q Caltrain Design Exceptions
Needed
2% grade on track required. Maximum allowed by Caltrain is 1%.
Citywide
Tunnel
58
Churchill Ave Ped/Bike Undercrossing – Option 1
59
Churchill Ave Ped/Bike Undercrossing – Option 1
60
Churchill Ave Ped/Bike Undercrossing – Option 1
61
Churchill Ave Ped/Bike Undercrossing – Option 1
62
Churchill Ave Ped/Bike Undercrossing – Option 1
63
Churchill Ave Ped/Bike Undercrossing – Option 1
64
Churchill Ave Ped/Bike Undercrossing – Option 2
65
Churchill Ave Ped/Bike Undercrossing – Option 2
66
Churchill Ave Ped/Bike Undercrossing – Option 2
67
Churchill Ave Ped/Bike Undercrossing – Option 2
68
Churchill Ave Ped/Bike Undercrossing – Option 2
69
Churchill Ave Ped/Bike Undercrossing – Option 2
70
Churchill Ped/Bike Undercrossing Evaluation Matrix
Impact
Criteria Comments
A Improve East-West Connectivity q Both options close Churchill to through traffic
q Option 1 ped/bikes crosses underneath the railroad tracks only
q Option 2 ped/bikes crosses underneath the railroad tracks and Alma St
B Reduce traffic congestion and delays
q Both options close Churchill to through traffic; however, impacted
intersections can be mitigated.
q Pedestrian phase for traffic signal no longer needed at Alma Street for
Option 2.
C Provide clear, safe routes for
pedestrians and bikes
q Option 1 reduces conflicts for ped/bikes at railroad
q Option 2 reduces conflicts for ped/bikes at railroad and Alma St
q Option 1 will have shorter ramps, stairs, and undercrossing than Option 2
D Support continued rail operations q Option 1 and 2 can be built with similar construction staging with limited
single track operations at night and on weekends.
E Finance with feasible funding sources q Based on estimated range of construction costs (K)
F Minimize right-of-way acquisition
q Option 1 may impact High School property and ramp proposed within
Caltrain right-of-way
q Option 2 has no right-of-way impacts; however, there will be some loss of
parking on the east side of Churchill
G Reduce rail noise and vibration q Both options eliminate train horn noise and warning bells with closure of
Churchill
H Maintain or improve local access q Both options close Churchill to through traffic
q Option 1 ped/bikes crosses underneath the railroad tracks only
q Option 2 ped/bikes crosses underneath the railroad tracks and Alma St
I Minimize visual changes along the
corridor q Both options have opportunities for additional landscaping areas
J Minimize disruption and duration of
construction 1 year 2 years q Construction period is relatively short
K Order of Magnitude Cost $12M to $15M*$16M to $20M** Total Preliminary Construction Costs in 2018 dollars
(Subject to Change)
Improvement
Option 2Option 1
Legend:
71
Churchill Ped/Bike Undercrossing Engineering Impacts
Engineering Impacts
L Creek/Drainage
Impacts
qPump station required for lowered
pedestrian/bike way.
qIncreased risk of flooding due to pump
stations
qPump stations required for lowered
pedestrian/bike way.
qIncreased risk of flooding due to pump
stations.
M Long Term
Maintenance
qIncreased maintenance costs due to:
•Pump stations for undercrossing dewatering
qIncreased maintenance costs due to:
•Pump stations for undercrossing dewatering
N Utility Relocations qMinimal impacts to utilities qPotential utility relocations in Alma St and
Churchill
O
Railroad Operations
Impacts during
Construction
qNo shoofly required, only single tracking
during nights and weekends
qNo shoofly required, only single tracking
during nights and weekends
P
Local Street
Circulation Impacts
during Construction
qPath along High School will impacted
temporary during construction
qTemporary closure night and weekend
closures of lanes on Alma St and Churchill
Q Caltrain Design
Exceptions Needed
None required.None required.
Option 2Option 1
72
CAP Preferences Poll
73
Please select your preferred alternative for the Meadow/Charleston location
Please select your preferred option for the Churchill Pedestrian/Bike Crossing
options.
Please select your preference for direction the Citywide Tunnel should take.
Continue to study this alternative
Eliminate this alternative
TRENCH:Lower the railroad below the roadways at Meadow and Charleston
HYBRID:Partially lower the roads and partially elevate the tracks at Meadow and Charleston
VIADUCT:Raise the railroad above the roadways at Meadow and Charleston on structure
OPTION 1:At-grade crossing (railroad) to be fully closed at Churchill Ave with a grade separation for ped/bike
connectivity
OPTION 2:At-grade crossing (railroad and Alma St) to be fully closed at Churchill Ave and railroad with a grade
separation for ped/bike connectivity
Summary of Action Items/Next Meeting
Materials from this meeting will be posted
to:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/ConnectingPaloAlto
74
.
Thank you
Signalized Intersections:Per City of Palo Alto Standards, a project generated
increase in motor vehicle traffic is considered to have significant impact:
§If intersection degrades from LOS D or better to unacceptable LOS E or F;or
§If critical delay increases by more than four seconds and the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio increases
by 0.01 or more at intersections with unacceptable LOS E or F
Unsignalized Intersections: Per City of Palo Alto Standards, LOS D is minimum
acceptable LOS. A project is considered to have significant impact:
§If intersection degrades from LOS E or F from acceptable operations and the intersection satisfies
the peak hour signal warrant from CA MUTCD
Criteria of Significance
Per CMP (Congestion Management Program), a project-generated increase in
traffic is considered to have significant impact:
§If intersection operations degrade from an acceptable LOS E or better to unacceptable LOS F;or
§If the critical delay increase by more than four seconds and the V/C ratio increases by 0.01 or
more at intersection with unacceptable operations (LOS F)
Criteria of Significance (CMP)
Homer Ave Undercrossing
Palo Alto , CA
California Ave Undercrossing
Palo Alto, CA
78
Sample Ped/Bike Undercrossings in Palo Alto
Churchill Ave Ped/Bike Undercrossing – Option 2
79
Add renderings for Option 2
80
81
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:ivan hom <ihom627@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 10:23 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: Abridged summary of paloaltocitizens@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic
Hello City Council
I am a resident of midtown in Palo Alto. Please have a viaduct for the train crossing Palo Alto due to financial and
engineering concerns, all other possibilities have severe downsides.
Thanks;
Ivan Hom
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "paloaltocitizens@googlegroups.com" <paloaltocitizens@googlegroups.com>
To: Abridged recipients <paloaltocitizens@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2019, 5:00:09 AM PDT
Subject: Abridged summary of paloaltocitizens@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic
paloaltocitizens@googlegroups.com Google Groups To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In
Today's topic summary
View all topics
Please send EMAIL to City Council on Grade Separation - South Palo Alto Tunnel. - 1 Update
Please send EMAIL to City Council on Grade Separation - South Palo Alto
Tunnel.
paloaltocitizens@gmail.com: Mar 16 11:19PM -0700
Dear Neighbors,
Please note the City Council will soon decide to extend the current
consultant contract and to include South Palo Alto Tunnel analysis in the
extended contract.
...more
Back to top
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to paloaltocitizens+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:gmahany@aol.com
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 11:03 AM
To:Council, City; Filseth, Eric (external); adrianfine@gmail.com; kou.pacc@gmail.com;
greg@gregtanaka.org; liz.kniss@cityofpaloalti.org; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Cormack, Alison
Subject:Caltrain at grade cssings
Hello All
I know that the tunnel supporters are adamant about their vision of a wonderful tunnel. I do not agree with their wish full
thinking.
However all the grade crossings issues will probably a city wide vote will be needed. Even though I favor the viaduct with
construction activity confined inside the existing Caltrain right of way I am capable of living with the massive construction
disruption and high cost of a tunnel if that is the will of Palo Alto citizens.
Gary Mahany
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:itssarahe@aol.com
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 10:41 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Churchill Grade Crossing closure concern
March 18, 2019
Honorable City Council Members and City Manager,
I am writing out of concern for the traffic mitigation plan regarding the Churchill grade crossing
closure. I am a Professorville resident living in the block of Emerson Street between Lincoln and
Embarcadero which already carries a heavy load of fast-moving traffic accessing Embarcadero west
throughout the day. It worries me greatly that this block has not been included in a thorough study
because of a technicality in the analytic method, when it is clearly an area that will be greatly
impacted by any change.
While I understand that finding a solution to the traffic issue created by the potential crossing closure
at Churchill is difficult, choosing a plan that causes my block of Emerson to become a sanctioned
cloverleaf to Embarcadero is dangerous choice. This street is well traveled by bicyclists and
pedestrians (many high school students) on their way to PALY, Town and Country, Stanford, PAMF,
etc., particularly at the east/west crossing at the Embarcadero end, but also north/south on Emerson.
Even now, most cars turning right onto Emerson from Lincoln do not stop at the stop sign and many
then speed up in their haste to get to Embarcadero. This creates hazardous and scary conditions for
those of us coming out of our driveways as well as for those who are walking or biking or using the
pedestrian way. Adding more traffic to this short block will increase the risk of accidents and injuries.
I see that there is a concept plan to change the traffic flow at Emerson/Embarcadero to include a
traffic light and through traffic across Embarcadero on Emerson. If implemented, Emerson Street will
attract drivers wishing to avoid Alma in an attempt to move north and south quickly. Our residential
streets in Professorville and Old Palo Alto will bear the brunt of this as drivers opt off the increasingly
clogged thoroughfare that Alma will become. These are residential streets and were never intended
to bear heavy loads of through traffic. The approval of the Stanford GUP will bring even more traffic to
the area, also impacting our residential streets and increasing the threat to the safety of residents,
bikers, and pedestrians.
Please hire a Chief Transportation Officer to conduct a thorough traffic study which includes my block
of Emerson Street BEFORE any decisions are made. I do not want our block to become the sacrificial
2
lamb in this process simply because it is a short block with a configuration that does not fit the
analytical model you are using. We, like in all the other areas affected, are proud Palo Alto residents
and we deserve the benefit of a complete, thorough, proactive study, not a quick retrofit after
something bad has happened.
Sincerely,
Sarah Epstein
1118 Emerson Street
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Manish Baldua <mrbaldua@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 9:48 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:manish baldua
Subject:city council - committee of the whole - mar' 18th meeting
i'd like to take a minute to address the city council.
let me start off by first thanking you all for your time.
my name is manish baldua, i'm a palo alto resident, living at 1545 alma st palo alto 94301.
i'd like to request that the city wide tunnel ( WBP ) option be taken off the table, for 2 reasons:
1. it is the most disruptive option, causing massive environment changes ( including public utilities, vehicle traffic flows, property
seizures via eminent domain & more ).
2. it is also the most expensive option, and irresponsible spending of taxpayer's money.
i'm supportive of continuing to fund the work of the consultants, to help quickly zero in on an option that is least disruptive and
comes at a reasonable cost.
sincerely,
manish baldua
1545 alma st
palo alto ca 94301
408‐256‐1525
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:k j-m <kjm1445@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 10:57 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closing Churchill
Hello,
1. Eminent Domain ‐ the taking of my home ‐ needs to be once more ‐ and finally ‐ taken off the table. If this
means that Churchill stays open and I need to get used to much, much more train noise with the continual
increase in train frequency, well ok.
2. If Churchill is closed, the police and fire response would be up to 10 additional minutes to get to the 'other'
side ‐ such additional minutes could result in the loss of life and/or property.
3. Whomever continues to think that the taking of our homes is affordable could spend a few minutes and check
Zillow where the homes on Alma that you are considering taken are all valued well above 3 million. See below.
4. Living with the shadow of having my home taken is a terrible burden that I would not wish on anyone. Please take
this off ‐ again ‐ finally off the table.
Regards,
K Moreau
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Eleanor Laney <eleanorlaney@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 16, 2019 9:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closing of Churchill
Dear City Council,
I am a resident on the 1100 block of Emerson Ave. I am concerned that the analysis conducted by Palo Alto’s traffic
consultants for "Connecting Pal Alto" show a very substantial impact on the block of Emerson between Lincoln and
Embarcadero and the intersection with Embarcadero which doesn’t seem to be addressed in the mitigation actions
proposed. The study showed more than double increases in traffic at these places due to the Churchill closure and even
half these numbers were not acceptable to residents of Churchill Avenue.
Please look carefully at the letter sent to you by our neighbor, Tom Kellerman, as he addresses our concerns in a
detailed and dispassionate way. We would appreciate your attention to his points and reassuring us that you and the
consultants have considered and weighed each point.
Thank you for your time,
Eleanor Laney
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 7:36 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:David Shen
Subject:Comment on Committee of the Whole meeting 3-18-19
Distinguished City Council members and City Staff,
On Monday 3/18/19, you will be reviewing recommendations to continue work on the rail grade separation project with
our consultants.
I'd like to voice my support for continuing the work with them and also remark that the work has been excellent and
well received.
I support:
1. Continuing the work by AECOM and APEX, and other subcontractors. The work has been great so far and I'd love to
see it continue.
2. Continuation of the CAP. As a CAP member, I hope that we have been useful in the review and crafting of materials
for community meetings as well as surfacing the needs for further research in our ideas and content produced.
3. Continuation of community meetings and communication. Our recent work has further provided the community with
the opportunity to gain more knowledge about the rail grade separation project. It provides direct contact with experts
whose content is much more trusted than coming from other sources.
Further:
1. More work still needs to be done in south PA and overall, before decisions can be made. Certainly there is further
work that needs to be done to take this project to its proper beginning, as well as completion many years from now.
2. As a person who has been advocating for finding ways to speed up in this process, I find that the proposed April target
of finalizing options is likely unrealistic unless we substantially speed up everything and increase the quantity of
meetings, potentially cost as well. Certainly throwing more resources at the problem could get us done faster...Perhaps
that is what is being proposed in order to get to our April target?
3. I am glad to see Embarcadero options appear now at CAP. Mitigations at that intersection are important to study and
ultimately implement to keep traffic flowing properly and out of neighborhood streets.
4. After reviewing the city wide tunnel video, I just wanted to highlight the potential eminent domain impacts of its
construction at the north end. Many of our NOPA group have their homes impacted and I would urge the Council and
City to consider such loss of our neighbors' homes. While we support the tunnel if it is viable, we also do not support
eminent domain which then means supporting a tunnel constructed in that way becomes uncomfortably difficult if not
impossible.
Thank you for your consideration,
David Shen
NOPA
CAP
C:\Users\MP014805\Desktop\Rail Letter - City Council
031419.docx
1
Honorable Council Members:
I am writing regarding the Connecting Palo Alto project with respect to the proposed closure of the Churchill Avenue
crossing. I have recently had the opportunity to review the Final Existing Conditions Report dated February 25, 2019
(the “Report”), prepared by the City’s traffic consultant, TJKM. I also attended the CAP meeting held on March 13,
2019 (the “March CAP Meeting”) where these findings were presented and met with some of the representatives of
TJKM following the meeting. I believe there are a number of issues associated with this Report that need to be
carefully considered by the City Council before any final proposals are adopted.
As is typical with this type of analysis, the devil is in the details. I would like to bring several important details to the
attention of the Council as you consider the available alternatives.
Criteria the Council has Agreed to Apply
As you are aware, the City Council expressly required that mitigation activities be incorporated into the planning
process, as follows: Add to Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea, “study additional options for addressing traffic
in the Embarcadero Road underpass area including actions to minimize redirected traffic onto residential streets in
adjacent neighborhoods and commit to adopting appropriate mitigations to address the impacts”
See this resolution linked below:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=83343.25&BlobID=65728
In connection with this resolution and its previously approved Tier 1 and Tier 2 criteria, the Council has agreed to
implement the following processes:
• Consider the impact on traffic on residential streets and work to minimize the effect of changes to the
city’s rail crossings;
• As a Tier 1 criteria, as reflected on the agenda for the March 18, 2019 Council meeting, the City has a
commitment for “evaluation criteria to provide clear, safe routes for pedestrians and bikes”; and
• The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, policy T-3.16 provides as follows: “Keep existing at-grade rail
crossings open to motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists, consistent with results of a focused
circulation study and context sensitive alternatives analysis.
The March CAP meeting was the first time we have seen any potential mitigation actions. Many of these potential
actions are fairly complex and the impact of the various alternatives will require careful study by the City staff, the
Council and the public. Specific issues that should be taken into consideration include the matters discussed below.
Process for Selection of Intersections Requiring Mitigation
In its presentation at the March CAP Meeting, TJKM suggested that a total of eight intersections be addressed with
mitigation actions. These were designated in their presentation as “Intersections at unacceptable LOS due to
Churchill Ave Closure”. In my discussion with the TJKM representatives it was explained that the intersections were
selected based on a “HCM” (Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000) analysis of the intersections studied in the
C:\Users\MP014805\Desktop\Rail Letter - City Council
031419.docx
2
Report. However, with respect to the intersection of Emerson Street and Embarcadero, the Report states that
“Intersection Sign configuration not allowed in HCM analysis”. The consultants informed me that for technical
reasons the Emerson/ Embarcadero intersection was not included in the specific intersections selected as requiring
mitigation, despite the high level of impact anticipated for that intersection. Indeed, the TJKM presentation includes
a TIRE (Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment) analysis and that analysis specifically identifies only one street
that will be impacted by a closing of the Churchill crossing after the suggested mitigation actions, which is Emerson
Street from Channing to Kingsley. This is the exact roadway that includes the intersection of Emerson and
Embarcadero. I am sure you will agree that the City should not ignore the impact on this intersection merely due to
technical limitations inherent in the study algorithm.
As will be made clear by the following discussion, in fact the potential impact on the Emerson Street/ Embarcadero
intersection is likely to be quite substantial and should be of concern to the Council.
Traffic Volume Data
The Report contains many pages of traffic counts at several intersections in Palo Alto. Some relevant traffic counts for
this discussion are set forth below. All of the traffic counts presented are for Westbound traffic only during the two-
hour morning commute period.
1. Churchill Ave./ Alma St. Intersection. During the two-hour study period, 217 vehicles traveled westbound
from Churchill Ave. into the Alma St. intersection. Of these, 97 vehicles crossed the railroad tracks and the remaining
120 turned right or left onto Alma St.
2. Diverted Traffic Flow. The Report identifies the number of vehicles crossing the tracks at the Churchill Ave.
crossing that will need to be diverted to other crossings if the Churchill crossing is closed:
• Crossings directly from Churchill Ave. travelling Westbound: 97
• Right turns from Alma St. Southbound to Churchill Ave. Westbound: 245
• Left turns from Alma St. Northbound to Churchill Ave. Westbound: 412
Therefore, a total of 754 vehicles crossed at Churchill travelling Westbound during these two hours. All of these
vehicles will need to be diverted to a different crossing if the Churchill crossing is closed.
3. Emerson Street/ Embarcadero Intersection. In the same two-hour period, 204 vehicles turned right from
Emerson St. on to Embarcadero Westbound.1 It is important to note that at this intersection, a right turn is the only
available alternative. Vehicles cannot go straight or turn left at this intersection. The only reason to turn right onto
Embarcadero from Emerson is to cross the railroad tracks.
1 Please note that the Report indicates traffic volume data for Emerson St. that is reversed between Northbound and Southbound traffic,
which has been confirmed by the TJKM representatives. The intersection traffic numbers are correctly stated in the Report.
C:\Users\MP014805\Desktop\Rail Letter - City Council
031419.docx
3
Analysis of Traffic Volume Data
There are several logical conclusions that can be drawn from the foregoing traffic data:
1. Churchill Ave. Impact. It is interesting to note that in the two-hour study period, of 754 Westbound
crossings at Churchill Ave., only 97 came from Churchill Ave. itself. The bulk of the crossings come from vehicles
travelling on Alma St. Of Westbound vehicles on Churchill, the majority of those vehicles turn onto Alma St. rather
than crossing the tracks. This suggests that the traffic congestion being suffered on Churchill Ave. in Old Palo Alto
results more from the fact that there is a traffic light at that intersection than from the fact that there is a railroad
crossing. While removing the traffic light would likely alleviate much of this traffic burden, it should be noted that the
removal of the light is not necessitated by the closing of the railroad crossing. These are in fact separate decisions.
2. Anticipated Diversions. TJKM has done some analysis of the likely locations for the diversion of traffic if
the Churchill crossing is closed, although this is not completely predictable. We do know that in the two-hour study
period 754 vehicles travelled Westbound over the crossing. Assuming those vehicles still wish to travel west of the
railroad tracks, they will need to be allocated among other available crossings in the area. The Embarcadero crossing
is by far the closest crossing to Churchill Ave. It seems safe to assume that, unless the traffic burden is unacceptably
high, the Embarcadero crossing will be the first choice for this diversion.
3. Impact on the Emerson/ Embarcadero Intersection. As the Council knows, there is currently no direct
interchange to move traffic from Alma St. Northbound or Southbound onto Embarcadero Westbound. The only way
to accomplish this route is through neighborhood streets. The most direct route to effect this interchange is to turn
from Alma to Lincoln Ave., then turn right onto Emerson St. and then turn right again onto Embarcadero. (Note that
High St. does not connect with Westbound Embarcadero to cross the tracks.) This route has already become an
unofficial cloverleaf on otherwise quiet residential streets, resulting in 204 vehicles on this route in the two-hour
study period. How many of the 754 diverted vehicles would take this route if the Churchill crossing is closed? No one
can know for sure, but it seems intuitively obvious that the volume of traffic on Emerson St. would at least double,
and it could be far worse. If it merely doubled, that would be 408 vehicles, which compares to the 217 vehicles
currently travelling Westbound on Churchill Ave. east of Alma St. (which is a traffic volume that is viewed by the
residents of Churchill as unacceptably high.)
4. Inadequacy of Suggested Mitigation Measures. As noted above, TJKM identified several potential
mitigations in their presentation at the March CAP Meeting, some short-term and some as more conceptual long-
term mitigations. However, none of the mitigations (short-term or long-term) addressed diverted traffic that would
intend to cross the tracks Westbound at Embarcadero. They have suggested adding two lights on Alma St., both of
which would facilitate left-hand turns onto Alma. Street. The conceptual long-term mitigation would also facilitate
interchanges onto Alma St. and onto Embarcadero Eastbound. It is important to note that none of the suggested
mitigations in either the short-term or the long-term address diverted traffic wishing to travel Westbound on
Embarcadero.
Importance of the Emerson/ Embarcadero Intersection
The intersection of Emerson St. and Embarcadero is heavily trafficked by pedestrians and bicycles. The east-west
bicycle route from the Bryant St. bicycle corridor to Palo Alto High School, Town & Country and Stanford travels down
C:\Users\MP014805\Desktop\Rail Letter - City Council
031419.docx
4
Kingsley, across Emerson St. at Embarcadero and on through the Embarcadero underpass. This route is already
dangerous due to the relatively high volume of vehicular traffic today. In fact, the City had previously approved
various modifications to this intersection to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, but those changes have
not yet been implemented. Substantially increasing the vehicular traffic at this intersection will meaningfully increase
the risks associated with this interchange.
Conclusion
As the foregoing data and analysis show, the likely impact of a closure of the Churchill crossing on the Emerson/
Embarcadero intersection is very significant, and as yet no mitigations have been suggested to address this impact. In
keeping with the Council’s resolution adopted regarding mitigations, it is incumbent on the Council to require
adequate mitigations prior to approving a closure of the Churchill Ave. crossing.
I welcome the opportunity to meet with any of you individually to discuss these matters further. Thank you for your
time and commitment to this important process.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Kellerman
Cc: Ed Shikada, City Manager
Megan Kanne, CAP Member
Nadia Naik, CAP Member
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Kellerman, Thomas W. <thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 14, 2019 6:22 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Megan Kanne; Nadia Naik; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Connecting Palo Alto - Traffic Report Analysis
Attachments:Rail Letter - City Council 031419.docx
Honorable City Council Members:
Please see the attached submission with respect to the Connecting Palo Alto Traffic Report. I am happy to discuss this
topic with any of you individually.
Best regards,
Tom
Thomas W. Kellerman
1400 Page Mill Road | Palo Alto, CA 94304
Direct: +1.650.843.7550 | Main: +1.650.843.4000 | Fax: +1.650.843.4001
thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com | www.morganlewis.com
Assistant: Teresa M. Hillstrom | +1.650.843.7521 | teresa.hillstrom@morganlewis.com
DISCLAIMER
This e‐mail message is intended only for the personal use
of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an
attorney‐client communication and as such privileged and
confidential and/or it may include attorney work product.
If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review,
copy or distribute this message. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
e‐mail and delete the original message.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Barbara Ann Hazlett <bthazlett@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 9:01 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; kanne.megan@gmail.com
Subject:Connecting Palo Alto - Traffic Study - Churchill Ave. Closure Impacts
March 17, 2019
Honorable Council Members:
I am writing regarding Connecting Palo Alto and the traffic study related to a possible closure of Churchill
Avenue. Aspects of the study were presented by the City's consultants at the March 13, 2019 CAP meeting which I
attended. The presentation revealed fatal flaws. For example, it goes through a tortured, opaque traffic analysis to
prophesize on what will happen at 8 intersections by the year 2030. However, the consultant could not even answer my
most basic question of what was her underlying assumption regarding the rate of traffic increase a decade hence.
Throughout this process, we residents have been promised a robust and transparent traffic study. Further, we were
promised appropriate mitigations. In the most appalling example, with respect to the intersection of Emerson Street and
Embarcadero, the Report states that “Intersection Sign configuration not allowed in HCM analysis”. Apparently what that
means is that for technical reasons, the Emerson/ Embarcadero intersection was not included in the specific intersections
selected as requiring mitigation, despite the high level of impact anticipated for that intersection. First, the traffic
consultants cannot state what their underlying assumptions are for traffic increases and secondly they cannot analyze
impacts and mitigations for one of the most impacted intersections, due to algorithmic mumbo jumbo. And you are
making immutable decisions based on this flawed study?
I hope you can appreciate my dismay and frustration with this process. I oppose any traffic mitigation plans that result in a
substantial increase in traffic to Professorville residential streets. We need a mitigation plan that protects the safety of the
pedestrians and bicyclists that follow the bicycle /pedestrian route at the end of Emerson Street to Paly, Town & Country,
Stanford and beyond. This is an extremely heavily traveled rout with safety issues that are already dangerous and
represent large liability issues for the City. Further, our neighborhood opposes the traffic consultant’s abhorrent “concept
plan” that turns Emerson Street, north of Embarcadero, into a three lane street and connects it with Emerson, south of
Embarcadero, by putting a traffic light at Emerson and Embarcadero. This design likely turns our street into thoroughfare,
enabling a large volume of fast-moving traffic north/south through historic Professorville. We insist on comprehensive,
factual traffic data and fairness across the neighborhoods. Wasn't that the promise?
Sincerely,
Barbara Hazlett
Cc: Ed Shikada, City Manager
Megan Kanne, CAP Member
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 4:54 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:David Shen; Jason Matlof; Jeff Brown; Monica
Subject:Emergency/police services vs. Churchill closure
Distinguished City Council and Staff,
I heard through the grapevine that emergency and police services got wind of our proposal to close Churchill and their
reaction was that it could not be closed due to the need for emergency vehicles to cross back and forth there. I heard
that they would be presenting their case soon to you all.
Whether this is all hearsay or not, may I suggest that it is time we checked with them on this issue, and also walk them
through the entire reasoning process behind how we got to a point of favoring a Churchill closure? I'd love to see them
have as much information as possible before they finalize their viewpoint.
We would also be happy to join you in a conversation with emergency and police services as well. Just let us know.
Thank you for your kind consideration,
David Shen
NOPA
http://www.northoldpaloalto.org
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gary Hobstetter <gary@gha-design.com>
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 11:50 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed
Subject:Emerson traffic
Dear Council Members
We oppose any traffic mitigation plans that result in a substantial increase in traffic to Professorville residential
streets.
We need a mitigation plan that protects the safety of the pedestrians and bicyclists that follow the bicycle /pedestrian
route at the end of Emerson Street to Paly and Town & Country.
Joan and I both oppose the current traffic consultant’s “concept plan” that puts a potential traffic light at the end of
Emerson street.
Please hire a Chief Transportation Officer who will work with concerned residents and conduct a more rigorous and
accurate traffic study.
Gary and Joan Hobstetter
Gary and Joan Hobstetter
1101 Emerson
Palo Alto CA 94301
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:neva yarkin <nevayarkin@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 8:07 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:from neva yarkin
March 17, 2019
Dear Council,
I am tired of eminent domain always popping up and having to
defend my house, neighbors, and friends houses. When will this stop????
The tunnel needs to be taken off the table once and for all! Eminent domain, and costs should be obvious reasons.
AECOM or other consultants should continue on this project so that we have the detailed facts.
Community meetings, are a must!!!! This will be the biggest project in Palo Alto, and major expenditure also, so we
need to know what will happen with each new development.
Lastly, continued study needs to be made of traffic mitigations on Embarcadero if Churchill Ave. is closed. Embarcadero
needs a make‐over so traffic can flow better on this major throughway.
Neva Yarkin
133 Churchill Ave.
Palo Alto
1
Carnahan, David
From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 8, 2019 7:26 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please remove VIADUCT from all options
Dear City Council
Please vote t o REMOVE completely the viaduct option from
the list of options you are considering for the Rail.
Specifically, vote to remove this option:
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road | Viaduct (MCV)
Thank You
Carlin Otto
231 Whitclem Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
1
Carnahan, David
From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 8, 2019 7:36 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:NO VIADUCT
Dear City Council
If you personally are not willing to sleep in the shadow of an active
viaduct then you need to VOTE AGAINST IT.
Gari Gene
231 Whitclem Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
1
Carnahan, David
From:jeffrey lipkin <repjal@att.net>
Sent:Friday, March 8, 2019 5:58 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:nadianaik@gmail.com
Subject:Grade Separation
Dear Council members,
I think that Palo Alto citizens
(including council members)
are smoking a dangerous form of opium
if they support the billion dollar alternatives
for grade separation at the tracks.
Jeff Lipkin
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Daja Phillips <dajasan@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 1:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Hello City Council Members,
Thank you for your earnest efforts to improve Palo Alto! I write to you today about the meeting, tonight, March 18th
2019, regarding the very complicated set of decisions to direct staff on policy regarding the Rail Corridor that will be
reviewed and discussed. I, and others in the Southgate community, hold the concern that some of the key elements of
the staff report (for example the traffic study) has not been sufficiently vetted by the community. We would like to see
more time given to the vetting process before council meets on this important topic.
I cannot attend the meeting tonight so I send this message requesting that the community have a better vetting process
before council meets on the topic.
Many Thanks,
‐‐
Daja Phillips
650. 485. 3252
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Michelle Djokic <michelle.djokic@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 11:16 AM
To:Council, City; paloaltocitizens@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (external); adrianfine@gmail.com;
kou.pacc@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Kniss, Liz (internal); tomforcouncil@gmail.com;
Cormack, Alison
Subject:please consider
Dear City Council members,
Thank you for your efforts to serve our city and protect the values of our community. We have lived on Edlee Avenue
close to the Charleston crossing for 15 years. The tracks have been a source of relentless stress for our neighborhood.
There was the rash of tragedies that occurred exactly while our children were attending Gunn. It got to where when a
train was idling in place that all our hearts nearly stopped. Then we held our breath for years as crossing guards kept
watch which was merely a reminder that the deeper problem has not yet been resolved. Before long the massive buses
for the many tech companies that use the Charleston corridor as a main thoroughfare began to take rule over our lives.
How many times I have found myself watching out for children on their bikes to and from school made nearly invisible
by all the cars and buses trying to get across the tracks before the next train passes by. People do crazy things to get to
where they need to go faster. If there are trains passing by every ten minutes how in the world will any of us function
with civility any more? I sometimes have to wait for 10 minutes before someone will let me into traffic to turn on
Charleston when the trains are passing and that is often when children are filtering through on their bikes from
school. It is a matter of time before we have a tragic accident with bicyclists and pedestrians trying to use Charleston to
get home or to the park.
Stress has such a direct impact on the well being of our children and overall community. We need the trains for all the
right reasons. But it is essential that we find the safest means to accomplish our goals. We are so very far from being a
third world country. The self driving cars were developed and tested in our neighborhood, the drones were test flown by
their designers before they became common, the Tesla headquarters is just down the way. We are at the cutting edge of
everything the world recognizes as forward moving and yet we cannot figure out a way to allow for increased rail
service, provide safe bike routes for everyone and reduce congestion. Can we not draw on that same creative talent that
puts Palo Alto at the leading edge of technology to figure out something so concrete and so essential to our leading
productive healthy lives? Tunneling the train at East Meadow and Charleston crossing should be mandatory and viewed
as a life saving measure not merely an option.
Everyone's conscience must be invested in these most critical decisions that are going to determine the future of our
community. Palo Alto should be a shining example for the rest of the world not just for its wealth and success for for its
care and concern for the well being of its children and community and the environment.
Most sincerely,
Michelle Djokic
229 Edlee Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Megan Kanne <kanne.megan@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 8:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Public Comment: Connecting Palo Alto Project Update
Dear City Council Members,
I'd like to share these public comments with respect to the Connecting Palo Alto Project Update: Schedule, Timeline, and
Contract Amendment on March 18, 2019.
I believe Staff's recommended changes to the Evaluation Criteria are in line with the community's emerging values as
they have been expressed to the CAP. The right‐of‐way acquisition and eminent domain criteria could be improved
further. The community is not concerned about eminent domain due to cost but due to community impacts and, as was
evident at the mid‐2018 Council meetings about Churchill last year, it is of high importance. Therefore I'd propose that
this criteria be moved into Tier 1 and read "Community impact: minimize right‐of‐way acquisition by eminent domain."
Before approving a contract amendment, I hope that the Council receives final language and numbers so that proper
oversight can be performed by the Council.
I am in favor of the updated timeline. However, there remain a significant number of unknowns relating to this project
including passing tracks, the GUP, freight operations, and design exceptions, among others. In the interest of making a
decision given this ambiguity, I ask that the Council request that these unknowns be explicitly enumerated and their
impact considered for each of the remaining alternatives. This would allow us to understand the remaining risks
associated with each alternative.
I'd like to thank AECOM and TJKM for their work on the traffic study. In light of the inability of the HCM analysis to
include mitigations for Emerson street and it's intersection with Embarcadero, I'd ask that the Council affirmatively
request mitigation analysis for those road segments equivalent to the analysis already done for the other eight
intersections.
Finally, I hope that the Staff can provide the Council an update on the search for a Chief Transportation Officer. Adopting
the proposed timeline without backfilling this position will continue to put strain on Staff. In the absence of the CAP,
which has its last meeting last week, a Chief Transportation Officer is needed to provide local context to the contractors
and oversight of the project.
Thank you for your commitment to making Palo Alto safer and improving connectivity in our city. I'm happy to discuss
any of the above further.
Regards,
Megan Kanne
Caltrain Grade Separations CAP Member, University South
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Allen Edwards <allen.p.edwards@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 16, 2019 7:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail Committee
Hi,
I live at 186 Coleridge Ave which is close to the Churchill crossing. I have watched a video of the proposed trench and
urge you to take this proposal off the table. The disruption of traffic on Alma during what is undoubtedly a multi year
construction project (see creak bridge rebuild on 101 as a reference) should cause its removal without even considering
the need to take people's property, which should also weigh heavily on the decision.
I urge you to just close the Churchill crossing. For me personally this would be a benefit as virtually all of my use of that
intersection is to turn left onto Alma. Because the train interrupts that left turn now do to lack of synchronization, I go
through city streets (Bryan) to Page Mill instead. Closing the crossing will allow me to use the intersection without
risking a 5 minute delay.
I also know that the traffic on Churchill impacts negatively residents across from Paly. We have friends there who would
love to have Churchill closed at the tracks so that they can get the traffic out of their neighborhood.
I know closing Churchill will be seen as a negative by some people but I wanted you to know that it would be seen as a
positive to others regardless of the train issues. It is more of a some like it and some don't solution rather than an
inconvenience to all.
Allen Edwards
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:marshalljd@aol.com
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 11:59 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:MarshallJD@aol.com; garliclady@aol.com; kellermanr@yahoo.com; eleanorlaney@gmail.com;
thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com; bthazlett@aol.com; tenor@stanford.edu;
kathyrwait@hotmail.com; gary@GHA-DESIGN.com; joan.hobstetter@gmail.com;
sarah.nitzan@gmail.com; dan.nitzan@pobox.com
Subject:Rail Grade Separation Proposals
Attachments:Emerson Traffic -1.jpg; Emerson Traffic -2.jpg; Emerson Traffic -3.jpg; Emerson Traffic -4.jpg
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and City Manager,
As a long time Palo Alto homeowner in the 1100 block of Emerson Street, I am very concerned about the possibility of
increased traffic on our block resulting from decisions you will be making regarding choices for rail grade separation,
particularly the proposed closure of the Churchill Avenue. Our street is currently a beautiful Professorville residential area
filled with historic homes. The closure of Churchill Avenue would result in major increases of cars and trucks through
our block turning it into a major traffic route connecting with Alma Street.
The end of our block at Emerson Street, Kingsley Avenue and Embarcadero Road is currently used as a major crossing
for bicyclists, students and pedestrians to and from Palo Alto High School, Town & Country Village and Stanford. There is
already too much traffic going through this corner. In fact, in the past, our family dog was killed by a car passing through
our block. A larger increase in the number of cars and trucks at this intersection would create a health and safety issue of
major proportions, as well as potential liability issues for the City of Palo Alto. A traffic light at the end of Emerson would
not be a good solution, as it would make our block an alternative route to Alma Street, further increasing traffic through a
beautiful Professorville neighborhood.
I have attached some photos that I took on a recent day when traffic was particularly heavy at this intersection. Closing
Churchill Avenue would make it like this every day. One possibility that might ease the current traffic situation would be to
open up the end of High Street to connect with Embarcadero Road, so existing traffic would have an alternate
choice when travelling north on Alma to reach Embarcadero.
In any case, please hire a Chief Transportation Officer who will work with those of us who are concerned and conduct a
more rigorous and accurate traffic study, before reaching any final decisions.
Thank you for your consideration of the information contained in this email.
Marshall & Irene Deitsch .
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Jacqueline Thurston <mythral@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 8:35 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail
To the members of my city council,
I write to support the tunnel option for South Palo Alto. The above ground solutions divide and negatively impact the
nature of our community. They do not truly address the need for a vision for the city that extends beyond a short term
concept of a solution.
Thank you for your service and for your consideration of my position,
Jacqueline Thurston
241 Creekside Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Hing Sham <hinglsham@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 7:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:South Palo Alto Rail Tunnel
Dear council members, I live In Charleston Meadows. Our family’s preference is for a tunnel at the rail pass at the
junction of Charleston and Alma. Thanks for your attention. Hing Sham
Sent from Hing's iPad
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Guy Crosby <guycrosby@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 5:46 AM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Takumi Matsuzawa; bthazlett@aol.com; garliclady@aol.com; eleanorlaney@gmail.com
Subject:Traffic Concerns On Emerson Street due to Proposed Closure of Rail Crossing at Churchill Avenue
Ed Shikada, City Manager, and the Palo Alto City Council:
This letter is written to express our great concern that a potential closure of the rail crossing at Churchill Avenue will
have a profoundly negative effect on the traffic that will be diverted to Emerson Street, and the the safety of all people
who cross the end of Emerson Street at the intersection with Embarcadero Road and Kingsley Avenue.
Our greatest concern is for the safety of the very large number of students who cross this intersection nearly every day
on foot or bicycle to and from Palo Alto High School. In addition to students, numerous people walking to and from
Town and Country Shopping Center, as well as those biking to and from Stanford University, will be at far greater risk
due to the increased traffic proceeding down Emerson Street to turn right onto Embarcadero Road, which most drivers
negotiate without even slowing down! Installing a traffic light at the end of Emerson would create even greater
congestion and safety concerns.
Our house is located at 1135 Emerson Street at the intersection with Kingsley Avenue and Embarcadero Road and would
likely be subjected to the greatest impact of added traffic diverted down Emerson Street due to the proposed rail
crossing closure at Churchill Avenue. We have owned the house since it was built in 1975 and have seen many changes
to the Intersection at the end of Emerson Street over these many years. In more recent years the house has been rented
to a number of wonderful tenants, including the current tenants Takumi Matsuzawa and Jennifer Kim, and their two
children. We plan to return to Palo Alto to live in the house in the fall of 2020, which is why we are so greatly concerned
with the proposal to close the rail crossing at Churchill Avenue.
Sincerely,
Guy and Christine Crosby
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 7:32 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Tunnel for the FUTURE
Dear City Council Members
The decision you make for dealing with the railroad tracks and the train will last
for at least ONE HUNDRED years. Please think into the future
for Palo Alto. CHOOSE THE TUNNEL. Choose the BEST for us.
Every city in the world that has installed a viaduct has regretted it
within just a few years: the noise, the dust + dirt thrown around, the division of their neighborhoods, the useless land
underneath the viaduct structure, the ugliness,.
Please envision our future with the transportation advantages of the train
but WITHOUT its problems. BURY IT. Once the tunnel is in place it can
expand in the future (like London, Paris, New York) down to many levels and support
many tracks. This is our "metro", our "subway".
‐ A tunnel will merge Palo Alto into ONE city.
‐ A tunnel will allow new, unlimited, cheap, safe east‐west movement of cars, bikes, people.
‐ A tunnel will allow us to build parks, bike paths, tennis courts, etc on the land
on TOP of the tunnel.
Tax me !!!! I will gladly pay for this vision.
Carlin Otto
231 Whitclem Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:David Epstein <thedavee@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 10:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Churchill Closure impact on Emerson St.
Dear honorable City Council Members;
I live on Emerson St between Lincoln and Embarcadero and have read what I could of what I had hoped would be a
mitigation plan for the expected dramatic increase in traffic on our block due to the proposed closure of the Churchill
grade crossing.
1. I was shocked to see that the Emerson/Embarcadero intersection was not fully studied - as it states: "Intersection sign
configuration not allowed in HCM analysis." It is recognized that we on our block may be the most affected section of
roadway if Churchill crossing is closed. We are the "cloverleaf" to access El Camino, Palo Alto High, Trader Joe's, Town
and Country, Palo Alto Medical Clinic and Stanford. We must understand the entire impact of such a closure and have a
complete mitigation plan in place and ready to be implemented. Any shortcut in analysis is dangerous and not
acceptable.
2. We are most interested in safety and maintaining a residential environment on our street. It is already straining both
those goals with many cars speeding though our neighborhood along with bikes and pedestrians crossing the street at the
Embarcadero/Emerson St. intersection. Before and after school in particular, we have a constant stream of bikes and
students coming from and going to PALY. The mix of heavy traffic of cars, trucks and students is bound to have a
disastrous accident at any time. A dramatic increase in the traffic will make it even more dangerous.
3. The idea of a traffic light at the end of the street is an ill conceived solution, especially in light of the fact that the
intersection is not completely studied as of today. Adding traffic not only going Westbound on Embarcadero from
Emerson, but further including a new slew of drivers going Eastbound on Embarcadero, not to mention some crossing
Embarcadero on Emerson in both directions will further exacerbate an already dangerous and unfair situation.
4. Can we hire a Palo Alto Transportation Officer? It would be nice if we could work with a knowledgeable, and focused
official who works for us and has the time to truly understand the situations we face everyday. That person would be able
to dig deeper and speak to us more if changes are made that might worsen it.
5. Lastly, we understand that Stanford itself may increase traffic through our neighborhoods with their approved General
Use Permit.
So PLEASE protect our neighborhood, the biking students and all the pedestrians. Please don't increase traffic on our
street.
Thank you
David Epstein
1118 Emerson St.
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Gregory A Wait <tenor@stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 11:50 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; kathyrwait@gmail.com
Subject:Traffic/Churchill rail crossing potential closure
Honorable Council Members:
We are writing regarding Connecting Palo Alto and the traffic study related to a possible closure of
Churchill Avenue. As concerned citizens living on Emerson Street between Lincoln and
Embarcadero, we urge you to take into account that we/you:
1. Oppose any traffic mitigation plans that result in a substantial increase in traffic to Professorville
residential streets, specifically our already busy residential blocks.
2. Advocate for a mitigation plan that protects the safety of the pedestrians and bicyclists that
follow the bicycle /pedestrian route at the end of our block to Paly, Town & Country, Stanford and
other destinations. Please, this is a health and safety issue for not only Emerson residents but also the
large number of pedestrians, students, and bicyclists that traverse the corner of
Emerson/Embarcadero/Kingsley.
3. Hire a Chief Transportation Officer who will work with concerned residents and conduct a more
rigorous and accurate traffic study.
4. Oppose the current traffic consultant’s “concept plan” that puts a potential traffic light at the end
of Emerson street. The proposed light would likely make our street an alternative to Alma pushing a
large volume of fast‐moving traffic north/south.
5. Recognize that the Stanford GUP (General Use Permit) plan is likely to bring even more traffic to
the Embarcadero corridor, so solutions that bring less traffic to Professorville neighborhoods, not
more traffic, should be a priority.
Sincerely,
Gregory and Kathy Wait
Billie Bennett Achilles Director of Vocal Studies
Senior Lecturer in Voice and Choral Conducting, Stanford University
Music Director, Schola Cantorum
Conductor, Congregational Oratorio Society
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>
Sent:Thursday, March 14, 2019 9:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Sea Level Rise in Bay Area is Going to Be Much More Destructive Than We Think, Says USGS Study
Dear Councilmembers,
This article and the reports referenced are important reasons why the City Council should approve at your meeting on March 18th the
study and adopting of a plan to address Sea Level Rise.
Best regards,
Arthur
https://www.kqed.org/science/1939059/the-ocean-is-not-a-bathtub-so-sea-level-rise-will-be-more-damaging
Sea Level Rise in Bay Area is Going to Be
Much More Destructive Than We Think, Says
USGS Study
Raquel Maria Dillon
Mar 13
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
One inundation scenario for the Bay Area according to new data from a USGS report on sea level rise in California. The scenario
pictured reflects a rise of 3.3 feet, which is within the projected range according to the 4th California Climate Assessment of 2016. (Our
Coast Our Future)
The ocean is rocked by storms and its tides ebb with the moon. Waves eat away at its edges, rearranging the sand and bringing cliff-
side structures crashing into the surf. It doesn't behave like water in a bathtub.
Interactive mapping tool - California inundation zones under different sea level rise scenarios
But for simplicity’s sake (and because scientists are still learning about how climate change will melt glaciers), researchers have
generally projected sea level rise as if the ocean will remain still and calm as it creeps up on crucial infrastructure and seaside
neighborhoods.
A new study from the U.S. Geological Survey says the predicted damage from sea level rise in California triples once tides, storms and
erosion are taken into account.
“There are many communities that are planning by only considering this in a bathtub and not considering the fact that that’ll be on top of
these episodic storm events that'll cause most of the short term impacts,” said the study’s lead author, Patrick Barnard, a USGS coastal
geologist based in Santa Cruz.
The study showed that, once these variables are taken into account, more than $150 billion worth of property and infrastructure and
about 600,000 coastal residents could be flooded by the end of the century.
About two-thirds of that property and those lives at risk are in and around the San Francisco Bay, said Barnard, who is the research
director of the Climate Impacts and Coastal Processes Team at USGS.
2
“We've effectively built on an estuary with millions of people just above sea level,” he said. “We're in a highly vulnerable position in the
Bay Area.”
More Sloshing From Storms, More Damage
When the team's mathematical models factored in the variability of the tides, beach and cliff erosion, and once-in-decades storms, the
predictions for coastal communities in a warming world got grim and wet.
The locations threatened by flooding are the usual suspects: Foster City, Pacifica, and the San Francisco International
Airport. Southern California will also be hit hard, with the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach inundated and whole neighborhoods in
Orange County under water during big storms and high tides.
To bring it home for planners and the public, the study included an interactive online mapping tool with multiple layers representing
different scenarios: a king tide, interventions to shore up beaches and wetlands, and various levels of sea rise. Users can look up their
neighborhoods, their commutes, their favorite beaches or the port where their latest online order entered the U.S.
Most scenarios quickly put SFO under water. Others flood marinas and homes in Foster City. Highway 101 along the Peninsula gets
very wet when sea level rise and storms combine.
The goal of this imagery is “to make it accessible to high-level policy people by translating the physical impacts into the socioeconomic
impacts,” Barnard said.
The effects of climate change are already apparent every winter, he said. For example, Highway 37 in Marin County just reopened after
a levee broke during last month’s storms.
“Maybe that happens once a winter every five years or something. In the future, we're going to see — instead of once or every five
years —it's going to happen every year,” he said.
After a couple of decades, that flooding will likely happen five times per year, then 20 times per year, Barnard said. Eventually, winter
storms will send seawater creeping into areas that have never seen flooding before.
Molly Peterson contributed to this report.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
1
Carnahan, David
From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 13, 2019 5:03 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Dueker, Kenneth
Subject:Fwd: LA Times: Destruction from sea level rise in California could exceed worst wildfires and
earthquakes, new research shows
Dear City Council,
Thank you for reviewing this coming Monday the proposed policy for planning for Sea
Level Rise. As this March 13, 2019 article from the LA Times states, "We really need to
work with a sense of urgency.”
LA Times: Destruction from sea level rise in California could exceed worst wildfires and
earthquakes, new research shows
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-california-coast-storm-damage-20190313-
story.html
Esther Nigenda
1
Carnahan, David
From:annetteisaacson@comcast.net
Sent:Tuesday, March 12, 2019 4:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:sea level rise
Dear City Council Members,
I attended the Feb. 27 meeting about the staff report on sea level rise. It was very
informative and certainly gave us a sense of urgency.
I urge you to adopt the staff's proposed Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan at Monday's
City Council Meeting and commit the city of Palo Alto to taking action now to mitigate
the effects of Climate Change. The year 2050 and a 2 foot rise in sea level will be here
before we know it.
Sincerely,
Annette Isaacson
2550 Webster St.
Palo Alto
(Midtown Neighborhood)
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 9, 2019 5:28 PM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Shikada, Ed
Subject:analysis of SB50
Attachments:SF Plannings 2019 SB 50_Memo March 14 2019.pdf
Leading cities have begun to analyze SB50 impact and report to their citizens. Here is a report from
San Francisco.
I urge the Planning Commission and City Council to keep Palo Alto citizens informed and take a
position on this fast-moving legislation and its companion bills, especially the legislation to fund
affordable/subsidized housing centrally through regionalized taxation and redistribution.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
www.sfplanning.org
Memo to the Planning Commission
INFORMATIONAL HEARING DATE: MARCH 14, 2019
RE: Senate Bill 50 (2019)
Staff Contact: Paolo Ikezoe, Senior Planner, Citywide Division
paolo.ikezoe@sfgov.org, 415-575-9137
Reviewed by: Miriam Chion, Manager of Housing and Community Development
miriam.chion@sfgov.org, 415-558-6362
Joshua Switzky, Manager of Land Use and Community Planning
joshua.switzky@sfgov.org, 415-575-6815
BACKGROUND
This memo is in response to the Commission’s request for an analysis and informational hearing on the
proposed State Senate Bill 50 (“SB 50”) and its potential effects on San Francisco. SB 50 was introduced in
the California State Senate on December 3, 2018. This memo’s analysis is based on the version of the bill
proposed as of March 7, 2019. The current version of the bill includes several key provisions that have yet
to be defined, and amendments, which will likely include clarifications to portions of the bill left undefined,
are expected this month. A vote in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee could occur as early
as the end of March.
Previous analysis on SB 827, SB 50’s predecessor, was provided to the Commission on February 5th and
March 15th of 2018. The Commission did not take any official action on that bill. The Board of Supervisors
passed resolution number 84-18 on April 3, 2018 opposing SB 827. On April 17, 2018, SB 827 failed to pass
out of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
SB 50 is in many respects an update to last year’s SB 827. Both bills are intended to take on the
underproduction of housing throughout the state of California by increasing zoned capacity for housing
and focusing that capacity near transit service. The Urban Displacement Project released a study in October
2018 estimating the impact SB 827 could have had on the Bay Area. That analysis found SB 827 would have
increased the financially feasible development potential in the Bay Area sixfold (from 380,000 to 2.3 million
units), while increasing the potential for affordable inclusionary units sevenfold.1 SB 50’s inclusion of ‘jobs
rich’ areas would likely increase that estimate of how many new housing units could be produced. The
study also found that 60% of the units SB 827 would have unlocked were located in low-income and
gentrifying areas. SB 50’s addition of a ‘jobs rich’ geography greatly expands the area where the bill would
apply, and should include many high-resourced areas that may not be immediately proximate to transit.
There is widespread agreement at the state level that all of California has underbuilt housing for decades,
with disastrous effects for low-, moderate- and middle-income households. In the Bay Area, recent analyses
have suggested that the region would have needed to produce 700,000 more units since 2000 than it actually
did in order for housing to have remained affordable to median income households.2 The scale and breadth
1 https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/udp_mapcraft_sb_827_policy_brief.pdf
2 https://www.spur.org/news/2019-02-21/how-much-housing-should-bay-area-have-built-avoid-current-housing-crisis
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
2
of the state’s affordability crisis since the Great Recession has led to increased interest and involvement
from the Governor, legislature, and various State agencies. A recent article counted over 200 housing-
related state bills introduced this session, and the Governor has set an ambitious goal of 3.5 million new
housing units statewide by 2025.3 SB 50, as well as many of the other bills currently proposed in the state
legislature, are intended to tackle our housing shortage and provide enough homes for our state’s growing
and diverse population. Mayor London Breed has voiced support for the intent of SB 50, telling a local
news station that “San Francisco, along with the entire Bay Area, needs to create more housing if we are
going to address the out of control housing costs that are causing displacement and hurting the diversity
of our communities.” The Mayor has stated she will work with Senator Wiener to create “more housing
opportunities near transit, while maintaining strong renter protections and demolition restrictions so we
are focusing development on empty lots and underutilized commercial spaces.”4
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION
SB 50 proposes to increase housing development capacity statewide by allowing certain qualifying
residential projects, which meet a minimum inclusionary housing requirement, to receive a development
bonus. In SB 50, this bonus is called an “equitable communities incentive” and takes the form of relief from
certain local development controls for qualifying projects. Residential projects which meet minimum
performance standards specified in the bill and located within a quarter to half-mile of high quality transit
or in “jobs rich” areas of the state would be potentially eligible for the “equitable communities incentive”.
Where and how SB 50 would apply
For projects that qualify for an “equitable communities incentive”, SB 50 would remove residential density
limits and alter minimum parking requirements within a quarter to half mile of certain transit stops and
lines, as well as in areas described as “jobs rich”. Additionally, in areas around rail and ferry stops
statewide, the bill would prohibit municipalities from enforcing height limits and floor area ratio controls
below a specified minimum on qualifying projects. In order to qualify for an “equitable communities
incentive”, a project would be required to meet an on-site inclusionary requirement, either a local
municipality’s existing on-site inclusionary ordinance or a minimum level specified in SB 50 (exact level
not yet defined). SB 50 does not appear to include a minimum project size or density.
One key difference between SB 827 and SB 50 is the addition of the “jobs-rich” geography category. Though
still undefined in the current version of the bill, a “jobs-rich” area is described as generally an area near
jobs, with a high area median income relative to the relevant region, and with high-quality public schools.
The state’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) would be responsible for designating areas as “jobs-rich”. It is estimated that “jobs rich”
areas will be similar to HCD Resource Areas (see attached Exhibit E). Within “jobs-rich” areas, qualifying
residential projects would be able to receive an “equitable communities incentive” identical to areas within
¼ mile of a stop on a high quality bus corridor, whether the “jobs-rich” area has high quality transit service
or not. This inclusion of the job-rich geography, while still undefined, is likely to dramatically expand the
geography of applicable areas statewide, compared to the areas that would have been affected by SB 827
(which was limited in applicability to only the most transit-rich corridors and station areas).
3 https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-lawmakers-target-cities-ability-to-13662697.php
4 https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/12/04/sb50-housing-transit-more-homes-act-state-sen-scott-wiener/
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
3
SB 50 Applicable Geographies and Proposed Zoning Standards (see map on following page)
Qualifying Area
Min.
Height
Limit
Min. FAR *
Limit
Min. Parking
requirements
Density
Limits
On-site
Inclusionary Units
Required**
¼ mile around Rail or Ferry Stop 55 ft 3.25 Waived Waived Yes
½ mile around Rail or Ferry Stop 45 ft 2.5 Waived Waived Yes
¼ mile around ‘High Quality Bus” stop
In areas identified as “jobs-rich” No change No change Waived up to 0.5
space/unit Waived
Yes, for projects
larger than a certain
size
*FAR = Floor Area Ratio, a common development control; in San Francisco’s Planning Code, FAR is defined as:” The
ratio of the Gross Floor Area of all the buildings on a lot to the area of the lot”. Most of San Francisco’s zoning district
do not regulate residential FAR.
** The minimum percentage of affordable units required on-site is not yet defined in the bill.
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
4
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
5
Incentives and Concessions for qualifying projects
Projects in qualifying areas which meet all of the eligibility criteria below would also be able to request
three incentives or concessions, identical to those offered under the State Density Bonus Law. As defined
in that law, incentives and concessions must a) result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to the
project, b) not have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, or on any property listed in the
California Register of Historical Resources. The broad definition of ‘incentives and concessions’ means they
could take many forms, but of the dozens of State Density Bonus projects the Department has received, the
most common requests have been for reductions and exceptions to rear yard, exposure, open space, and
off-street parking requirements. To date, no project sponsor has requested to fully waive a rear yard
requirement (i.e. ask for full lot coverage) as an incentive or concession under the State Density Bonus Law.
As discussed later in the ‘Provisions of SB 50 that are unclear’ section, it appears an SB 50 project would be
allowed to request up to three additional incentives and concessions allowed under the State Density Bonus
Law, for a total of up to six, if it were to request a State Density Bonus on top of an ‘equitable communities
incentive’.
Eligibility criteria for projects seeking an ‘Equitable Communities Incentive”
In order to qualify for an “equitable communities incentive”, a project would need to meet all of the
following criteria:
• Be located within one of the geographies noted in the above table
• Be located on a site zoned to allow residential uses
• At least 2/3rds of the project’s square footage would need to be designated for residential use
• Must comply with on of two on-site inclusionary requirements (see following section ‘SB 50 on-
site requirement’ for more detail)
• Must comply with all generally applicable approval requirements, including local conditional use
or other discretionary approvals, CEQA, or a streamlined approval process that includes labor
protections
• Must comply with all other relevant standards, requirements, and prohibitions imposed by the
local government regarding architectural design, restrictions on or oversight of demolition, impact
fees, and community benefits agreements
SB 50 on-site requirement
SB 50 lays our two options for projects to meet a minimum on-site inclusionary requirement to qualify for
an ‘equitable communities incentive’.
1) In cities with inclusionary ordinances that require on-site provision of affordable units, a project
would have to comply with that ordinance
2) In cities without such an ordinance, a project would have to provide a minimum percentage of
units on-site affordable to very low, low or moderate-income households, if the project is larger
than a certain size. The percentage of affordable units required and the project size threshold for
requiring on-site has not yet been specified in the bill, though there is reference to the affordability
requirements in the State Density Bonus Law. Should the bill adopt requirements mirroring the
percentage of units required to qualify for a full 35% bonus under the State Density Bonus Law,
the following minimum on-site requirements might apply on projects above a certain size:
a. 11% of units affordable to Very Low Income Households (30 to 50% AMI) OR;
b. 20% of units affordable to Low Income Households (50 to 80% AMI)
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
6
This option indicates that projects smaller than a certain size - as yet undefined - will not need to
provide on-site units to qualify for an ‘equitable communities incentive’.
The bill appears to indicate that projects under a certain size in ‘job rich’ areas and within ¼ mile of a high-
quality bus line, but further than ½ mile from a rail or ferry stop, may not need to provide affordable units
on-site to qualify for an ‘equitable communities incentive”. However, projects within ¼ and ½ mile of rail
and ferry stops, would appear to be required to include a minimum percentage of affordable units on-site,
regardless of project size, to qualify for the greater ‘equitable communities incentive’ offered in those areas.
‘Sensitive Communities’ Exemption
SB 50 includes a temporary 5-year exemption for so-called “sensitive communities”, defined as areas
vulnerable to displacement pressures. HCD would be responsible for identifying “sensitive communities”
throughout the state, in consultation with local community-based organizations, using indicators such as
percentage of tenant households living at, or under, the poverty line relative to the region. For the Bay
Area, it is expected “Sensitive Communities” would be based on the Sensitive Communities identified as
part of CASA (see map attached as Exhibit D). Local governments with “sensitive communities” would be
allowed to optionally delay implementation of SB 50 in those areas, and instead pursue a community-led
planning process at the neighborhood level to develop zoning and other policies that encourage multi-
family housing development at a range of incomes, prevent displacement, and address other locally
identified priorities. Plans adopted under this option would be required to meet the same minimum overall
residential capacity and affordability standards laid out in SB 50. Municipalities would have until January
1, 2025 to exercise this option, or the standard provisions of SB 50 would come into effect.
Renter Protections
SB 50 would not apply on any property where there has been a rental tenant in the previous seven years,
or where a unit has been taken off the rental market via the Ellis Act for the previous fifteen years. The
exemption on properties that have had tenants in the previous seven years would apply even if the
previously tenant-occupied units are vacant or have been demolished at the time of application.
Interaction with local approval processes
As currently drafted, SB 50 does not change or affect a municipality’s established process for reviewing
and entitling housing projects. Locally adopted mandatory inclusionary housing requirements which are
higher than the minimum percentage in SB 50 would continue to apply, and any established local processes
for evaluating demolition permits (including any legislated limits to or prohibitions on demolitions) would
remain in effect. Locally adopted design standards (such as open space, setback and yard requirements,
and bulk limits) would remain enforceable, so long as the cumulative effect of such standards does not
reduce a proposed ‘equitable communities incentive’ project below specified minimum FARs. That said,
the higher zoned capacity SB50 would enable could increase the invocation of the Housing Accountability
Act (HAA) in lower-density parts of the city. (See later discussion in this memo of the HAA.)
Possible Regional and Statewide Effects
One of this department’s key concerns with SB 827 was that the relatively high standard for qualifying
transit service largely excluded parts of the state outside the core regions of large metropolitan areas. Here
in the Bay Area, for example, vast areas of the job- and amenity-rich Peninsula and South Bay were
excluded, outside of the ½ mile radius around Caltrain stations. While the Department agreed with the
bill’s intent that all municipalities needed to share in the responsibility to add badly needed housing, in
practice that bill appeared to target the cores of large cities with well-established transit systems like San
Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego while not addressing communities with large job
pools that have not built adequate housing.
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
7
SB 50’s addition of the “jobs rich” category could address that concern, and greatly expand the bill’s
applicability to communities across the state where future residents would have access to job opportunities
and other resources (see attached Exhibit E). Many of these communities have used exclusionary, low-
density zoning as a tool to block lower income households and communities of color from accessing those
resources. Though the “jobs rich” category is yet to be defined, cities like Sunnyvale and Cupertino in the
Bay Area and Santa Monica and Beverly Hills in the Los Angeles area would likely qualify as “jobs rich”
under SB 50. It is possible that cities like Mill Valley and Piedmont could also qualify, even though they do
not contain large areas of employment, by virtue of their proximity and access to employment centers
outside of their municipal boundaries as well as their high-performing public school districts. As noted in
this memo, local approval processes and demolition controls would still apply, but municipalities would
not be able to enforce strict exclusionary low-density zoning as a rationale for denying projects meeting SB
50 qualifications.
POSSIBLE EFFECTS IN SAN FRANCISCO
Analysis of SB 50’s potential effects on San Francisco are organized below by topic area and geography.
Almost all of San Francisco meets SB 50’s standards for “transit-rich”
Almost the entire city is within a quarter mile of what the bill defines as a “high-quality bus corridor”, or
within a quarter or half mile of a rail or ferry stop (see Exhibit B).
Rental unit exemption
Roughly 63% of San Francisco’s occupied housing units are occupied by renters, according to the 2017
American Community Survey. SB 50 would not apply on parcels containing these properties, removing a
significant number of the city's properties from eligibility. Renters occupy buildings of all sizes throughout
the city, from single family homes (in which roughly 14% of San Francisco’s renters live5) to large rent
controlled buildings. San Francisco does not currently have an established process for determining whether
a property is or has previously been tenant-occupied. Should SB 50 pass, the Department would need to
work with the Rent Board and other relevant agencies to determine a process for ensuring no tenant has
occupied a property in the previous seven years for projects requesting an ‘equitable communities
incentive’. This process would be particularly necessary in buildings not subject to rent control (e.g. most
single family homes), where records may be less readily available.
Sensitive Communities exemption
Pending the bill’s more detailed definition of “Sensitive Community”, it is possible that several
neighborhoods or parts of neighborhoods would be eligible for temporary delay to enable community
planning processes (see map on page 9). In those cases, the City would have the option to undertake those
new community planning processes or the provisions of SB50 would apply. In San Francisco, given that
past community planning efforts involving rezoning (including CEQA review and approval processes)
have taken several years to complete, the City and affected neighborhoods would have to decide the
appropriate path to take, given time and resource constraints.
5 San Francisco Housing Needs and Trends Report, page 6.
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
8
Many San Francisco Zoning Districts, particularly in recent Area Plans, already de-control density and have higher height limits than SB 50
In some ways SB 50 is similar to San Francisco’s recent rezoning activities in Area Plans, in that it proposes
to cluster density around high quality transit and regulate density through building form rather than a
strict numerical density limit. The Downtown, Eastern Neighborhoods, Market-Octavia and Central SoMa
Area Plans all increased housing capacity and raised height and density limits near high-capacity transit
hubs. The majority of areas San Francisco has rezoned in the last 15 years have had density controls
removed and now regulate residential density through height and bulk limits rather than as a ratio of units
to lot area. These areas also generally have height limits of 55 feet or higher, meaning the majority of parcels
in most Area Plans are zoned to higher capacity than SB 50 would allow; SB 50 is therefore not expected to
have a large effect on areas that have been rezoned in recent years (see map on page 9).
The impact within Area Plans would primarily limited to parcels with the lowest height limits (40/45 ft)
that are also within ¼ mile of a rail station. These parcels might be allowed one additional story of height.
Also within Area Plans, there are parcels that retain RH-1 and RH-2 designations, such as on Potrero Hill
and in pockets of the Mission, that would be affected by SB 50.
Likely to apply on vacant lots, commercial properties and smaller owner-occupied residential buildings
SB 50 would not apply on properties that have been occupied by a renter at any time in the previous 7
years, or that have been removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act in the previous 15 years.
Redevelopment of multi-family owner-occupied buildings, such as condos or TICs, though technically
possible, is very uncommon. SB50 would therefore be most likely to lead to development on vacant or
nonresidential properties zoned to allow residential development, and could be utilized on owner-
occupied single-family homes (and possibly smaller owner-occupied residential buildings if all owners
were to coordinate sale of the property) to either add units, subdivide the building or replace the structure.
In neighborhood commercial and medium density mixed-use districts outside of Area Plan areas, SB 50
would remove existing density limits for qualifying projects, but would likely result in new buildings that
are generally in the same character as surrounding buildings (maximum 4 or 5 stories, not including any
density bonus). Generally speaking, HOME-SF already allows this level of development in these areas. It
appears the intent of SB 50 is to not undermine a local density bonus program, but there are some concerns
as to whether the City would be able to continue to require projects requesting additional density or height
to use HOME-SF rather than SB 50, including complying with HOME-SF’s inclusionary rates (see later
discussion in this memo titled “Provisions of SB 50 that are unclear ”).
See map on following page (also provided as a higher-resolution attachment, Exhibit C) for a preliminary
estimate of parcels on which SB 50 would likely lead to a change in zoned capacity, should it pass. The map
below starts with areas of the city likely covered by SB 50 (based on proximity to transit service), and
removes parcels zoned to higher capacity (mostly in Area Plan areas) as well as parcels which do not allow
residential uses (PDR and P zones). Parcels thought to contain rental units are also removed, although a
lack of available data makes this layer incomplete. Sensitive Community Areas, as defined by CASA6, are
also highlighted as a proxy for areas of San Francisco that might meet SB 50’s Sensitive Communities
exemption.
6 https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Racial_Equity_Analysis_for_the_CASA_Compact.pdf
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
9
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
10
Greatest change expected in single-family and two-unit (RH-1 and RH-2) districts
The greatest changes possible under SB 50 would be in the city’s lowest density single-family and duplex
districts. As mentioned above, Area Plans and HOME-SF generally already allow equal or higher zoning
capacity than SB 50 would require, and the only residential districts not covered by either of those programs
are RH-1 and RH-2. Single-family and duplex buildings are more likely to be owner occupied and are thus
less likely to be exempted under SB 50’s exclusion for properties that have had tenants in the previous
seven years. The vast majority of these districts have 40-ft height limits (though RH-1 is limited to 35 ft in
height), so SB 50 would not typically raise height limits. The exception would be for RH-1 and RH-2 parcels
within ¼-mile of rail stations, where SB 50 could potentially enable 1 or 2 additional stories above the
existing height limit (i.e. raising the limit from 35 or 40 ft to 55 ft). The biggest change, however, would be
in the density allowed on qualifying RH-1 and RH-2 parcels. An RH-1 parcel within ¼-mile of a light rail
stop that currently allows one unit in a 35-foot-tall building could potentially, under SB 50, be developed
into a multi-unit 55-foot tall building (before any bonus offered by the state density bonus law).
There is little precedent in recent history of this level of upzoning on RH-1 and RH-2 parcels, so it is difficult
to predict how many qualifying parcels would be proposed for full redevelopment (i.e. demo/replacement)
or proposed to add units to existing structures through additions or subdivisions of existing buildings. In
2016, San Francisco passed legislation allowing ADUs in residential buildings citywide, and as of
November 2018, the Department has received applications for just over 1,500 units under the program. In
2017 and 2018, ADUs were added in 201 buildings, meaning the legislation led to changes in less than one
tenth of a percent of potentially eligible properties each year. SB 50 would generally allow greater densities
than the ADU program would, and with fewer restrictions, and is likely to spur a greater number of
additions to existing buildings as well as demo/replacements.
The following is an analysis of the zoning capacity SB 50 might enable on a typical lower density lot. Note
that all analysis below is preliminary, and does not take into account any bonus an SB 50 project might
request under the State Density Bonus Law (which would allow up to 35% more density).
Current Zoning:
Zoning
District
Typical
Lot
Size
Typical Rear
Yard
Requirement
Typical
Height
Limit
Maximum
Allowable
Building Envelope
Maximum
Allowable FAR
Maximum Allowable
Density
RH-1 2,500 25% 35 ft
(3 stories) 5,625 sq ft 2.25 2 units
RH-2 /
RH-3 2,500 45% 40 ft
(4 stories) 5,500 sq ft 2.2 3 or 4 units
On a typical 2,500 square foot lot, existing rear yard and height requirements theoretically enable buildings
of up to 5,625 sq ft (in RH-1 districts) and 5,500 sq ft (in RH-2 or RH-3 districts). In reality, existing buildings
are much smaller in scale, and Residential Design Guidelines emphasize compatibility with surrounding
context, limiting the size of new buildings or additions. It is important to note also that many existing RH-
1 and RH-2 lots are already developed to higher densities than their zoning would allow today. Staff
estimates almost a third of San Francisco’s existing residential units are located on properties that are
existing non-conforming (i.e. above the allowable density on the parcel).
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
11
Under SB 50 - Within ¼ mile of high-quality bus or in a jobs rich area (pink areas on attached map):
Zoning
District
Typical
Lot
Size
Typical Rear
Yard
Requirement
Typical
Height
Limit
Maximum
Allowable
Building Envelope
Maximum
Allowable FAR
Estimated Allowable
Base Density*
RH-1 2,500 25% 35 ft
(3 stories) 5,625 sq ft 2.25 6 units
RH-2 /
RH-3 2,500 45% 40 ft
(4 stories) 5,500 sq ft 2.2 6 units
Under SB 50, within a quarter mile of a high-quality bus line or in a jobs rich area, density controls would
be released, but existing height and setback requirements would remain enforceable. Simply releasing the
density controls would potentially enable 6 unit buildings (assuming 900-1,000 gross square foot units) on
a typical 2,500 sq ft RH-1, RH-2 or RH-3 parcel.
Under SB 50 – Within ½ mile of rail or ferry station (yellow areas on attached map):
Zoning
District
Typical
Lot
Size
Typical
Rear Yard
Requirement
SB 50
Height
Limit
Maximum
Allowable
Building Envelope
Allowable FAR
(with SB 50
requirements)
Estimated Allowable
Base Density
RH-1 2,500 25% 45 ft
(4 stories) 7,500 sq ft 3 8 units
RH-2 /
RH-3 2,500 45% 45 ft
(4 stories) 6,250 sq ft 2.5 6 units
Within ½ mile of a rail or ferry station, SB 50 would release density limits AND set height and FAR
minimums. In RH-1 districts (currently mostly limited to 35 feet in height), the height limit would be raised
one story, potentially allowing up to an 8 unit building on a typical lot. In RH-2 and RH-3 districts with 40
ft existing height limits, the height limit would be raised by 5 feet, but generally would stay the same at
four stories. However, the RH-2/RH-3 districts’ high 45% rear-yard requirement would likely become
unenforceable, as it would reduce the maximum allowable FAR below 2.5. In order to meet SB 50’s
minimum requirements, the City would only be able to enforce a lesser rear yard requirement, or allow the
project to expand in other ways to meet the minimum 2.5 FAR. In reality, many RH-2 and RH-3 parcels are
built with rear yards smaller than 45% of the depth of the lot, and in practice new buildings and building
expansions in those districts are allowed a rear yard based on the average of the two neighboring buildings.
Under SB 50 – Within ¼ mile of rail or ferry station (orange areas on attached map):
Zoning
District
Typical
Lot
Size
Typical
Rear Yard
Requirement
SB 50
Height
Limit
Maximum
Allowable
Building Envelope
Allowable FAR
(with SB 50
requirements)
Estimated Allowable
Base Density
RH-1 2,500 25% 55 ft
(5 stories) 9,375 sq ft 3.75 9 units
RH-2 /
RH-3 2,500 45% 55 ft
(5 stories) 8,125 sq ft 3.25 8 units
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
12
Within ¼ mile of a rail or ferry station, SB 50 would release density limits AND set height and FAR
minimums. In RH-1 districts (currently mostly limited to 35 feet in height), the height limit would be raised
two stories, potentially allowing up to a 9 unit building on a typical lot. In RH-2 and RH-3 districts with 40
ft existing height limits, the height limit would be raised by one story. Again the RH-2/RH-3 districts’ 45%
rear-yard requirement would likely become unenforceable, as it would reduce the maximum allowable
FAR below 3.25. In order to meet SB 50’s minimum requirements, the City would only be able to enforce a
lesser rear yard requirement or allow the project to expand in other ways to meet the minimum 3.25 FAR.
In reality, many RH-2 and RH-3 parcels are built with rear yards smaller than 45% of the depth of the lot,
and in practice new buildings and building expansions in those districts are allowed a rear yard based on
the average of the two neighboring buildings.
SB 50 likely to increase housing production, including on-site affordable units
San Francisco’s inclusionary housing ordinance is only triggered on projects containing 10 or more units.
On-site affordable units are rarely produced in the city’s lower density zoning districts - such as RH-1, RH-
2, and RH-3 – because existing density controls do not allow projects meeting the size threshold to trigger
inclusionary requirements. Should it pass, SB 50 would likely have the effect of creating more affordable
housing in these districts by allowing for denser development, increasing the number of potential sites that
could accommodate projects with more than 9 units.
Even in higher density districts which are still density-controlled (e.g. NC, RM, RC districts), SB 50 would
generally offer greater development capacity than current zoning, as well as three incentives and
concessions. By setting a new, higher base density in qualifying areas (and allowing a State Density Bonus
on top of the ‘equitable communities incentive’), SB 50 is likely to result in significantly greater housing
production across all density controlled districts, and thus would also produce more affordable housing
through the on-site inclusionary requirement.
Interaction with the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) is a state law that has been in effect since 1982. The general purpose
of the law is to require cities to approve code complying housing projects, and generally prevent them from
rejecting such projects for arbitrary reasons. Recent concerns have been raised that the HAA would prohibit
localities from rejecting a code-compliant project that would involve demolition of an existing residential
unit. A recent court case (SFBARF vs. City of Berkeley 2017) involved a situation where a developer
proposed demolishing an existing single family home and constructing three code-complying units on the
parcel. Berkeley’s Zoning Adjustments Board initially approved the project, but on appeal the Berkeley
City Council reversed that decision. SFBARF sued the city, arguing the denial was a violation of the HAA,
and a court agreed and required the City Council to reconsider the project. The City Council then voted to
approve the project, but deny the demolition permit on the existing single family home, arguing that the
HAA did not require them to approve the demolition. SFBARF sued the city again, arguing the HAA did
require the city to approve any discretionary permits necessary to enable the code complying project to
move forward. Additionally, the appellants argued that Berkeley did not apply objective standards when
disapproving the demolition permit, and instead made the decision based on subjective criteria. A court
agreed again, and the Berkeley City Council eventually approved the demolition and new construction
permits on the code complying project in September 2017.7
7 https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/09/08/long-legal-dispute-berkeley-approves-application-build-3-homes-haskell-street
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
13
After this case, the HAA itself was amended to clarify that “disapprove a housing development project”
includes any instance in which a local agency votes on an application and the application is disapproved,
including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.
Additionally, one of the deciding factors in the court case appears to have been that Berkeley did not have
clear, objective standards for approving or denying a demolition permit, and acted in a subjective manner
when denying the demolition permit.
SB 50 would not, on its own, broaden the HAA, but it could increase the number of cases where HAA may
become applicable to a proposed development project. Presently, demolitions or alterations on lower
density properties in lower density zoning districts do not typically propose new buildings at higher
densities, because of strict density limits imposed by current zoning. Denying demolitions or alterations in
cases like these do not conflict with the HAA because they are not denying a development project that
would increase density to code-complying levels. By increasing zoning capacity on parcels that previously
only allowed 1 or 2 units, SB 50 is likely to result in a rise in applications to make additions to existing
owner occupied properties to add units, or to demolish the existing building entirely and redevelop the
property at higher density. In cases like this, the HAA could limit the Commission’s ability to reject the
alteration or demolition of the existing building, unless it did so by applying clear, objective standards.
Interaction with proposed Board File 181216 (Peskin)
As noted above, SB 50 makes no changes to local approval processes, and in fact requires qualifying projects
to comply with local approval processes, including any controls on demolition of buildings. Supervisor
Peskin has proposed an ordinance (Board File 181216) which would introduce additional controls on
demolition, merger or conversion of existing residential units by adding findings to the required Sec. 317
Conditional Use Authorization criteria as follows (with expected interaction with SB 50 in right-hand
column):
BF 181216 Proposed CU Criteria SB 50 Application
Whether any units in the building have been
occupied by a tenant in the previous five years
SB 50 does not apply on any property containing a
unit that has been occupied by a tenant in the
previous seven years
Whether the replacement structure “conforms to
the architectural character of the neighborhood in
height, scale, form, materials and details.”
SB 50 would likely enable replacement structures
that are larger in height and scale than surrounding
buildings. Within ½ mile of rail transit, SB 50 would
likely prohibit the City from enforcing these criteria
if they would result in a project that is below the
minimum FAR standards laid out in the bill.
Whether the replacement structure exceeds the
average FAR of other buildings within 300 feet of
the building site within the same zoning district
Whether the replacement structure maximizes
allowable density on the lot
In lower density districts, SB 50 would set a new,
higher maximum density on many parcels, in many
cases higher than surrounding existing buildings.
In such cases, this criterion would seem to
encourage a replacement project to maximize
density, at the same time that other proposed
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
14
criteria prioritize restricting a replacement project’s
size and density.
Though the proposed Conditional Use Authorization criteria in BF 181216 would add greater scrutiny to
demolitions of existing residential units, they do not appear to qualify as objective standards. Planning
Code Section 303, which lays out procedures and criteria for Conditional Use Authorizations, is inherently
subjective in that it requires Planning Commission to use its discretion to determine whether a project is
“necessary or desirable and compatible with” the neighborhood... If both Board File 181216 and SB 50 were
to pass in their current forms, it is unlikely that BF 181216’s proposed CU criteria - defined in Section 317 -
would strengthen the Planning Commission’s ability to use their discretion to deny demolition permits to
code complying SB 50 projects which involve demolition of an existing residential unit(s).
PROVISIONS OF SB 50 THAT ARE UNCLEAR
Interaction with San Francisco’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
As mentioned earlier in this case report, it appears the intent of SB 50 is for projects above a certain size
threshold to include on-site affordable units in order to qualify. SB 50 would require projects to meet one
of two on-site inclusionary requirements in order to qualify for an ‘equitable communities incentive”.
1) In cities with inclusionary ordinances that require on-site provision of affordable units, a project
would have to comply with that ordinance
2) In cities without such an ordinance, a project would have to provide a minimum percentage of
units on-site affordable to very low, low or moderate-income households, if the project is larger
than a certain size. The percentage of affordable units required and the project size threshold for
requiring on-site has not yet been specified in the bill, though there is reference to the affordability
requirements in the State Density Bonus Law. Should the bill adopt requirements mirroring the
percentage of units required to qualify for a full 35% bonus under the State Density Bonus Law,
the following minimum on-site requirements might apply on projects above a certain size:
a. 11% of units affordable to Very Low Income Households (30 to 50% AMI) OR;
b. 20% of units affordable to Low Income Households (50 to 80% AMI)
San Francisco’s inclusionary ordinance does not require on-site provision of units, instead requiring
payment of a fee, and giving project sponsors the option to satisfy this requirement by providing affordable
units on-site. It is unclear whether San Francisco’s ordinance would qualify under option #1 above.
Regardless of which SB 50 inclusionary requirement San Francisco ends up falling under, SB 50 projects of
9 units or more in the city would still be subject to our inclusionary ordinance, and would be required to
meet our local affordability requirements as well as any affordability requirements of SB 50.
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
15
Interaction with State Density Bonus Law
SB 50 specifies that project sponsors would be allowed to request the State Density Bonus Law on top of
any ‘equitable communities incentive’ offered under SB 50. This would mean any density and height above
existing local zoning offered by SB 50 would be considered the new “base” project, on which a project
sponsor would be able to request up to 35% additional density. On its own, SB 50 would offer qualifying
projects three incentives and/or concessions. It appears that projects requesting both an ‘equitable
communities incentive’ and a State Density Bonus would be able to request incentives and/or concessions
under both programs (for a total of up to six incentives or concessions). The State Density Bonus Law also
offers qualifying projects an unlimited number of waivers from development standards, in order to allow
a project to accommodate the increased density awarded under the law. Incentives, concessions and
waivers are very loosely defined in the State Density Bonus Law, and could take many different forms.
Allowing a project sponsor to request a State Density Bonus on top of an ‘equitable communities incentive’
introduces a great deal of uncertainty as to the scale and form of buildings which might be proposed under
the two laws.
Interaction with HOME-SF
As mentioned above, most Area Plans allow higher heights and density than SB 50 allows, so the bill would
mostly represent no change from the current situation in Area Plan areas. Outside of Area Plans, in
neighborhood commercial (NC), residential mixed (RM) and other zoning districts with density controls,
HOME-SF – adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2017 - offers a local density bonus option for developers
who include 20-30% of units on-site as affordable units. The bonus offered by HOME-SF is very similar to
SB 50. Like SB 50, HOME-SF offers relief from density controls as well as extra height. Though the minimum
percentage of on-site inclusionary SB 50 would require is not yet defined, it is likely HOME-SF would
require a higher percentage of affordable units on-site than SB 50. Further, HOME-SF includes stricter
eligibility criteria and is less flexible than SB 50.
Staff’s previous case report on SB 827 raised the concern that that bill might undermine HOME-SF or other
local density bonus programs by offering the same or similar incentives at a lower inclusionary percentage.
The following paragraph of SB 50 could potentially interpreted as guarding against that: “the equitable
communities incentive shall not be used to undermine the economic feasibility of delivering low-income housing under
the state density bonus program or a local implementation of the state density bonus program, or any locally adopted
program that puts conditions on new development applications on the basis of receiving a zone change or general plan
amendment in exchange for benefits such as increased affordable housing”. However, as currently drafted the
section is not clear enough to definitively determine whether San Francisco would still be able to enforce
HOME-SF’s inclusionary requirements on parcels where both HOME-SF and SB 50 apply.
Whether SB 50 is determined to supersede HOME-SF or not, however, HOME-SF does not allow demolition
of any existing units regardless of tenancy and requires projects to consist entirely of new construction (no
additions to existing buildings), while SB 50 does not prohibit demolition of owner-occupied units or
additions to existing buildings. On these properties, SB 50 could potentially be the only bonus available,
and would thus apply.
Interaction between changes in transit service, zoning standards, and CEQA review
SB 50 would tie zoning standards to transit service and infrastructure, so changes to transit would
necessarily lead in many cases to significant upzoning. As currently drafted, the bill seems to suggest that
changes to transit service that bring a line or station up to SB 50’s frequency standards would immediately
trigger eligibility for the ‘equitable communities incentive’ within the qualifying radius of the line. This
could mean that zoning could fluctuate substantially over time as service levels increase or decrease due
to transit budgets, ridership, travel patterns, or agency service strategy. It could also create an additional
Memo to the Planning Commission
Hearing Date: March 14, 2019 Senate Bill 50 (2019)
16
reason for jurisdictions or neighborhoods to suspend already planned transit service enhancements or
avoid planning for increased transit service altogether, if they oppose the increased density that would
come with the transit service.
SB 50 does not contain any CEQA exemptions, so it is possible that transit projects, or even modest changes
in transit service, could be forced to conduct CEQA analysis of the land use effects triggered by the service
change or infrastructure investment. This could therefore possibly require environmental analyses for
transit projects that otherwise involve no direct land use or zoning proposals (and therefore would not
otherwise be typically required to study land use effects).
REQUIRED COMMISSION ACTION
No official Commission action is required, as this is an informational item. Staff will continue to monitor
SB 50 and other relevant state bills as they move through the legislative process, and will provide analysis
and recommendations as necessary.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Senate Bill 50
Exhibit B: Map of Transit Rich Areas in San Francisco (Under SB 50 - March 2019)
Exhibit C: Map of How SB 50 might apply in San Francisco (March 2019)
Exhibit D: Map of Regional Transit Access Areas (including Sensitive Community Areas)
Exhibit E: Map of Regional Resource Areas
Exhibit F: Public Comment Received
Exhibit A: Senate Bill 50
3/6/2019 Bill Text - SB-50 Planning and zoning: housing development: equitable communities incentive.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50 1/5
SHARE THIS:Date Published: 12/03/2018 09:00 PM
SB-50 Planning and zoning: housing development: equitable communities incentive.(2019-2020)
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2019–2020 REGULAR SESSION
SENATE BILL No. 50
Introduced by Senator Wiener
(Coauthors: Senators Caballero, Hueso, Moorlach, and Skinner)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Burke, Kalra, Kiley, Low, Robert Rivas, Ting, and Wicks)
December 03, 2018
An act to add Chapter 4.35 (commencing with Section 65918.50) to Division 1 of Title 7 of the
Government Code, relating to housing.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 50, as introduced, Wiener. Planning and zoning: housing development: equitable communities incentive.
Existing law, known as the Density Bonus Law, requires, when an applicant proposes a housing development
within the jurisdiction of a local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with
a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or for the
donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, agrees to construct a specified
percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents.
This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to grant upon request an equitable communities
incentive when a development proponent seeks and agrees to construct a residential development, as defined,
that satisfies specified criteria, including, among other things, that the residential development is either a job-
rich housing project or a transit-rich housing project, as those terms are defined; the site does not contain, or
has not contained, housing occupied by tenants or accommodations withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance
with specified law within specified time periods; and the residential development complies with specified
additional requirements under existing law. The bill would require that a residential development eligible for an
equitable communities incentive receive waivers from maximum controls on density and automobile parking
requirements greater than 0.5 parking spots per unit, up to 3 additional incentives or concessions under the
Density Bonus Law, and specified additional waivers if the residential development is located within a 1/2-mile or
1/4-mile radius of a major transit stop, as defined. The bill would authorize a local government to modify or
Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites
3/6/2019 Bill Text - SB-50 Planning and zoning: housing development: equitable communities incentive.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50 2/5
expand the terms of an equitable communities incentive, provided that the equitable communities incentive is
consistent with these provisions.
The bill would include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern
rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The bill would also
declare the intent of the Legislature to delay implementation of this bill in sensitive communities, as defined,
until July 1, 2020, as provided.
By adding to the duties of local planning officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 4.35 (commencing with Section 65918.50) is added to Division 1 of Title 7 of the
Government Code, to read:
CHAPTER 4.35. Equitable Communities Incentives
65918.50. For purposes of this chapter:
(a) “Affordable” means available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and
families of extremely low, very low, low, or moderate incomes, as specified in context, and subject to a recorded
affordability restriction for at least 55 years.
(b) “Development proponent” means an applicant who submits an application for an equitable communities
incentive pursuant to this chapter.
(c) “Eligible applicant” means a development proponent who receives an equitable communities incentive.
(d) “FAR” means floor area ratio.
(e) “High-quality bus corridor” means a corridor with fixed route bus service that meets all of the following
criteria:
(1) It has average service intervals of no more than 15 minutes during the three peak hours between 6 a.m. to
10 a.m., inclusive, and the three peak hours between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m., inclusive, on Monday through Friday.
(2) It has average service intervals of no more than 20 minutes during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., inclusive,
on Monday through Friday.
(3) It has average intervals of no more than 30 minutes during the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., inclusive, on
Saturday and Sunday.
(f) “Job-rich housing project” means a residential development within an area identified by the Department of
Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning and Research, based on indicators such as
proximity to jobs, high area median income relative to the relevant region, and high-quality public schools, as an
area of high opportunity close to jobs. A residential development shall be deemed to be within an area
designated as job-rich if both of the following apply:
(1) All parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area outside of the job-rich area.
(2) No more than 10 percent of residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, of the development are outside
of the job-rich area.
(g) “Local government” means a city, including a charter city, a county, or a city and county.
3/6/2019 Bill Text - SB-50 Planning and zoning: housing development: equitable communities incentive.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50 3/5
(h) “Major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station or a ferry terminal served by
either bus or rail transit service.
(i) “Residential development” means a project with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development
designated for residential use.
(j) “Sensitive community” means an area identified by the Department of Housing and Community Development,
in consultation with local community-based organizations in each region, as an area vulnerable to displacement
pressures, based on indicators such as percentage of tenant households living at, or under, the poverty line
relative to the region.
(k) “Tenant” means a person residing in any of the following:
(1) Residential real property rented by the person under a long-term lease.
(2) A single-room occupancy unit.
(3) An accessory dwelling unit that is not subject to, or does not have a valid permit in accordance with, an
ordinance adopted by a local agency pursuant to Section 65852.22.
(4) A residential motel.
(5) Any other type of residential property that is not owned by the person or a member of the person’s
household, for which the person or a member of the person’s household provides payments on a regular
schedule in exchange for the right to occupy the residential property.
(l) “Transit-rich housing project” means a residential development the parcels of which are all within a one-half
mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quality bus corridor. A project
shall be deemed to be within a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a stop
on a high-quality bus corridor if both of the following apply:
(1) All parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area outside of a one-half mile radius of
a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quality bus corridor.
(2) No more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, of the project are outside of
a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quality bus
corridor.
65918.51. (a) A local government shall, upon request of a development proponent, grant an equitable
communities incentive, as specified in Section 65918.53, when the development proponent seeks and agrees to
construct a residential development that satisfies the requirements specified in Section 65918.52.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that, absent exceptional circumstances, actions taken by a local legislative
body that increase residential density not undermine the equitable communities incentive program established
by this chapter.
65918.52. In order to be eligible for an equitable communities incentive pursuant to this chapter, a residential
development shall meet all of the following criteria:
(a) The residential development is either a job-rich housing project or transit-rich housing project.
(b) The residential development is located on a site that, at the time of application, is zoned to allow housing as
an underlying use in the zone, including, but not limited to, a residential, mixed-use, or commercial zone, as
defined and allowed by the local government.
(c) (1) If the local government has adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance requiring that the development
include a certain number of units affordable to households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for
moderate-income, lower income, very low income, or extremely low income specified in Sections 50079.5,
50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code, and that ordinance requires that a new development
include levels of affordable housing in excess of the requirements specified in paragraph (2), the residential
development complies with that ordinance.
3/6/2019 Bill Text - SB-50 Planning and zoning: housing development: equitable communities incentive.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50 4/5
(2) If the local government has not adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance, as described in paragraph (1),
and the residential development includes ____ or more residential units, the residential development includes
onsite affordable housing for households with incomes that do not exceed the limits for extremely low income,
very low income, and low income specified in Sections 50093, 50105, and 50106 of the Health and Safety Code.
It is the intent of the Legislature to require that any development of ____ or more residential units receiving an
equitable communities incentive pursuant to this chapter include housing affordable to low, very low or
extremely low income households, which, for projects with low or very low income units, are no less than the
number of onsite units affordable to low or very low income households that would be required pursuant to
subdivision (f) of Section 65915 for a development receiving a density bonus of 35 percent.
(d) The site does not contain, or has not contained, either of the following:
(1) Housing occupied by tenants within the seven years preceding the date of the application, including housing
that has been demolished or that tenants have vacated prior to the application for a development permit.
(2) A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real property has exercised his or her rights under
Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or
lease within 15 years prior to the date that the development proponent submits an application pursuant to this
chapter.
(e) The residential development complies with all applicable labor, construction employment, and wage
standards otherwise required by law and any other generally applicable requirement regarding the approval of a
development project, including, but not limited to, the local government’s conditional use or other discretionary
permit approval process, the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000)
of the Public Resources Code), or a streamlined approval process that includes labor protections.
(f) The residential development complies with all other relevant standards, requirements, and prohibitions
imposed by the local government regarding architectural design, restrictions on or oversight of demolition,
impact fees, and community benefits agreements.
(g) The equitable communities incentive shall not be used to undermine the economic feasibility of delivering
low-income housing under the state density bonus program or a local implementation of the state density bonus
program, or any locally adopted program that puts conditions on new development applications on the basis of
receiving a zone change or general plan amendment in exchange for benefits such as increased affordable
housing, local hire, or payment of prevailing wages.
65918.53. (a) A residential development that meets the criteria specified in Section 65918.52 shall receive, upon
request, an equitable communities incentive as follows:
(1) Any eligible applicant shall receive the following:
(A) A waiver from maximum controls on density.
(B) A waiver from maximum automobile parking requirements greater than 0.5 automobile parking spots per
unit.
(C) Up to three incentives and concessions pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 65915.
(2) An eligible applicant proposing a residential development that is located within a one-half mile radius, but
outside a one-quarter mile radius, of a major transit stop and includes no less than ____ percent affordable
housing units shall receive, in addition to the incentives specified in paragraph (1), waivers from all of the
following:
(A) Maximum height requirements less than 45 feet.
(B) Maximum FAR requirements less than 2.5.
(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), any maximum automobile parking requirement.
(3) An eligible applicant proposing a residential development that is located within a one-quarter mile radius of a
major transit and includes no less than ____ percent affordable housing units shall receive, in addition to the
3/6/2019 Bill Text - SB-50 Planning and zoning: housing development: equitable communities incentive.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50 5/5
incentives specified in paragraph (1), waivers from all of the following:
(A) Maximum height requirements less than 55 feet.
(B) Maximum FAR requirements less than 3.25.
(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), any maximum automobile parking requirement.
(4) Notwithstanding any other law, for purposes of calculating any additional incentive or concession in
accordance with Section 65915, the number of units in the residential development after applying the equitable
communities incentive received pursuant to this chapter shall be used as the base density for calculating the
incentive or concession under that section.
(5) An eligible applicant proposing a project that meets all of the requirements under Section 65913.4 may
submit an application for streamlined, ministerial approval in accordance with that section.
(b) The local government may modify or expand the terms of an equitable communities incentive provided
pursuant to this chapter, provided that the equitable communities incentive is consistent with, and meets the
minimum standards specified in, this chapter.
65918.54. The Legislature finds and declares that this chapter addresses a matter of statewide concern rather
than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this
chapter applies to all cities, including charter cities.
65918.55. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature that implementation of this chapter be delayed in sensitive
communities until July 1, 2020.
(b) It is further the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that does all of the following:
(1) Between January 1, 2020, and ____, allows a local government, in lieu of the requirements of this chapter,
to opt for a community-led planning process aimed toward increasing residential density and multifamily housing
choices near transit stops.
(2) Encourages sensitive communities to opt for a community-led planning process at the neighborhood level to
develop zoning and other policies that encourage multifamily housing development at a range of income levels to
meet unmet needs, protect vulnerable residents from displacement, and address other locally identified
priorities.
(3) Sets minimum performance standards for community plans, such as minimum overall residential
development capacity and the minimum affordability standards set forth in this chapter.
(4) Automatically applies the provisions of this chapter on January 1, 2025, to sensitive communities that do not
have adopted community plans that meet the minimum standards described in paragraph (3), whether those
plans were adopted prior to or after enactment of this chapter.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or
assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of
Section 17556 of the Government Code.
Exhibit B: Map of Transit Rich Areas in San Francisco
(Under SB 50 - March 2019)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Transit Rich Areas of San Francisco (Under SB 50 - March 2019)
!Heavy Rail and Muni Metro subway stations
Muni routes meeting SB 50 frequency thresholds
Parks and Open Space
1/4 mile from rail or ferry station
1/2 mile from rail or ferry station
1/4 mile from bus meeting SB 50 frequency thresholds
Exhibit C: Map of How SB 50 might apply in San
Francisco (March 2019)
Where SB 50 might apply in San Francisco (March 2019)
1/4 mile from rail or ferry station
1/2 mile from rail or ferry station
1/4 mile from bus meeting SB 50 frequency thresholds
Areas where SB 50 would potentially not apply, or where implementation could be delayed
Zones that don't allow housing and areas zoned to higher standards than SB 50
Parcels containing rental units (estimate)
Sensitive Communities (CASA)
Notes:Data on existing rental units is an estimate, based on Assessor's Office records.
SB 50 would not apply on any property where there was a renter in the 7 years previous to application; the City does not maintan records on tenancy or occupancy.
Exhibit D: Map of Regional Transit Access Areas
(including Sensitive Community Areas)
Exhibit E: Map of Regional Resource Areas
Exhibit F: Public Comment Received
February 28, 2019
President Melgar, Vice-President Koppel & Commissioners
San Francisco Planning Commission
1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103
Subject: Senate Bill 50 (“SB-50”) <Wiener>
“Planning & Zoning: Housing Development: Equitable Communities Incentive”
The Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods (CSFN) opposes Senate Bill 50 (“SB-50”) <Wiener>.
Concerns include the following:
1. SB-50 up-zones all parcels in San Francisco
2. SB-50 will result in the loss of residential areas
3. SB-50 will result in developers making zoning decisions (deregulates local zoning)
4. SB-50 does *not* create affordability:
a. No “trickle-down” effect (Less housing will be built due costs for labor, land, materials, e.g.)
b. No “fee-out” for affordable housing
(Process creates entitlements to raise property values without certainty of buildings
getting built.)
CSFN’s understanding is that a public hearing before the Planning Commission would occur on SB-
50. Please advise when as SB-50 is on the fast track in Sacramento.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
/s
Rose Hillson
Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee
As authorized by CSFN General Assembly
Cc: Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator; John Rahaim, Director of Planning; Jonas P. Ionin,
Director of Commission Affairs; Commission Affairs; Board of Supervisors; Mayor Breed
3/5/2019 Fight over CASA: Some cities push back against plan to overhaul Bay Area housing market – East Bay Times
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/03/04/fight-over-casa-some-cities-push-back-against-plan-to-overhaul-bay-area-housing-market/?utm_…1/5
BREAKING NEWSBREAKING NEWSBREAKING NEWS Attorney General Becerra: No charges in police killing of Stephon ClarkAttorney General Becerra: No charges in police killing of Stephon ClarkAttorney General Becerra: No charges in police killing of Stephon Clark
BusinessBusinessBusinessReal EstateReal EstateReal Estate
Fight over CASA: Some cities push backFight over CASA: Some cities push backFight over CASA: Some cities push back
against plan to overhaul Bay Areaagainst plan to overhaul Bay Areaagainst plan to overhaul Bay Area
housing markethousing markethousing market
Massive housing x riles some city of cialsMassive housing x riles some city of cialsMassive housing x riles some city of cials
Demolition of a parking structure at the Vallco Shopping Mall began onDemolition of a parking structure at the Vallco Shopping Mall began onDemolition of a parking structure at the Vallco Shopping Mall began onThursday, Oct.11, 2018, after an hour-long press conference celebrating theThursday, Oct.11, 2018, after an hour-long press conference celebrating theThursday, Oct.11, 2018, after an hour-long press conference celebrating themilestone in Cupertino, Calif. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)milestone in Cupertino, Calif. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)milestone in Cupertino, Calif. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)
By By By MARISA KENDALLMARISA KENDALLMARISA KENDALL | | | mkendall@bayareanewsgroup.commkendall@bayareanewsgroup.commkendall@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group | Bay Area News Group | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: PUBLISHED: PUBLISHED: March 4, 2019 at 6:00 amMarch 4, 2019 at 6:00 amMarch 4, 2019 at 6:00 am | UPDATED: | UPDATED: | UPDATED: March 5, 2019 at 3:52 amMarch 5, 2019 at 3:52 amMarch 5, 2019 at 3:52 am
3/5/2019 Fight over CASA: Some cities push back against plan to overhaul Bay Area housing market – East Bay Times
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/03/04/fight-over-casa-some-cities-push-back-against-plan-to-overhaul-bay-area-housing-market/?utm_…2/5
From Cupertino to Pleasanton, small cities around the Bay Area are challenging a massiveFrom Cupertino to Pleasanton, small cities around the Bay Area are challenging a massiveFrom Cupertino to Pleasanton, small cities around the Bay Area are challenging a massive
regional plan to x the housing crisis, worried they will lose control over what gets builtregional plan to x the housing crisis, worried they will lose control over what gets builtregional plan to x the housing crisis, worried they will lose control over what gets built
within their borders and be forced to pay for solutions they don’t want.within their borders and be forced to pay for solutions they don’t want.within their borders and be forced to pay for solutions they don’t want.
Of cials are gearing up for what promises to be a long and contentious battle over theOf cials are gearing up for what promises to be a long and contentious battle over theOf cials are gearing up for what promises to be a long and contentious battle over the
“““CASA CompactCASA CompactCASA Compact” ” ” — a set of 10 emergency housing policies that— a set of 10 emergency housing policies that— a set of 10 emergency housing policies that could could could force Bay Areaforce Bay Areaforce Bay Area
cities to impose rent controlcities to impose rent controlcities to impose rent control,,, allow taller buildings, welcome in-law units and pay into a allow taller buildings, welcome in-law units and pay into a allow taller buildings, welcome in-law units and pay into a
regional pot to fund those changes. The plan was penned by a group of power brokers knownregional pot to fund those changes. The plan was penned by a group of power brokers knownregional pot to fund those changes. The plan was penned by a group of power brokers known
as “The Committee to House the Bay Area,” which includes elected of cials from theas “The Committee to House the Bay Area,” which includes elected of cials from theas “The Committee to House the Bay Area,” which includes elected of cials from the
region’s largest cities, transportation agencies, housing developers, local tech companiesregion’s largest cities, transportation agencies, housing developers, local tech companiesregion’s largest cities, transportation agencies, housing developers, local tech companies
and others. The group was pulled together by the Association of Bay Area Governments andand others. The group was pulled together by the Association of Bay Area Governments andand others. The group was pulled together by the Association of Bay Area Governments and
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
So far, Bay Area legislators have introduced 13 bills to implement the CASA policies. ButSo far, Bay Area legislators have introduced 13 bills to implement the CASA policies. ButSo far, Bay Area legislators have introduced 13 bills to implement the CASA policies. But
of cials in many smaller Bay Area cities say they weren’t invited to the table, and theirof cials in many smaller Bay Area cities say they weren’t invited to the table, and theirof cials in many smaller Bay Area cities say they weren’t invited to the table, and their
interests weren’t taken into account.interests weren’t taken into account.interests weren’t taken into account.
“There are some in some areas that just want to say, ‘no, this is off the table. We’re not“There are some in some areas that just want to say, ‘no, this is off the table. We’re not“There are some in some areas that just want to say, ‘no, this is off the table. We’re not
doing this,’” said Campbell City Councilmember and former mayor Paul Resnikoff.doing this,’” said Campbell City Councilmember and former mayor Paul Resnikoff.doing this,’” said Campbell City Councilmember and former mayor Paul Resnikoff.
ADVERTISINGADVERTISINGADVERTISING
As the Bay Area grapples with a housing shortage that has driven the cost of buying andAs the Bay Area grapples with a housing shortage that has driven the cost of buying andAs the Bay Area grapples with a housing shortage that has driven the cost of buying and
renting to astronomical heights, the looming CASA battle highlights an ongoing powerrenting to astronomical heights, the looming CASA battle highlights an ongoing powerrenting to astronomical heights, the looming CASA battle highlights an ongoing power
struggle. Local of cials are ghting to keep control of development within their borders,struggle. Local of cials are ghting to keep control of development within their borders,struggle. Local of cials are ghting to keep control of development within their borders,
while legislators try to force them to do what many of the smaller cities have not: build morewhile legislators try to force them to do what many of the smaller cities have not: build morewhile legislators try to force them to do what many of the smaller cities have not: build more
homes.homes.homes.
3/5/2019 Fight over CASA: Some cities push back against plan to overhaul Bay Area housing market – East Bay Times
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/03/04/fight-over-casa-some-cities-push-back-against-plan-to-overhaul-bay-area-housing-market/?utm_…3/5
“The status quo isn’t working,” said Leslye Corsiglia, a CASA co-chair and executive director“The status quo isn’t working,” said Leslye Corsiglia, a CASA co-chair and executive director“The status quo isn’t working,” said Leslye Corsiglia, a CASA co-chair and executive director
of affordable housing advocacy organization SV@Home. “We’ve been managing our housingof affordable housing advocacy organization SV@Home. “We’ve been managing our housingof affordable housing advocacy organization SV@Home. “We’ve been managing our housing
problem on a city-by-city basis, and we’ve got some cities that are doing everything thatproblem on a city-by-city basis, and we’ve got some cities that are doing everything thatproblem on a city-by-city basis, and we’ve got some cities that are doing everything that
they can given the resources available, and we’ve got some cities that aren’t.”they can given the resources available, and we’ve got some cities that aren’t.”they can given the resources available, and we’ve got some cities that aren’t.”
The CASA compact proposes a 15-year rent cap throughout the Bay Area, which wouldThe CASA compact proposes a 15-year rent cap throughout the Bay Area, which wouldThe CASA compact proposes a 15-year rent cap throughout the Bay Area, which would
prevent landlords from raising prices more than 5 percent a year, on top of increases forprevent landlords from raising prices more than 5 percent a year, on top of increases forprevent landlords from raising prices more than 5 percent a year, on top of increases for
in ation. The compact also calls for a Bay Area-wide just cause eviction policy, which wouldin ation. The compact also calls for a Bay Area-wide just cause eviction policy, which wouldin ation. The compact also calls for a Bay Area-wide just cause eviction policy, which would
prevent landlords from evicting tenants except for certain approved reasons. And it calls forprevent landlords from evicting tenants except for certain approved reasons. And it calls forprevent landlords from evicting tenants except for certain approved reasons. And it calls for
new zoning policies that would allow for taller buildings near transit stops.new zoning policies that would allow for taller buildings near transit stops.new zoning policies that would allow for taller buildings near transit stops.
The MTC endorsed the plan in December, and ABAG gave it a thumbs-up in January. TheThe MTC endorsed the plan in December, and ABAG gave it a thumbs-up in January. TheThe MTC endorsed the plan in December, and ABAG gave it a thumbs-up in January. The
mayors of San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco took part in the CASA discussions and signedmayors of San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco took part in the CASA discussions and signedmayors of San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco took part in the CASA discussions and signed
off on the nal document. But almost as soon as the plan was unveiled, many smaller citiesoff on the nal document. But almost as soon as the plan was unveiled, many smaller citiesoff on the nal document. But almost as soon as the plan was unveiled, many smaller cities
started gearing up for a ght. started gearing up for a ght. started gearing up for a ght.
Corsiglia acknowledged the CASA committee should have done more to reach out to theCorsiglia acknowledged the CASA committee should have done more to reach out to theCorsiglia acknowledged the CASA committee should have done more to reach out to the
smaller Bay Area cities. To bridge that gap, the MTC and ABAG are holding dozens ofsmaller Bay Area cities. To bridge that gap, the MTC and ABAG are holding dozens ofsmaller Bay Area cities. To bridge that gap, the MTC and ABAG are holding dozens of
meetings with city leaders around the Bay Area, and the CASA team has tapped the Non-meetings with city leaders around the Bay Area, and the CASA team has tapped the Non-meetings with city leaders around the Bay Area, and the CASA team has tapped the Non-
Pro t Housing Association of Northern California to lead a ramped-up communicationPro t Housing Association of Northern California to lead a ramped-up communicationPro t Housing Association of Northern California to lead a ramped-up communication
effort. The association plans to reach out to residents through the media, online and ineffort. The association plans to reach out to residents through the media, online and ineffort. The association plans to reach out to residents through the media, online and in
community meetings.community meetings.community meetings.
“We want to have those conversations, and build that momentum and support and dispel“We want to have those conversations, and build that momentum and support and dispel“We want to have those conversations, and build that momentum and support and dispel
the fears people have,” said Non-Pro t Housing Association executive director Amiethe fears people have,” said Non-Pro t Housing Association executive director Amiethe fears people have,” said Non-Pro t Housing Association executive director Amie
FishmanFishmanFishman...
City leaders aren’t the only ones disappointed with the plan. It’sCity leaders aren’t the only ones disappointed with the plan. It’sCity leaders aren’t the only ones disappointed with the plan. It’s sparked criticism fromsparked criticism fromsparked criticism from
tenant advocates, who say it doesn’t go far enough to protect renters, and landlords, whotenant advocates, who say it doesn’t go far enough to protect renters, and landlords, whotenant advocates, who say it doesn’t go far enough to protect renters, and landlords, who
say it goes too far.say it goes too far.say it goes too far.
“The nature of a compromise is that people are going to like certain parts and not like“The nature of a compromise is that people are going to like certain parts and not like“The nature of a compromise is that people are going to like certain parts and not like
others,” Corsiglia said.others,” Corsiglia said.others,” Corsiglia said.
Many of the cities speaking out against the CASA Compact have been criticized in the pastMany of the cities speaking out against the CASA Compact have been criticized in the pastMany of the cities speaking out against the CASA Compact have been criticized in the past
for failing to build enough housing.for failing to build enough housing.for failing to build enough housing.
In Cupertino, which approved 19 new multi-family units last year, Mayor Steven ScharfIn Cupertino, which approved 19 new multi-family units last year, Mayor Steven ScharfIn Cupertino, which approved 19 new multi-family units last year, Mayor Steven Scharf
recently bashed the proposal in his State of the City Speech, calling the group pushing therecently bashed the proposal in his State of the City Speech, calling the group pushing therecently bashed the proposal in his State of the City Speech, calling the group pushing the
plan “the committee to destroy the Bay Area.” Its vision is “very scary,” he said. And heplan “the committee to destroy the Bay Area.” Its vision is “very scary,” he said. And heplan “the committee to destroy the Bay Area.” Its vision is “very scary,” he said. And he
doesn’t intend to accept it.doesn’t intend to accept it.doesn’t intend to accept it.
“A lot of smaller cities are banding together regarding CASA,” Scharf said, “trying to at least“A lot of smaller cities are banding together regarding CASA,” Scharf said, “trying to at least“A lot of smaller cities are banding together regarding CASA,” Scharf said, “trying to at least
mitigate the damage that it would do.”mitigate the damage that it would do.”mitigate the damage that it would do.”
Scharf said he’s talking with mayors from nearby cities, including Campbell and Los Gatos.Scharf said he’s talking with mayors from nearby cities, including Campbell and Los Gatos.Scharf said he’s talking with mayors from nearby cities, including Campbell and Los Gatos.
He’s weighing the possibility of sending a lobbyist to Sacramento, in part to ght CASA bills,He’s weighing the possibility of sending a lobbyist to Sacramento, in part to ght CASA bills,He’s weighing the possibility of sending a lobbyist to Sacramento, in part to ght CASA bills,
and splitting the cost with his neighboring cities.and splitting the cost with his neighboring cities.and splitting the cost with his neighboring cities.
3/5/2019 Fight over CASA: Some cities push back against plan to overhaul Bay Area housing market – East Bay Times
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/03/04/fight-over-casa-some-cities-push-back-against-plan-to-overhaul-bay-area-housing-market/?utm_…4/5
Many Bay Area cities are balking at a CASA proposal that would require them to help fundMany Bay Area cities are balking at a CASA proposal that would require them to help fundMany Bay Area cities are balking at a CASA proposal that would require them to help fund
the new housing initiatives by giving up 20 percent of their future property tax increases.the new housing initiatives by giving up 20 percent of their future property tax increases.the new housing initiatives by giving up 20 percent of their future property tax increases.
The compact would cost an estimated $2.5 billion a year, $1.5 billion of which its authorsThe compact would cost an estimated $2.5 billion a year, $1.5 billion of which its authorsThe compact would cost an estimated $2.5 billion a year, $1.5 billion of which its authors
hope to get from taxes and fees applied to property owners, developers, employers, localhope to get from taxes and fees applied to property owners, developers, employers, localhope to get from taxes and fees applied to property owners, developers, employers, local
governments and taxpayers.governments and taxpayers.governments and taxpayers.
“That attack on our local revenue base would be problematic,” Resnikoff said. He’s working“That attack on our local revenue base would be problematic,” Resnikoff said. He’s working“That attack on our local revenue base would be problematic,” Resnikoff said. He’s working
with the Cities Association of Santa Clara County on a formal response.with the Cities Association of Santa Clara County on a formal response.with the Cities Association of Santa Clara County on a formal response.
Pleasanton and its Tri-Valley neighbors — Livermore, Danville, Dublin and San Ramon —Pleasanton and its Tri-Valley neighbors — Livermore, Danville, Dublin and San Ramon —Pleasanton and its Tri-Valley neighbors — Livermore, Danville, Dublin and San Ramon —
also are organizing a joint response.also are organizing a joint response.also are organizing a joint response.
Pleasanton director of community development Gerry Beaudin worries CASA legislationPleasanton director of community development Gerry Beaudin worries CASA legislationPleasanton director of community development Gerry Beaudin worries CASA legislation
could wreak havoc on the character of his city’s quaint, historic downtown. Thecould wreak havoc on the character of his city’s quaint, historic downtown. Thecould wreak havoc on the character of his city’s quaint, historic downtown. The
neighborhood’s proximity to an ACE train station could subject it to mandatory higher-neighborhood’s proximity to an ACE train station could subject it to mandatory higher-neighborhood’s proximity to an ACE train station could subject it to mandatory higher-
density zoning rules, he said.density zoning rules, he said.density zoning rules, he said.
“There’s a recognized need to address housing,” Beaudin said. “I’m not sure that the way“There’s a recognized need to address housing,” Beaudin said. “I’m not sure that the way“There’s a recognized need to address housing,” Beaudin said. “I’m not sure that the way
that this happened is the right way to get momentum on this issue. It just created a lot ofthat this happened is the right way to get momentum on this issue. It just created a lot ofthat this happened is the right way to get momentum on this issue. It just created a lot of
questions and concerns from a lot of the areas that need to be part of the conversation.”questions and concerns from a lot of the areas that need to be part of the conversation.”questions and concerns from a lot of the areas that need to be part of the conversation.”
Report an errorReport an errorReport an error
Policies and StandardsPolicies and StandardsPolicies and Standards
Contact UsContact UsContact Us
Enter your email
SIGN UP
A roundup of Bay Area real estate news, analysis and more delivered SundayA roundup of Bay Area real estate news, analysis and more delivered SundayA roundup of Bay Area real estate news, analysis and more delivered Sunday
to Fridayto Fridayto Friday
Get the Bay Area Real Estate newsletterGet the Bay Area Real Estate newsletterGet the Bay Area Real Estate newsletter
By signing up, you agree to our By signing up, you agree to our By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of serviceprivacy policy and terms of serviceprivacy policy and terms of service...
Marisa KendallMarisa KendallMarisa Kendall Marisa Kendall covers housing for the Bay Area News Group,Marisa Kendall covers housing for the Bay Area News Group,Marisa Kendall covers housing for the Bay Area News Group,
focusing on the impact local companies have on housing availability in thefocusing on the impact local companies have on housing availability in thefocusing on the impact local companies have on housing availability in the
region. She's also written about technology startups and venture capital forregion. She's also written about technology startups and venture capital forregion. She's also written about technology startups and venture capital for
BANG, and covered courts for The Recorder in San Francisco. She started herBANG, and covered courts for The Recorder in San Francisco. She started herBANG, and covered courts for The Recorder in San Francisco. She started her
career as a crime reporter for The News-Press in Southwest Florida.career as a crime reporter for The News-Press in Southwest Florida.career as a crime reporter for The News-Press in Southwest Florida.
Tags: Tags: Tags: East Bay Editors' PicksEast Bay Editors' PicksEast Bay Editors' Picks,,,housinghousinghousing,,,PM reportPM reportPM report
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 19, 2019 8:04 PM
To:Architectural Review Board
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City; Planning Commission; UAC; Shikada, Ed
Subject:03-21-19 ARB meeting -- objective standards for WCFs
Commissioners,
At your 03-21-19 meeting, you will consider a staff proposal to create objective aesthetic, noise, and related standards for
wireless communications facilities (WCFs).
I'd like to comment (below the ###### line) on the staff report. (My comments are paragraphs in red that begin with
"###".)
Thanks.
Jeff
------------------
Jeff Hoel
731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
------------------
PS: If the City of Palo Alto had a thriving citywide municipal FTTP network, I think it would make the wireless incumbents
think twice about deploying WCFs as a FTTP substitute.
###########################################################################
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69895
--- page 1 ---
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and provide a recommendation to City Council on
objective, aesthetic standards for Wireless Communication Facilities on streetlights (Attachment A) and wood utility poles
(Attachment B) in the public rights-of-way.
### Would the standards apply to the City as well as to private-sector entities like AT&T and Verizon? For example,
would it apply to the City's access points for aggregating smart meter transmissions?
The standards would be used instead of the Architectural Review findings ....
### Why not continue to have ARB review WCF proposals, to comment on whether the objective standards are achieving
the right result?
In particular, staff understands that equipment for 5G technologies will have lower power and shorter range, therefore
requiring greater density of WCFs to support a network.
### Isn't it true that the proposed objective standards can't consider whether a proposed WCF is 5G or not?
--- page 2 ---
2
Federal law prohibits the City from discriminating among wireless services providers and from regulating certain issues
such as electromagnetic radiation and other technical requirements of wireless services.
### The City can require that the WCF meet FCC requirements for EMF.
On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a declaratory order and ruling (the
“FCC Order”) interpreting the Telecommunications Act and issuing additional regulations governing local review of WCF
applications.
### It would have been helpful to have provided a reference.
09-26-18: press release (2 pages)
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354283A1.pdf
09-27-18: FCC 18-133 Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (116 pages)
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-133A1.pdf
### Incidentally, FCC 18-133 says, "The FCC is committed to doing our part to help ensure the United States wins the
global race to 5G to the benefit of all Americans." But, as a sanity check, please read consultant Doug Dawson's 03-15-
19 article, "There's No 5G Race."
https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/03/15/the-non-existing-race-for-5g/
"There is no 5G race; there is no 5G war; there is no 5G crisis. Anybody that repeats these phrases is wittingly or
unwittingly pushing the lobbying agenda of the big wireless companies. Some clever marketer at one of the cellular
carriers invented the imaginary 5G race as a great way to emphasize the importance of 5G."
First, the FCC defined a new subset of WCFs that it called “small wireless facilities,” upon which the City must act within
60 days.
### Strangely, FCC's definition of a "small wireless facility" (page 4)
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-133A1.pdf
doesn't depend on what technology is used, just on physical details like the size of the equipment, pole height, etc.
The FCC order gives local governments until April 15, 2019 to adopt such regulations.
### According to this Tentative Agendas document,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69690
Council will consider such regulations on 04-15-19. Bad timing. There's no margin for error.
The FCC 2018 Order ....
### That is, FCC 18-133.
Representative Anna Eshoo introduced a bill, H.R. 530, which would repeal the FCC’s September 2018 order. The bill has
been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
### H.R 530:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/530
Here's Eshoo's 01-15-19 press release:
https://eshoo.house.gov/news-stories/press-releases/eshoo-introduces-legislation-to-restore-local-control-in-deployment-
of-5g/
It quotes Nancy L. Werner as saying, "Local governments have the ultimate responsibility for safeguarding their
communities."
On February 7, 2019, the City of Palo Alto sent a letter of support for H.R. 530 (Attachment C).
### It's on page 14. But it's not PDF-findable. And what looks like a clickable link ("our website") is not clickable.
Although the City’s effort to draft these standards is driven largely by need to comply with the FCC Order, the adoption of
objective standards also represents an opportunity for the City.
### In his 02-07-19 letter (mentioned above), Mayor Filseth seemed to prefer the "opportunity" of using "the usual public
process associated with local government."
3
--- page 3 ---
Each set of standards defines a number of different possible wireless communication facility designs that staff believes
are among the smallest, least conspicuous, camouflaged, and/or stealth options available.
### What does "available" mean here?
Streetlight Pole Standards
Design Name: Underground design
Brief Description: Radio and ancillary equipment are placed in an underground vault, where space permits.
### Who decides "where space permits"?
Antennae are mounted within a shroud at the top of nearby pole.
### Some antennas may be sufficiently beautiful without being put inside a "shroud."
Conduit and cabling is inside the pole.
### Why is conduit needed in this case?
Notes:
* All vault designs reviewed by staff require significant excavation ...
### Maybe staff is saying that all vault designs they have reviewed up to now have required "significant" excavation. For
example, on 05-21-18, Verizon said the excavation requirement for its vaults would be 10' x 18' x 8'-1" (e.g., PDF page 36
here).
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65028
... and occupy space that the City may wish to use for utility purposes in the future.
### To be "objective," must the City define in advance all the spaces it may want to use for utility purposes in the future?
Design Name: Integrated pole design
Brief Description: Radio and ancillary equipment are internal to a streetlight pole with a wider diameter than the City's
existing streetlight standards.
### Why would the standard say the pole must be "wider"? Is staff just acknowledging that it is not aware of any WCF
equipment that would fit within existing streetlight poles?
Antenna may also be internal ...
### Who thinks that would work?
... or mounted at the top of the pole. Conduit and cabling is inside the pole.
Notes:
* Poles may be designed to have a uniform wide diameter or transition to a narrower pole above approximately seven
feet.
### Why seven feet?
* Replacement streetlights designed to house today's technologies may be oversized compared to equipment designed in
the future. Current integrated pole designs do not accommodate 5G equipment.
* Unless streetlights are replaced en masse, use of integrated poles might result in an inconsistent streetscape.
### No kidding.
--- page 4 ---
4
Design Name: Top-mounted design
Brief Description: All antenna, radio, and other ancillary equipment are housed in a single shroud mounted at the top of
the pole. Conduit and cabling is inside the pole.
Notes:
* Top-mounted design preserves the existing streetlight standards, but results in taller overall installations.
* The ARB recently reviewed this design in a preliminary review (17PLN-0038).
### Probably meant 17PLN-00398.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4094&TargetID-319
02-19-19: ARB agenda:
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69421
02-19-19: staff report (75 pages):
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69413
02-19-19: video (45:25 to 49:54 AND 1:35:48 to 2:55:33)
https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2212019/
It's regrettable that Commissioner Furth had to recuse herself because of where she lives.
### According to the ARB "home page," the minutes for 02-19-19 are not yet available. That's regrettable.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp
Additional Design Options for Streetlight Poles
The following designs are not included in the draft standards, but have been suggested by carriers for the City's
consideration.
Design name: Pedestal
Brief Description: Radio and ancillary equipment are placed in a pedestal underneath a streetlight pole. Similar to some
integrated pole designs, but with a wider squatter base. Antennae are mounted on top of the pole. Conduit and cabling
are inside the pole.
Notes:
* Occupies more sidewalk area than existing streetlight base and integrated pole designs.
* Fewer overall locations required to support a wireless network, due to accommodating larger, higher power radios.
### I'm very suspicious of this claim. The big trend in wireless is to smaller and smaller cells (i.e., transmitting over
shorter and shorter distances).
* Designs have been refined since last reviewed by the ARB in December 2018.
Design name: Minimal sunshield
Brief Description: Radio and other ancillary equipment are housed in small sun-shade boxes mounted directly on the
pole. Antennae are mounted at the top of the pole. Conduit and cabling is inside the pole.
Notes:
* The smallest overall volume, but equipment is more visible.
Design name: Existing street signs
Brief Description: Radio and other ancillary equipment are placed entirely behind existing street signs, between the sign
and the pole. Antennae are mounted at the top of the pole. Conduit and cabling is inside the pole.
Notes:
* Similar in overall volume to minimal side-mount.
* Two-sided signs can be used to screen equipment, but one-sided signs only screen from one direction.
--- page 5 ---
Design name: Existing street furniture
Brief Description: Antenna, radio, and ancillary equipment are housed within the envelope of existing street furniture (e.g.,
radios located under the seat of a street bench and antennas are mounted on a nearby pole; radios and antenna
incorporated in a bus shelter). Conduit and cabling is routed underground and/or inside the street furniture.
Notes:
* There are limited locations in which this design could be deployed.
* Staff has not seen this design in fully realized plans.
5
Wood Utility Pole Standards
Design name: Underground design
Brief Description: Radio and ancillary equipment are placed in an underground vault, where space permits. Antennae are
mounted within a shroud on a nearby pole. Conduit is attached flush with the pole.
### Presumably the cabling goes in the conduit.
Notes:
* All vaults reviewed by staff require significant excavation and occupy underground space that the City may wish to use
for utility purposes in the future.
* Vaults are unlikely to comply with noise policies in residential neighborhoods.
### Why wasn't noise mentioned before, for the undergrounded version of streetlight deployments?
Design name: Top-mounted design
Brief Description: All antenna, radio, and other equipment are housed in a single shroud at the top of a wooden bayonet
extension or at the top of a replacement pole. Conduit is attached flush with the pole.
Notes:
* This design requires approximately twice as many total nodes compared to the side-mount option.
### If this claim is based on how much power the radios can radiate, then I'm very suspicious of the claim, for the reason
cited above. The trend in wireless is to smaller and smaller cells.
* On poles with power lines, total additional height is approximately 12 ft.
* Staff has yet to conduct structural and technical feasibility; this design will likely require pole replacement.
### Paid for by the applicant?
* Pole replacement results in greater short-term impacts.
Design name: Side-mounted design
Brief Description: Radio and other ancillary equipment are housed in a shroud mounted on the side of the pole. Antenna
mounted on a bayonet at the top of the pole. Conduit is attached flush with the pole.
Notes:
* Shroud dimensions continue to shrink as technology develops.
### Would that continue to be true if the City had fixed "objective" aesthetic standards? I don't see why.
Proposed dimensions are smaller than some designs previously reviewed by ARB. Example dimensions include:
+ 40" height, 15" width, 12" depth
+ 50" height, 13" width, 7" depth
--- page 6 ---
Design name: Minimal sunshield design
Brief Description: Radio and other ancillary equipment are housed in small sun-shaded boxes mounted directly on the
pole. Antennae mounted on a bayonet at the top of the pole. Conduit is attached flush with the pole.
Notes:
* The smallest overall volume, but equipment is more visible.
* This design requires approximately twice as many total nodes compared to the side-mounted option.
Design name: Strand mount design
Brief Description: Antenna, radio, and ancillary equipment are clamped to the steel cable strand that runs between poles
that supports other telephone and cable company cables. The design would use one or two shrouds. Cabling and
conduit would be closely attached to the cable strand.
Notes:
* Equipment would be shrouded and would not occupy space on the pole.
6
The standard designs described above have been developed for 4G equipment, but some may not be feasible in
combination with newer technology.
### What does FCC 18-133 require the City to propose for "objective" aesthetic standards for 5G equipment by 04-15-
19?
--- page 7 ---
Staff anticipates that the adoption of objective aesthetic standards will reduce the amount of staff resources expended per
wireless application.
### Isn't the applicant supposed to pay for all these staff resources?
... with the active involvement from carriers as to feasibility ....
### What does this mean? That the applicant will read the City's objective standards and try to comply with them?
On December 12, 2018, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed a draft ordinance.
### PTC went to great trouble to request that the City code not require anything that FCC 18-133 didn't require, and to
consider how to revert back if FCC 18-133 were overturned or rescinded. PTC didn't consider the objective aesthetic
standards aspect.
If so directed by the City Council, these standards may be repealed in the event the FCC Order is overturned by a court or
by federal legislation.
### I think ARB should recommend that.
Furthermore, it is anticipated that the standards would be revised from time to time to remain consistent with the evolving
designs.
### Does FCC 18-133 permit this?
--- page 9 ---
In no event shall vault dimensions exceed 5 feet 8-inches x 8 feet 2-inches x 5 feet 7-inches or 260 cu. ft., excluding
space required for ventilation or sump pump equipment.
### These dimensions are cribbed from the design Verizon proposed and Council considered on 05-21-18.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65023
In effect, Verizon claimed this design was infeasible.
### Why say "or 260 cu. ft."? Would any shape that doesn't exceed 260 cu. ft. be acceptable?
### Why exclude the space required for ventilation AND sump pump equipment.
### Verizon claimed that the excavation space required for its design was 18' x 10' x 8'-1". Should the City's objective
standards care about this?
### From the point of view of aesthetics, why specify a size limit? Maybe the point is that the City might want the
underground space for something else.
Poles shall match style and dimensions of PWD standards ...
### "PWD" is not defined in this document. (Public Works Department, I suppose.) Does FCC 18-133 allow
specification by reference this way?
Antennae shall be the smallest antennae possible to achieve the coverage objective.
### Can the applicant just invent whatever coverage objective justifies the antenna size it wants?
7
### If a larger antenna might allow cellphones to use less power, is that a trade-off worth thinking about?
--- page 10 ---
Noise ...
### How does the proposed specification for noise affect whether it's feasible to provide back-up power? I seem to recall
that an applicant once said that a back-up power unit wouldn't need to turn on its fans during normal operation (when the
back-up power unit wasn't supplying power), but only if it were actually supplying back-up power, or recharging after
having supplied back-up power. If so, should the noise generated by a back-up power unit be evaluated only during
normal operation?
Fiber and power connections and trenching shall be minimized and shall provide the required clearances required from
underground utilities, as defined by CPAU.
### Why should fiber connections be minimized?
### CPAU is not defined in the document. (City of Palo Alto Utilities.) Does FCC 18-133 allow specification by reference
this way?
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lori Villarreal <calavelori@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 11:24 AM
To:Transportation; Kleinberg, Judy; Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Business tax
Hello city officials,
I am a small business owner of two service industry business on California Avenue, Calave wine bar and True Salon. I
was just made aware of some issues regarding more taxes for business being considered by the city that will greatly
affect the sustainability of small business. We are already seeing a decline in brick and mortar businesses and this will
only add more challenges. I also have concerns about discussion without notifying the business community or ensuring
that the business community will be included in the discussion and process. More taxes and continued increase in other
city mandated issues can be detrimental to success for service industry business. We would respectfully like to be a part
of this discussion especially since there are no small business owners on your community advisory panel. I would like to
know that the city in which I have employed and supported people of this community will support me back.
Cheers,
Lori Villarreal
Managing partner
calavelori@gmail.com
Sole Proprietor
www.truesalon.net
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jaures Yip <jauresyip@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 7, 2019 5:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Campanile Reporter
Hello, I am a reporter from The Campanile (Palo Alto High School newspaper) and am currently writing an article on the
Komuna suit against Palo Alto. Could I ask a couple of questions regarding the situation? Thank you so much!
Best Regards,
Jaures Yip
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kelly Germa <kelly.germa@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:56 AM
To:Cormack, Alison; Alison Cormack; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Kniss, Liz (internal); Fine,
Adrian; Filseth, Eric (Internal)
Cc:Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City; Council, City
Subject:Cell Towers
Dear Ms. Cormack, Mr. Tanaka, Ms. Kou, Mr. Dubois, Ms. Kniss, Mr. Fine, and Mr. Filseth,
As you can see from the attendance at Tina Chow's talk, your Palo Alto constituents are concerned and want to be
involved in the design and review process for cell tower installations in their neighborhoods.
The FCC deadline is not a reason to bypass our long‐standing, reasonable, review and approval process. Since many
major cities in the US and Congresswoman Anna Eschoo are all initiating discussion as to the legality of foisting cell
towers upon residents, the City of Palo Alto should inform the FCC that until these discussions and bill have been
resolved, they cannot rush forward installations with disregard to substantial community opposition. This is the
reasonable thing to do to protect our city.
Please think about why you were elected ‐ to protect your constituents and help address their needs and wants. You
need to please listen to the people of Palo Alto who have resoundingly voiced many reservations to rushing to approve
these installations without ARB review and community input.
Thank you,
Kelly Germa, Midtown Homeowner
650‐544‐5711
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dan Fingold <danmcdan12345@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 16, 2019 5:22 AM
Cc:DuBois, Tom; tomforcouncil@gmail.com
Subject:City Council
Dear Council Member,
Please keep and increase emphasis on helping citizens in our community who are homeless living outside,
without adequate healthcare, and living meal to meal. The cost benefit ratio of focusing on expanding existing programs
and adding new programs for people that fit this demographic is unparalleled, that being, very marginal expenditures
equate to tremendous positive impacts to this city. Per dollar spent, there is no better place to focus on. A great starting
idea is increasing rainy day funding on the Coalition for the Homeless. Whether it be reducing communicable disease in
our community, helping keep the cities aesthetic quality, or doing the right thing, there is no better bet on making a
positive impact to our community on this term. On behalf of Mother’s Ministries, thank you for your time in reading this
letter.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Lancefield <rklancefield@comcast.net>
Sent:Saturday, March 9, 2019 4:49 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:bjohnson@paweekly.com
Subject:City of Palo Alto, CA - News Details
Congratulations to Mayor Eric Filseth!
Dear Mayor Filseth, Thank you for your excellent State of the City speech a few days ago.
I was greatly relieved, when I read your succinct and accurate comments about our city, especially your comments that
showed a complete understanding of our city‐wide need to fund our city employees pension and medical benefits using
realistic earnings assumptions.
Although I’m now a long retired attorney, I had over 50 years experience at different times from roughly 1965 to 2015 as
a trustee of several inter‐generational family trusts. (The Trusts terminated by their own terms as various beneficiaries
“aged out.”
It’s IMPOSSIBLE to earn 7% consistently on conservative investments. Any trustee who promises these returns, or who
enables such beliefs is NOT acting in the best interests of his beneficiaries. It’s easy to understand (but hard to accept)
that none of us can consistently get 7% earnings on our investments.
In particular, from 1965 to 1968, I was one of two Employer Trustees, along with two Employee/Union Trustees of an
Office Employee Pension Trust Fund in OEIU Local
28 based in Oakland. Employee Trustees were senior employees who didn’t want to disappoint the unfounded and over‐
optimistic other senior beneficiaries,
This same inherent “conflict of interest” may exist today especially where city council candidates and council members
depend on campaign contributions from city employees.
There’s another obstacle to facing hard truths: our beneficiaries DON’T want to hear it. A really good and honorable
trustee knows this, and is willing to “step up to the plate.”
But before we start “throwing stones,” we should ask ourselves if how we can help to reduce any “conflicts of interest”
by increasing our own understanding, and how much we ask of our Mayor Filseth and our City Council.
Thanks for reading this.
Robert K. Lancefield
Residing at 189 Walter Hays Drive
since February, 1962.
2
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4531
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Halpern-Laff <amyhlaff@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 10:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Curbing climate change through diet change
Attachments:PAGMPacket.docx
Dear Councilmembers,
As a returning resident of Palo Alto, I’m so grateful to the Council for prioritizing climate change this year.
We now know the easiest and most effective step we can take to reduce our GHG emissions is to reduce our
consumption of meat and dairy.
Therefore, I ask to to consider adopting Green Monday in Palo Alto. The Green Monday program has two components:
encouraging public and private entities to feature plant‐based menus once a week and educating the citizens of Palo
Alto about the impacts of their food choices on the planet. Resources for the program, including a booklist, short videos,
posters, and tabling materials, are provided on the website. The only expenses the City incurs are minimal printing costs.
I would be honored to meet with you individually or to speak about Green Monday at a Council meeting.
Respectfully,
Amy
Amy Halpern-Laff
amyhlaff@gmail.com
1
GREEN MONDAY IN PALO ALTO
greenmondayus.org
info@greenmondayus.org
2
FACT SHEET
THE PROGRAM
Why Green Monday in Palo Alto?
1. Green Monday complements our existing sustainability initiatives and amplifies our
city’s commitment to environmentally responsible practices.
2. The Green Monday US website greenmondayus.org, provides all the materials we
need. A Green Monday liaison is available to help with the program.
Community Education
3. The Green Monday US RESOURCES page provides materials to display at libraries,
community centers, farmers’ markets, and community events.
4. There are curated lists of short videos, documentaries, books, and websites for
educational programs on the RESOURCES page.
5. Supermarkets hang posters (found on RESOURCES page) showing comparative
impacts of various protein choices.
Sustainable Meals
6. City-owned and city-managed facilities and programs provide healthy, delicious
plant-based meals on Mondays.
7. Restaurants are encouraged to include vegan items on their menus. The RESOURCES
page has certificates and badges for participating restaurants
3
8.Legislators model environmentally responsible eating by procuring plant-based food
for meetings and events.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ANIMAL AGRICULTURE
1.Nearly 10 billion land animals are raised for meat, eggs, and milk every year in the
US, most in factory farms or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). There
are approximately 19,500 CAFOs in the US.
2.Globally, animal agriculture releases 14.5% of all anthropogenic (human-induced)
GHG emissions, more than the entire transportation sector. In the US, the figure is
lower because we burn so much fossil fuel, but the US is the world’s second biggest
GHG emitter.
3.In the US, animals raised for food produce three times as much manure as humans.
Animal feces and urine are stored in vast open pits called waste lagoons. Runoff from
the lagoons and from pesticide-laden grain crops pollutes groundwater,
contaminating drinking water and killing aquatic life.
4.Factory farms and slaughterhouses often locate in poor, rural communities populated
mainly by people of color. CAFOs emit pollutants including ammonia, hydrogen
sulfide, methane, and particulate matter, which cause asthma, eye irritation, and
chronic bronchitis.
5.In the US, animal agriculture accounts for half of total water use. It takes 1,800
gallons of water – about 26 showers worth – to produce one pound of beef. It takes
only 300 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of tofu.
6.We are experiencing the highest rate of species extinction in earth’s history, and
animal agriculture is a leading cause. Diverse ecosystems are cleared to make way for
mono-crops to feed animals in factory farms.
7.Rainforests play a critical role in regulating the global climate; trees absorb carbon
dioxide and emit oxygen. Almost 20% of the Amazon rainforest has already been
destroyed, mostly to graze cattle and to grow grain for factory farmed animals.
5
CONSENT ACTION
[Date]
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember [Name]
Subject: Resolution Establishing Green Monday
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution establishing Green Monday in The City of Palo Alto and referring to the City
Manager to implement the program in coordination with Green Monday US, which would have
two primary components; City owned and operated institutions serving plant-based foods on
Mondays (or another day) and educating residents on the impacts of their food choices on
climate change and the environment.
BACKGROUND
Scientific analyses have shown that one of the most effective ways for people to reduce
their greenhouse gas emissions is to reduce or eliminate their consumption of meat and
dairy. By systematically reducing meat and dairy consumption, the citizens of Palo Alto
can accomplish two objectives; substantially reducing our collective greenhouse gas
emissions and serving as a model for other municipalities across the country and
around the world.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that the livestock sector
contributes 14.5% of anthropogenic GHG emissions. 99% of farmed animals in the US
are confined in factory farms, which poison the air and water in surrounding, often
underserved, communities.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Cost of printing flyers and limited staff time. Green Monday US has volunteered to
provide many of the services needed to run the program.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
The Resolution is not only consistent with but also critical to realizing the City’s climate
and environmental goals (see above).
CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember [name], [phone]
6
Attachments:
1: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. #####
ESTABLISHING GREEN MONDAY
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto acknowledges that we face an existential Climate
Emergency that threatens our city, region, state, nation, civilization, humanity and the
natural world; and,
WHEREAS, scientific analyses have shown that one of the most effective ways for a person
to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions is to reduce or eliminate their consumption of meat
and dairy; and,
WHEREAS, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that the livestock
sector contributes 14.5% of anthropogenic GHG emissions, more than the entire
transportation sector – cars, trains, planes and ships – combined; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is committed to educating our citizens about the climate
emergency and working tirelessly to catalyze a just emergency climate mobilization at the
local, state, national, and global level to protect our citizens as well as all the people and
species of the world; and,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto establishes Green
Monday, wherein all City-owned and City-managed facilities and programs will provide
only plant-based foods on Mondays (or another day of the week); and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto will participate in the
Green Monday program by procuring vegan food for their meetings; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto refers to the City
Manager to work with Green Monday US (greenmondayus.org) to schedule Green Monday
educational programs at libraries, community centers and private homes,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Palo Alto refers to the City
Manager to work with Green Monday US (greenmondayus.org) to incentivize restaurants to
include vegan items on their menus by providing “Green Monday approved” certificates to
be displayed and supermarkets to post information on the comparative environmental impact
of plant and animal-based proteins.
7
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council encourages libraries, schools and community
centers in Palo Alto to display Green Monday posters and literature.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tinker George Jemmott <gjemmott@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 8, 2019 11:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Dangerous red-light violations at pedestrian cross-walk: Embarcadero near Trader Joe's.
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
TLDR: the pedestrian cross‐walk near Trader Joe’s, on Emerson next to Alma, is the site of *many*
dangerous red‐light violations, especially weekday evenings, and I’d love your help in fixing it before
someone gets hurt. Thanks!
Longer:
A dear, sweet, kind, intelligent friend was just hit and killed while riding her bike in San Francisco. This tragedy
inspires me to finally write to you:
Next to Trader Joe’s, just after Embarcadero goes under Alma, especially in the evenings, people run that red
light *all* the time. On most of my walks to Trader Joe’s on weekday evenings (not so much mid‐day or on
weekends, and I’m rarely up and about in the mornings), I see someone run the red light, sometimes both
times I cross the street. This week I saw someone run the red light at something like 40 or 45 mph (only to
stop some 50 or 100 feet later at the next red light), while the pedestrian light was green and pedestrians
were already *in* the crosswalk. !!! Another time, I saw someone run the red light, while the pedestrian walk
sign had already lit up green, right in front of a police officer in their car, who I supposed either didn’t notice
or had something more important to do.
I *love* what has been done recently for cyclists on the nearby entrance to the track‐side bike path. The
removal of the center post from that entrance, and the clearing of trees from that area to improve visibility
makes that bike‐intersection feel *much* safer, for cyclists and especially for pedestrians – thank you so much
if you played any part in making that better! Now how can we solve this other problem?
My first thoughts/ideas are these:
1. The cross‐walk sign stays on for much longer than most people need to cross the road, perhaps
making frequent drivers dread being stuck there. I bet it could be shortened to half the duration with
no ill effects – even if someone less able‐bodied or otherwise slower happens to be crossing, cars will
have stopped and taken notice.
2. Post a sign, maybe before the underpass, and a similar distance from the crosswalk coming from
the other direction, stating the penalty for red‐light violations (even at crosswalks).
3. Park a police car or motorcycle nearby for a while. Maybe a motorcycle with its lights on, on the
sidewalk? Just to get people to take notice and slow down.
4. As much as I would be annoyed (and I’m sure many other people would) at increased enforcement
and ticketing, due to delays caused, I bet a lot of revenue could be generated and the problem
alleviated with some aggressive ticketing.
2
I’d be happy to respond to any questions, continue brainstorming solutions, or otherwise contribute to the
improvement of this crosswalk. If video evidence would help, just let me know where to send it, and I’ll start
recording.
Thank you,
George Jemmott
1230 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
1
Carnahan, David
From:Larry and April Alton <lalton@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 9:45 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:do not remove the downtown cap
Dear Council Members,
Please reconsider the removal of the downtown building cap. We do not want an urban
canyon in Palo Alto with even more parking and traffic disasters.
Larry Alton
Downtown North Resident
1
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Minsker <paul.minsker@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Saturday, March 9, 2019 2:38 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:EL PALO ALTO TREE
Hello, Palo Alto City Council‐‐
Paul Minsker here‐‐you know, that moron that has contacted your office a few times before with legitimate concerns
that no one in your city seem to give a rat's behind about. Concerns regarding, you know, that large tree that is the
namesake for your city that is left daily subjected to vandalism, vagabonds, and litter galore. That tree that you would
only care about were your government salaries growing on its upper limbs.
Indeed, council members, it is ever‐presently clear to me that none of you evidently give a damn about the tree of which
I speak, so let me try to put this dilemma of vandalism, litter, and park safety into a language that you people can
understand:
I have continued, upon EVERY visit to the tree, to see countless new examples of the various forms of litter here that can
be found. Flattened cardboard. A working umbrella. A shot glass. Bottle caps. Broken glasses. A water bottle. Candy
wrappers. Drug syringes. Alcohol cans. Ramen noodle flavor packets. Step out of your Teslas once in a while and check
out the park for yourselves‐‐you shall SURELY see that I cannot make up the litter that I am seeing. The litter is still
significantly happening‐‐despite your previous claims to me that the issue would be handled‐‐and is clearly not being
picked up at a fast enough rate to make a dent in keeping this park clean. I HAVE ASKED YOUR ORGANIZATION FOR A
FAIR REQUEST OF A PUBLIC TRASH CAN TO BE PLACED IN THE PARK NEAR THE TREE AREA, WHICH WOULD HELP
ENCOURAGE PEOPLE NOT TO LITTER, BUT YOU DO NOT LISTEN TO LOGIC, SO I SEE NOW THAT I MUST BE MORE
FORCEFUL TO HAVE THIS CHANGE OCCUR:
Any time I visit El Palo Alto Park and see trash beside
the tree, UNTIL THERE IS A TRASH CAN PLACED IN THE
PARK THAT CAN BE USED FOR CITIZENS LIKE ME TO
CLEAN UP THE PARK AND PROPERLY DISPOSE LOOSE
TRASH IN, any and ALL trash under the tree that I find
will be THROWN INTO SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK and
washed out into the Bay. Your city as an overall entity
will be to blame if the source is traced to the creek.
2
I, Paul Minsker, will litter the creek and pollute your
waterway to protect the tree until a trash can is
placed. YES, I AM hurting the environment, but so are
you for not listening to my trash can request. ONE.
TRASH. CAN.
You may send police to the park with a warrant for my
arrest to seek me out for doing this, but that is all well
and good‐‐your council has told me via email that this
occurrence of police checking the park once in a while
would be a REALITY before when I mentioned the
issues at the park with vagabonds and vandalism, but
no such police officers occasionally checking the park
ever have I seen. Given the trash situation being the
same as before, I would damn well believe that
nothing has yet been done with the policing,
vagabond, and vandalism issues that I have mentioned
to you all before, either.
Let me cut the crap, folks. I cannot BELIEVE that I am writing to a respectable government body in this present manner,
believe it or not, but, moreover, if THIS TYPE OF RUDE AND NASTY EMAIL and THROWING GARBAGE INTO THE CREEK are
what it takes to raise alert for the problems in El Palo Alto Park to your city and your council, then I will continue to write
these emails and throw the trash until the simple change of a trash can in the park is swiftly made. I can do this as long
as necessary, or until your city proves conclusively to me that you will not listen by responding to me and telling me
directly.
I trust that I have made my position on this matter clear. What is yours?
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 10:44 AM
To:Joe Simitian; Representative Anna G. Eshoo
Subject:Fluoride cause of EYE Diseases
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com
NYSCOF News Release
Fluoride Can Cause Degenerative Eye Diseases,
* fluoride can concentrate in the eye contributing to retinal toxicity.
* chronic fluoride exposures have been linked to cataract formation
* a blockage of the breakdown of sugars by fluoride leads to cataracts.
* in vitro studies find fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor in ocular tissue.
* fluoride significantly inhibits glycolysis in the retina.
* increased risk of pulmonary, neurodegenerative and neuro-developmental disorders and
cancer.
New York – March 18, 2019 – Fluoride contributes to degenerative eye diseases such as cataracts, age
related macular degeneration (AMD) and glaucoma, reports DT Waugh in the International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health (March 2019), reports New York State Coalition Opposed to
Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).
Although research has consistently shown that it is the topical application of fluoride to teeth, not the
ingestion of fluoride that reduces tooth decay, you cannot avoid consuming fluoride when it’s added to
public water supplies. Claims of safety from long term ingestion ignore hundreds of studies showing
the potential for harm including to the eyes.
In this current study, Waugh identifies, for the first time, the key biological pathways and mechanisms by
which fluoride contributes to degenerative eye diseases. He suggests minimizing fluoride exposure to
reduce the occurrence or severity of AMD, cataracts and glaucoma.
“It’s well known that excessive fluoride exposure is associated with dental fluorosis and musculoskeletal
disorders that cause chronic pain” said Waugh.
“However, my study’s goal was to gain insights into how fluoride may contribute to degenerative eyes, a
finding also documented for decades. I show how fluoride ingestion renders eyes more susceptible to
degeneration by identifying how fluoride fundamentally alters biological pathways and modifies the
expression of genes, proteins and cytokines responsible for development of cataracts, glaucoma and
AMD."
"Importantly, I also identify why diabetics, schizophrenics and people with Down syndrome are more
susceptible to fluoride’s toxic effects,” says Waugh.
Furthermore, “Emerging evidence also suggests that the molecular mechanisms identified in this study
not only contribute to eye diseases but may also contribute to increased risk of pulmonary diseases,
neurodegenerative diseases, neurodevelopmental disorders and cancer. Above all this research shows
that one must look beyond teeth when examining how fluoride impacts on human health,” says Waugh
2
“This study adds to the growing body of evidence that adding fluoride to drinking water may have
unforeseen consequences and, therefore, water fluoridation must be stopped,” says Waugh.
Previous studies show fluoride intake can contribute to degenerative eye diseases including several
documenting that fluoride can accumulate in high concentrations in the eye contributing to retinal
toxicity. Also, chronic fluoride exposures have been linked to cataract formation in human and animal
studies.
Early in vitro studies using calf lens confirmed that a blockage of the breakdown of sugars by fluoride is
followed by cataracts.
Further, in vitro studies identified that fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor in ocular tissue. Early researchers
observed that fluoride significantly inhibited glycolysis in the retina.
Early in vitro studies using calf lens confirmed that a blockage of the breakdown of sugars by fluoride is
followed by cataracts.
Further, in vitro studies identified that fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor in ocular tissue. Early researchers
observed that fluoride significantly inhibited glycolysis in the retina.
On the other hand, “There is a paucity of qualitative research in epidemiology in western countries to
examine the possible association between fluoride intake, water fluoridation and degenerative eye
disease and no study until now has elucidated the molecular mechanisms by which fluoride intake may
increase the likelihood of AMD, cataracts or glaucoma,” says Waugh.
Contact: Attorney Paul Beeber, JD NYSCOF President nyscof@aol.com or Researcher Declan
Waugh declan@enviro.ie 353-23-884-1933 (Ireland)
http://FluorideAction.Net
SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc (NYSCOF)
NYSCOF on Twitter
NYSCOF on Facebook
fluoride can accumulate in high concentrations in the eye contributing to retinal toxicity. Also, chronic
fluoride exposures have been linked to cataract formation in human and animal studies.
Early in vitro studies using calf lens confirmed that a blockage of the breakdown of sugars by fluoride is
followed by cataracts.
Further, in vitro studies identified that fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor in ocular tissue.
Early researchers observed that fluoride significantly inhibited glycolysis in the retina.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Clerk, City
Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:07 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Cell towers!
Thanks and have a great day.
B‐
Beth Minor, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329‐2379
From: Gina Craig <gcraigx@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:07 AM
To: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; planningcommision@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Cell towers!
Hello-
Please reconsider the cell tower decisions as:
1. They are unnecessary.
Why is Palo Alto rushing to codify in its Wireless Ordinance what so many cities are suing
to keep out of theirs?
City Staff are telling the ARB, the PTC and City Council that Palo Alto risks being sued by
the telecom industry if it doesn’t make these changes. In fact, the likelihood that a telecom
company would sue the City over non-compliance with an FCC order that, first, is the
subject of a lawsuit brought by the largest cities in the United States and that, second,
2
Congress is seeking to repeal–is zero. So is the likelihood that any Court would agree to
hear such a case.
2. They are not in the best interests of the residents of Palo Alto.
These amendments make it faster, easier and cheaper for telecom companies to install cell
towers right next to our homes.
They eliminate public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board, and give
Planning Director Lait the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and
where they can install it. And we already know what Mr. Lait thinks is
acceptable: Hanging hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous equipment
on utility poles right next to our homes.
3. These amendments fly in the face of City Council’s support for repealing the FCC order.
To quote Mayor Filseth in his letter of February 7, 2019 to Congresswoman Eshoo: “The
deployment of [cell towers] must be done through the usual public process associated with
local government, a process that … needs no modifications from the FCC. … The FCC’s
decision to …restrict our ability to best determine the needs of our own city represents the
FCC’s failure to listen to local governments across the country.”
Thank you for considering.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Clerk, City
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 4:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Opposition to Palo Alto' Wireless Ordinance being brought into compliance with the FCC's
recent order
From: Luce, Gwen [mailto:GLuce@cbnorcal.com]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 4:32 PM
To: Architectural Review Board; Clerk, City; Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Palo Alto' Wireless Ordinance being brought into compliance with the FCC's recent order
Gwen Luce, Realtor®
DRE License #00879652
Direct Line: 650.566.5343
gluce@cbnorcal.com
To Whom it May Concern:
I oppose Jonathan Lait’s proposed amendments – the subject of a major lawsuit that dozens of
cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Denvey, Portland and San Jose have joined
together to sue the FCC as well as our representative in Congress, Anna Eshoo, has introduced
legislatiion to repeal the order - because:
1) They are unnecessary.
Why is Palo Alto rushing to codify in its Wireless Ordinance what so many cities are
suing to keep out of theirs?
City Staff are telling the ARB, the PTC and City Council that Palo Alto risks being sued
by the telecom industry if it doesn’t make these changes. In fact, the likelihood that a
telecom company would sue the City over non-compliance with an FCC order that, first,
is the subject of a lawsuit brought by the largest cities in the United States and that,
second, Congress is seeking to repeal – is zero. So is the likelihood that any Court
would agree to hear such a case.
2) They are not in the best interests of the residents of Palo Alto.
2
These amendments make it faster, easier and cheaper for telecom companies to install
cell towers right next to our homes.
They eliminate public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board, and give
Planning Director Lait the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install
and where they can install it. And we already know what Mr. Lait thinks is
acceptable: Hanging hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous
equipment on utility poles right next to our homes.
3) These amendments fly in the face of City Council’s support for repealing the FCC
order.
To quote Mayor Filseth in his letter of February 7, 2019 to Congresswoman
Eshoo: “The deployment of [cell towers] must be done through the usual public
process associated with local government, a process that … needs no modifications
from the FCC. … The FCC’s decision to …restrict our ability to best determine the
needs of our own city represents the FCC’s failure to listen to local governments across
the country.”
Thank you for your consideration.
Gwen Luce
Gwen Luce
650-566-5343
gluce@cbnorcal.com
www.gwenluce.com
Powered by e-Letterhead
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to
confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a
real estate contract via written or verbal communication.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Clerk, City
Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 7:29 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Please consider my opinion
Thanks and have a great day.
B‐
Beth Minor, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329‐2379
From: Stephen Luce <stephen.luce@mlegalgroup.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 8:31 PM
To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Please consider my opinion
To Whom it May Concern:
I oppose Jonathan Lait’s proposed amendments – the subject of a major lawsuit that dozens of cities,
including New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Denvey, Portland and San Jose have joined together to
sue the FCC as well as our representative in Congress, Anna Eshoo, has introduced legislation to
repeal the order - because:
1) They are unnecessary.
Why is Palo Alto rushing to codify in its Wireless Ordinance what so many cities are suing
to keep out of theirs?
City Staff are telling the ARB, the PTC and City Council that Palo Alto risks being sued by
the telecom industry if it doesn’t make these changes. In fact, the likelihood that a telecom
company would sue the City over non-compliance with an FCC order that, first, is the
subject of a lawsuit brought by the largest cities in the United States and that, second,
Congress is seeking to repeal – is zero. So is the likelihood that any Court would agree to
hear such a case.
2
2) They are not in the best interests of the residents of Palo Alto.
These amendments make it faster, easier and cheaper for telecom companies to install cell
towers right next to our homes.
They eliminate public hearings and review by the Architectural Review Board, and give
Planning Director Lait the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can install and
where they can install it. And we already know what Mr. Lait thinks is
acceptable: Hanging hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous equipment
on utility poles right next to our homes.
3) These amendments fly in the face of City Council’s support for repealing the FCC order.
To quote Mayor Filseth in his letter of February 7, 2019 to Congresswoman Eshoo: “The
deployment of [cell towers] must be done through the usual public process associated with
local government, a process that … needs no modifications from the FCC. … The FCC’s
decision to …restrict our ability to best determine the needs of our own city represents the
FCC’s failure to listen to local governments across the country.”
Thank you for your consideration.
Stephen Luce
1
Carnahan, David
From:Clerk, City
Sent:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:58 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: please oppose amendments to Palo Alto's Wireless Ordinance
Thanks and have a great day.
B‐
Beth Minor, City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650)329‐2379
From: Whitney Leeman <whitney.r.leeman@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:28 AM
To: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission
<Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: please oppose amendments to Palo Alto's Wireless Ordinance
Dear Board Members and Commission Members,
I am writing to express concern and opposition to the recently proposed amendments to Palo Alto’s Wireless Ordinance.
Why is Palo Alto rushing to codify in its Wireless Ordinance what so many cities are suing to keep out of theirs?
These amendments are not in the best interests of the residents and businesses of Palo Alto; the health effects of
radiofrequency and microwave radiation are undeniable at this point in time.
Both the California Department of Public Health and the US Department of Health and Human Services National
Toxicology Program (NTP) have issued cell phone guidance:
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Cell‐Phone‐Guidance.pdf
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html
The NTP notes that high exposure to RF used by cell phones was associated with:
2
“Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined
pheochromocytoma.”
The proposed amendments to the Wireless Ordinance make it faster, easier and cheaper for telecom companies to
install cell towers right next to local homes and businesses. They eliminate public hearings and review by the
Architectural Review Board, and give Planning Director Lait the sole authority to decide what a telecom company can
install and where they can install it. And we already know what Mr. Lait thinks is acceptable: hanging hundreds of
pounds of ugly, noisy, potentially hazardous equipment on utility poles right next to local homes and businesses.
These amendments fly in the face of City Council’s support for repealing the FCC order.
To quote Mayor Filseth in his letter of February 7, 2019 to Congresswoman Eshoo: “The deployment of [cell towers]
must be done through the usual public process associated with local government, a process that … needs no
modifications from the FCC. … The FCC’s decision to …restrict our ability to best determine the needs of our own city
represents the FCC’s failure to listen to local governments across the country.”
Sincerely,
Whitney Leeman, Ph.D.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 19, 2019 6:01 PM
To:Gennady Sheyner; Allison Levitsky; Emily Mibach
Cc:Michael Eager; Carol Scott; Paul Machado; Wolfgang Dueregger; Holzemer/hernandez; Allen Akin;
Norman H. Beamer; Becky Sanders; Furman, Sheri; Mary Gallagher; Barbara Ann Hazlett; Greg Schmid
(external); Council, City; Tanda, Wayne; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; guislin@gmail.com; Malcolm
Roy Beasley; Sallyann Rudd; Kuo-Jung Chang; Fred Kohler
Subject:Fw: 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
The email and attachments below were presented to Palo Alto Finance Committee this afternoon.
Residents will be following up with the Committee and Council as FY19/20 budgets are finalized.
Our concerns are twofold.
First, the overall operating budget reductions could impact staff's ability to act on these long standing,
unresolved issues. Additionally, staff turnover has been so severe that much continuity has been lost
during the past 4-5 years. The opportunity costs of delays has been significant and overlooked by
staff and Council.
Second, capital budgets also are expected to be strained. However, in light of tabling the Waverley
Garage, there is an opportunity to use infrastructure funds to fast-track projects such as
valet/ambassador program and way-finding signage for the three University Avenue city garages.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com>; Patrick Slattery <patslattery@sbcglobal.net>; Allen Akin <akin@arden.org>;
John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>; Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Wayne Tanda
<wayne.tanda@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019, 6:10:33 PM PST
Subject: RPP Issues for FY19/20 Workplan and Budgets
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
2
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:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Saturday, March 16, 2019 2:03 PM
To:Dan Richard; Doug Vagim; Steven Feinstein; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu;
yicui@stanford.edu; hennessy; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Council, City; popoff;
paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Daniel Zack; robert.andersen;
mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Cathy Lewis; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mark Waldrep;
kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kclark; dennisbalakian; David Balakian;
pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; Mark Kreutzer; Mayor; Mark Standriff; beachrides; bearwithme1016
@att.net
Subject:Fwd: BART and hearing loss
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 2:00 AM
Subject: Fwd: BART and hearing loss
To: Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, bballpod
<bballpod@aol.com>, <bearwithme1016@att.net>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, jerry ruopoli
<jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian
<davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, kfsndesk
<kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, huidentalsanmateo
<huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:35 PM
Subject: Fwd: BART and hearing loss
To: Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, <margaret‐
sasaki@live.com>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian
<davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, kfsndesk
<kfsndesk@abc.com>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, paul.caprioglio <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>,
<esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, leager <leager@fresnoedc.com>, Cathy Lewis
<catllewis@gmail.com>, popoff <popoff@pbworld.com>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, Mark
Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, <midge@thebarretts.com>, <info@superide1.com>, Mark Standriff
<mark.standriff@fresno.gov>
b
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:05 PM
Subject: Fwd: BART and hearing loss
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
2
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 5:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: BART and hearing loss
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:50 PM
Subject: Fwd: BART and hearing loss
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:32 PM
Subject: Fwd: BART and hearing loss
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:19 PM
Subject: Fwd: BART and hearing loss
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfor
Thurs. March 14, 2019
Mr. Dan Richard
Dan‐ Interesting article re BART and hearing loss:
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART‐noise‐levels‐decibels‐trains‐headphones‐loud‐
13602734.php#photo‐17061701
You may get information directly from BART about this, but I found it interesting.
During my twelve years in New York City, I rode the subway some, but not a lot. The noise there was extreme.
When I was in Paris in '73, I rode their subway and noticed that the cars ran on rubber tires, all paid for by the Amercan
taxpayers. That really struck me. One paid thirty cents to have his hearing damaged in the NYC subway system while I
lived there. Now it's ~$3.00 (!)
3
Now in Fresno I wear the "shooting muffs" that they wear at shooting ranges, at airports and on aircraft carriers to
protect my hearing. Mandatory at the gym if one has any sense, and needed in Walmart, Winco too. I never step out the
front door of my home withouit them on. Morons driving vehicles with virturally no muffler roam the streets of Fresno
and the Fresno PD will not cite them for it. Just to walk down to the mailbox I wear them, and certainly to mow my lawn.
Which reminds me, I need to mow my lawn. Three months of relentless rain has re‐vivified my dead lawn and it is
now a foot tall. Hearty stuff.
Last night "PBS Newshour" for Wed. March 13, 2019 had a piece about the danger of asbestos. It has killed
thousands of people just in the U.S.‐ asbestos miners, of course, and construction workers, ship yard workers, Steve
McQueen who pulled asbestos off of pipes in the engine room of a ship while in the Marines, people who worked with
brake linings and boilers. Imagine blowing that dust out of a brake system with an air hose. Obama finally ordered tough
regulation of asbestos. And, now, Trump has reversed those regs!! They ran a clip of Trump testifying ~2005 that
asbestos is the best fire protection that can be used in construction. Let's hear it for asbestos!
Here us the "PBS Newshour" for March 13, 2019. The asbestos story begins at 32:33 and runs for 10 minutes: Well
worth seeing. It could save your life and the lives of others. It could also convince you that Trump has to be removed as
President.
https://www.pbs.org/video/march‐13‐2019‐pbs‐newshour‐full‐episode‐1552522127/
When inhaled, asbestos can cause mesothelioma, a deadly cancer. There was a doctor in NYC, Dr. Irving Selikoff,
who was a world authority on meso, and so he was on TV there a lot in the 70s. Trump heard plenty from him re the
dangers of asbestos. This link is worth reading. It describes how Dr. Selikoff got on to the danger of asbestos and was
willing to raise the alarm. Surely other medical professionals had seen what asbestos was doing but kept their mouths
shut. Money talks, apparently.
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/22/nyregion/irving‐j‐selikoff‐is‐dead‐at‐77‐tb‐researcher‐fought‐
asbestos.html
The Newshour piece said that the chemical industry has spent millions on lobbying to continue the use of
asbestos. So Trump with his "screw the little people" program is costing lives. When the enormous wild fires start again
in California later this year, the lack of resources to suppress them will cost more lives. $716 billion for the DOD this year
and $750 billion in Trump's FY 2020 budget for the DOD. Not a dime to address the disastrous wild fire situation in
California. A guy like Trump can and is costing lives. It is not just the residents of a place like Paradise, Ca. that are
impacted. The entire Central Valley of California can be and is filled with deadly wild fire smoke for weeks on end due to
these fires. (so can be the Bay Area and LA basin). The population of California is forced to breath that. The local TV
stations in Fresno were having their on‐air people minimize the danger of breathing it until I threatened them with
license revocation for it.
Trump stood next to your friend Gov. Brown at the Camp Fire site and said that there was $50 million in the
Dept. of Interior budget to clean up the forest floor of overgrowth, which he alleges is the cause of our fires. That was a
literal in‐your‐face insult to the Governor of and the people of California. Gov. Brown recognized it as such as he heard
Trump say it. He said in a later video that he didn't go back at Trump there because the people in and around Paradise,
Ca. needed so much federal money immediately from FEMA and the SBA. This bastard Trump should be impeached
before he costs too many more American lives.
We need 50 747s repurposed as fire retardant tankers as soon as they can be bought and converted. There are
hundreds of 747s in the aircraft bone‐yards in the Mojave in California, in Texas, in Spain and even in Kazakhstan. Many
airlines around the world still fly them and want to get rid of them. At $100 million each to buy and convert, 50 would
cost $5 billion. A private company in Colorado owns one and it was used belatedly on the Camp Fire in N. California. That
4
one can deliver 19,000 gal. of retardant on to a fire in one pass, so we know how to convert a 747 into a great fire‐
fighting tool. The DC‐10 they use for that can deliver 10,000 gal. of retardant.
KCBS said the other morning that Cal fire wants more trucks and more men to fight our wild fires. Trucks and men
don't seem to stop these fires in less that a month. California should "get real" about these fires and get the 50 747
tankers that will really do the job.
The hopeless Dems seeking the presidency in 2020 talk about Medicare for all and halting the use of planes and
cars to fight climate change. Kamala Harris said that she plans to sit in living rooms all over the United States to learn
what the American people want from their government, and she proposes huge reparations for African‐Americans for
slavery. I've never owned a slave, since Lincoln freed them in 1863. My father did heavy farm work growing up on their
80‐acre farm near Abilene, Kansas. When I would visit there as a child, they never showed me the slave quarters. Hard
work in blazing Kansas heat and bitter Kansas cold. Yet, off of that 80 acre farm, my father's three sisters all graduated
from college and became teachers. One, Velma, put herself though the University of Kansas in three years majoring in
European languages and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. My father's brother, my uncle Dean H. Harding, M.D., graduated
from the University of Kansas School of Medicine in 1943 and practiced medicine in Washington, D.C. and in San Jose,
Calif. until he was ~70 years of age. Pretty productive little farm, and with no slaves.
The announced Democratic candidates don't have a workable idea to their names. They're pathetic. They are
too lazy, or corrupt, to see the real issues. If one of them is the candidate, they will for sure guarantee four more years
of Trump and all of the damage that that will cause to the American people. The founder of Starbucks says he will run as
an independent and re‐elect Trump that way, as Ross Perot elected Clinton in 1992.
While you have never encouraged the idea, I still think that you could defeat Trump for president in 2020 if you
were the Democratic candidate. I don't think you would have to walk ice‐covered roads in Iowa to get the nomination.
Just get in front of the cameras and present a program for the American people. The electorate would say "this man
sounds better for us than Trump is", and they'd be right. You know what this country needs without sitting in thousands
of living rooms to find out.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 7:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Stanford GUP conditions of approval from the county
Attachments:Summary of Conditions of Approval.pdf; ATT00001.htm
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tom DuBois <tom.dubois@gmail.com>
Date: March 15, 2019 at 2:08:16 PM PDT
To: "Minor, Beth" <beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Stanford GUP conditions of approval from the county
Can you send this out to council please.
Summary of Major Stanford University Community Plan Amendments and General Use Permit Conditions of Approval
Recommended by the Department of Planning and Development,
County of Santa Clara, as of March 12, 2019 and Subject to Changes
GENERAL USE PERMIT (GUP) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL1
Section Topic Summary
Development Academic Phased development of a maximum of 2,275,000 square feet of academic development to be
considered for approval in 25% increments and not more frequently than once every 5 years.
Development Housing A minimum of 2,172 units, inclusive of affordable units, and 2,600 student beds; with a
maximum of 2,892 units, inclusive of affordable units, and 2,807 beds to be constructed. A
minimum of 70% of market rate units, 40% of affordable units not covered by the affordable
housing impact fee ordinance, and 100% of beds to be constructed on-campus. Any off-
campus units must be constructed within a 6-mile radius of the Community Plan boundary
unless an exception is granted. All housing construction will be subject to the linkage policy
as required by the Community Plan.
Development Other Approval of a maximum of 40,000 square feet of child care/trip reducing facilities and 50,000
square feet of temporary surge space.
Transportation Avoid
worsening
traffic
congestion
Establish a three-tier system:
Tier 1—no net new commute trips during peak hour/direction and peak period;
Tier 2—set reverse commute trips baseline during peak hour and peak period and avoid
baseline exceedance; and,
Tier 3—limit growth in average daily traffic.
Transportation Safe Routes to
School
A Safe Routes to School improvements, as specified in Stanford’s application, and Safe Routes
to School study is required.
Parking Parking Space
Cap
Maximum of 21,651 parking spaces. Maximum of one space per residential unit not counted
towards parking space cap.
1 This summary of the General Use Permit Conditions of Approval is not exhaustive, and addresses topic areas that have generated significant public
comments.
Open Space,
Parks &
Recreation
Parks & Open
Space Study
Stanford to pay for an updated Parks and Open Space Study to be prepared by the County and
subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission.
Biological
Resources
Tree Removal All trees removed require 1:1 replacement ratio except for Oak Trees that will required 3:1
replacement ratio. Allow preparation of vegetation management plan that tracks tree removal
and replacement at a programmatic level.
Visual
Resources
El Camino
Frontage Plan
Stanford to pay for an updated El Camino Frontage Plan to be prepared by the County and
subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission.
Geology &
Hydrology
Stormwater
Runoff
Within 18 months of the effective date of the GUP, Stanford shall prepare an updated Campus-
wide hydrology and drainage plan for peer review by the County and approval by the Planning
Commission.
Cultural
Resources
Structures 50-
years or Older
Architecture and Site Approval (ASA) applications including proposed demolition or
modification of buildings 50-years or older will be reviewed by the County for possible
inclusion on the County’s Heritage Resource Inventory.
Public Services
& Utilities
Community
Services Study
Stanford to pay for the preparation of a Community Services Study by the County that will be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATES
Chapter Topic Summary
Growth and
Development
Academic Growth Boundary
(AGB)
Extend duration of Academic Growth Boundary from 25 years to 99 years and
continue the four-fifths vote requirement of the Board of Supervisors for any
modification to the AGB during the 99-year period.
Growth and
Development
Community Services Study Community Services Study to determine the types and service levels of
community (including municipal) services required to serve the population
associated with campus development. Study would be prepared under the
Direction of the County and reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission.
Growth and
Development
Update Maximum
Development
Update the amount of maximum development allowed within the area covered
by the Community Plan with additional development above that amount
requiring a Community Plan amendment.
Growth and
Development
Ensure ongoing development
meets Community Plan
policies and objectives
Recognize that the County should ensure that ongoing development authorized
under the General Use Permit must comply with the Community Plan policies
and GUP conditions through phased review and approvals.
Land Use Public School Site
Designation
Relocate public school site designation from east side of campus to west side of
campus to be in closer proximity to campus population centers.
Land Use Alignment of Zoning with
Community Plan
Designations
The County will evaluate the land development standards as appropriate to
determine if they should be updated to implement the Community Plan policies.
Housing Housing Policy and
Jobs/Housing Balance
Reflect County’s affordable housing goals to ensure that housing development
matches ongoing job growth within the Community Plan, addressing affordable
housing needs.
Circulation Avoid Worsening Traffic
Congestion
Require Stanford to avoid worsening traffic congestion during commute and
non-commute hours.
Community
Plan wide
Charts, figures, and data Where appropriate, update outdated charts, figures, and data to reflect current
conditions.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tony Carrasco <tonyacarrasco@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11:38 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Great meeting.
Dear Rail Committee.
It was a pleasure attending last nights Rail Committee meeting.
The joy was from watching you guys being really creative together.
I have not been to many council meetings in the last ten years or so but I have read about discord.
Last nights meeting made me proud to be a Palo Altan.
TONY CARRASCO
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kellen (Class of ) <
Sent:Thursday, March 7, 2019 11:03 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Hazardous Road Conditions
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Kellen and I live off of Los Trancos road in Portola Valley. As you may be aware of, a portion of Los
Trancos Road passes through Santa Clara County within Palo Alto’s jurisdiction; this portion is approximately located
from Portola Vineyards to Oak Forest Court. This small portion of road is unfortunately extremely hazardous and unsafe.
On this portion, the road is crumbling and there are potholes everywhere. Additionally, the road is much too narrow for
the amount of traffic it receives. On weekends, there are often close calls between cars and bicyclists since there is no
shoulder for them to ride on. After the events of Paradise CA, fire safety is a concern for many residents as well. The
road is not wide enough to facilitate a safe evacuation of the many residents who use it, not to mention that brush that
is overgrown on the sides of the road. Lastly, during heavy rainfall there is a portion of the road that becomes flooded
and impassable, this could also be addressed through proper drainage installation.
I believe the town of Portola Valley has raised this issue several times to Palo Alto before but no action has been
taken. I would like to see some sort of plan to address this dangerous section of road. As I understand it, County funds
may be utilized to assist in the construction costs. I urge the council to make this a priority as Los Trancos road is an
essential and highly trafficked thoroughfare for many residents of both Palo Alto and Portola Valley.
Signed,
Kellen
Sent from my iPad
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 12, 2019 7:53 AM
To:sandra@sandraslater.com; Hilary Glann; Annette Isaacson; Zelkha, Mila; North Ventura Coordinated
Area Plan; Council, City; elaine.uang@gmail.com; Jeffrey Salzman
Subject:How Humans Could Halt Climate Change By 2050 : Goats and Soda : NPR
Excellent article and ideas to seriously address climate change.
Gail Price
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/03/11/688876374/its‐2050‐and‐this‐is‐how‐we‐stopped‐climate‐
change
Sent from my iPhone
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 7, 2019 12:01 PM
To:susan.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Joe Simitian
Subject:Many errors in Danish Vaccine/MMR study
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com
(My apology for my error yesterday saying it was Sweden).
New Danish MMR Study Shows Autism Rate of 1 in 100—
CDC Should Rush to Denmark!
By JB Handley, Children’s Health Defense Director/Co-Founder of Generation
Rescue (author of How to End the Autism Epidemic) March 7, 2019
6 main points in brief:
1. We’ve still only studied a single vaccine. Even though children receive 11 vaccines,
and MMR isn’t given until 12 months old, long after many other vaccines.
2. The most compelling data in the study will never get covered: why is the autism
rate in this study only 1 in 100? Here in the U.S. we’re at 1 in 36!
3. They abuse the word “unvaccinated” and the media will, too.
4. This doesn’t tell us anything about aluminum adjuvant as a trigger for immune
activation events
5. The national register in Denmark is unreliable, according to published science.
. . . these studies that are both funded and researched by vaccine companies (this one is
funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and research completed by Danish vaccine maker
Statens Serum Institut.) . This groups has published bogus stories in US before.
6. Finally, and this is actually the most important point but also the most confusing:
the study doesn’t take into account “Healthy User Bias”. (People with health problems
avoid vaccination.)
By JB Handley, Children’s Health Defense Director and Co-Founder of Generation Rescue
COPENHAGEN, Denmark—We have another “Danish Study” that will invariably be all the
talk. It’s too bad no one reads (or understands) the details about these studies that are
both funded and researched by vaccine companies (this one is funded by the Novo
Nordisk Foundation and research completed by Danish vaccine maker Statens Serum
Institut.)
I won’t bore you with how consistently this particular vaccine maker has helped publish
bogus studies used here in the U.S. to prove “vaccines don’t cause autism”, but it’s a
long, sordid history. So, I’m just going to make six quick points about why this study
doesn’t change anything about the debate (but will most certainly be used by Paul Offit and
others to “slam the door” once again):
1. We’ve still only studied a single vaccine. Even though children receive 11 vaccines,
and MMR isn’t given until 12 months old, long after many other vaccines. Here’s the table:
( Table did not copy). The table shows that MMR has been tested for autism but 10
other common baby vaccines have NOT been tested.
2
Just watch. The media will say, over and over, “proves vaccines don’t cause autism.” No, it
doesn’t. If you prove Vioxx causes heart attacks, that doesn’t mean all drugs cause heart
attacks…Sigh.
2. The most compelling data in the study will never get covered: why is the autism
rate in this study only 1 in 100?
Here in the U.S. we’re at 1 in 36! Shouldn’t CDC researchers rush to Denmark to figure out
why their autism rate is so much lower than ours? For every 1,000 Danish kids, only 10
have autism. But here in the U.S., we have 28 per 1,000, that’s 177% more autism! I
thought Paul Offit wanted everyone to believe the autism rate was the same everywhere?
What gives?
My personal heory): they do not give the Hepatitis B vaccine. No kids in this study
received that vaccine, and the Chinese recently showed Hep B vaccine causes brain damage
in mice. I personally think it’s a huge part of the problem. (The Danes also do not give
Rotavirus vaccine or flu vaccine, the much lower vaccination requirement of Danish
children versus American children is NOT mentioned anywhere in the study.)
3. They abuse the word “unvaccinated” and the media will, too.
The study authors throw around the word “unvaccinated” but at least in the study, they
make clear this ONLY means “didn’t get the MMR.” Said differently, the children received
EVERY OTHER vaccine. Watch as people try to say this is a vaccinated versus
unvaccinated study. It isn’t. Here’s an example:
There is a giant difference between large-scale epidemiology (like this Danish study), and
the growing body of biological science showing, clearly and unequivocally, that the
aluminum adjuvant used in vaccines causes brain damage in laboratory animals.
4. This doesn’t tell us anything about aluminum adjuvant as a trigger for immune
activation events
As many of you who follow my writing know, I wrote an entire book about the emerging
science showing how the aluminum adjuvant used in vaccines is likely triggering
immune activation events in the brains of babies and, in certain vulnerable children,
causing autism. You can read about most of this science right here.
There is a giant difference between large-scale epidemiology (like this Danish study), and
the growing body of BIOLOGICAL science showing, clearly and unequivocally, that the
aluminum adjuvant used in vaccines causes brain damage in laboratory animals.
Obviously, this study does nothing to prove or disprove this growing body of published
science. Nothing.
5. The national register in Denmark is unreliable, according to published science.
Less than two years ago, a study was published showing the inconsistencies of the Danish
National Register, which is the dataset used in this study. Entitled, Danish MMR
vaccination coverage is considerably higher than reported, the study noted:
> Conducting a medical record review in 19 randomly selected general practices with a
total of 1,712 listed children aged 18-42 months, we found a significantly higher MMR1
vaccination coverage (94%) than estimated through register-based data (86%). This finding
is surprising, particularly when considering that the official national vaccination figures are
based on these register-based data merged with similar data from the four other regions.
More than half of the children who were unvaccinated according to the register-based
data (55%) had, in fact, been vaccinated according to the medical records.
3
> Our study also revealed that the identified discrepancies between register-based data
and medical records were due mainly to administrative errors in the registration system
involving the general practice and the region. Most often, the GPs used the correct unique
code for MMR1 vaccination, but administrative errors occurred in the reimbursement
process and thus affected the register-based data.
Obviously, if the data used in the study is unreliable, as this appears to show…
6. Finally, and this is actually the most important point but also the most confusing:
the study doesn’t take into account “Healthy User Bias”
This is the most important and most confusing point, and it’s the same trick The Lewin
Group used when doing their MMR study a few years ago, I wrote about this here. Luckily,
my favorite website, Vaccine Papers has discussed the abuse of “HUB” so I will use them to
explain it first:
> “Healthy user bias (HUB) is a serious problem in studies of vaccine safety. HUB is
created when people with health problems avoid vaccination. When this occurs the
unhealthy, unvaccinated subjects are used as controls. Consequently, the vaccinated
group has better health at the outset. The better health of the vaccinated is erroneously
attributed to the vaccine. The vaccine gets credit for improving health, when in fact it is
causing harm.”
Let me try to explain. A hypothetical Danish kid (“Kid B”) has an older brother with
autism. Kid B gets all his vaccines before the MMR (not given until 15 months in Denmark)
and by age 12 months this Danish kid is not doing well, missing all his milestones
(remember, his brother has autism, he’s likely way more at risk, but he’s gotten his shots
so far.) The parents are now really worried, so they skip the MMR vaccine. They stop
vaccinating. But, it’s too late, he goes on to develop autism. But he never got the MMR. In
this study, he proves the “MMR does not cause autism.” Get it? The parents avoided
MMR because he was already doing so poorly. But he becomes the data these authors want
most to find: a kid with a sibling with autism, who didn’t get the MMR, who still has
autism. If you don’t account for this healthy user bias, your data starts to become
meaningless, of course the CDC knows this because they have written all about it.
This point is so important, and so confusing, I will give Vaccine Papers one more chance:
Vaccine safety studies typically compare health outcomes in vaccinated and
unvaccinated people. In order to obtain accurate results, the two groups must be
‘matched’, meaning they have similar health and lifestyle characteristics. Matching groups
is straightforward if the researchers have control over who gets the vaccine and who
doesn’t. If researchers do not have this control (known as an ‘observational’ study), it is
impossible to assure the groups are matched. The resulting group differences can cause
biases that severely distort the study outcome. Poor matching can cause the study to be
totally wrong.
Most vaccine safety studies are observational, and accordingly, do not include researcher
control of vaccine exposure. For example, studies are often performed with
“administrative data”, which is health data collected by insurance companies or
governments. Researchers can use administrative data to compare health outcomes in
vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
A big problem is that vaccinated and unvaccinated people are not matched.
Critical differences include:
4
1) Healthy people are more likely to choose to be vaccinated. People with chronic
diseases or health issues tend to avoid the risk of vaccination.
2) People that choose vaccination tend to have other “health seeking” behaviors,
such as having a better diet and exercising, or getting regular screenings and medical
tests.
These differences create “healthy user bias” (HUB) or the “healthy user effect” in vaccine
studies. Flu vaccine studies appear to be strongly affected by healthy user bias. People
that receive the flu vaccine have dramatically lower (50% lower) mortality and better health
when its NOT flu season (i.e. in the summer). This is not plausibly due to the vaccine;
rather it is because people that choose to receive the flu vaccine have better baseline health
and more “health seeking” behavior. Dr Peter Doshi of Johns Hopkins University describes
the healthy user bias problem in the British Medical Journal:
> “Since at least 2005, non-CDC researchers have pointed out the seeming impossibility
that influenza vaccines could be preventing 50% of all deaths from all causes when
influenza is estimated to only cause around 5% of all wintertime deaths.14 15 So how
could these studies—both published in high impact, peer reviewed journals and carried out
by academic and government researchers with non-commercial funding—get it wrong?
Consider one study the CDC does not cite, which found influenza vaccination associated
with a 51% reduced odds of death in patients hospitalized with pneumonia (28 of 352 [8%]
vaccinated subjects died versus 53 deaths among 352 [15%] unvaccinated control
subjects).16 Although the results are similar to those of the studies CDC does cite, an
unusual aspect of this study was that it focused on patients outside of the influenza
season—when it is hard to imagine the vaccine could bring any benefit.
And the authors, academics from Alberta, Canada, knew this: the purpose of the study was
to demonstrate that the fantastic benefit they expected to and did find—and that others
have found, such as the two studies that CDC cites—is simply implausible, and likely the
product of the “healthy-user effect” (in this case, a propensity for healthier people to be
more likely to get vaccinated than less healthy people).
Others have gone on to demonstrate this bias to be present in other influenza vaccine
studies.17 18 Healthy user bias threatens to render the observational studies, on which
officials’ scientific case rests, not credible.” -Dr Doshi of Johns Hopkins U., 2013
Healthy user bias is a specific type of “selection bias.” Selection bias is well known.
For example, a commonly used textbook on epidemiology and statistics states the
following:
> “Selection bias results when subjects are allowed to select the study group they
want to be in. If subjects are allowed to choose their own study group, those who are more
educated, more adventuresome, or more health-conscious may want to try a new therapy or
preventive measure. Differences subsequently found may be partly or entirely due to
differences between the subjects rather than to the effect of the intervention. Almost any
nonrandom method of allocation of subjects to study groups may produce selection bias.”
(Emphasis in original)
> Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Preventative Medicine, Jekel et al, 3rd ed., 2007, page 70
CDC Researchers Study Healthy User Bias
In 1992, CDC researchers Dr. Paul Fine and Dr. Robert Chen published an important
paper describing evidence for HUB in studies of the DPT vaccine and sudden infant death
syndrome (SIDS). They derived a mathematical model for calculating the strength of HUB.
Their paper states:
> “…individuals predisposed to either SIDS or encephalopathy are relatively unlikely to
5
receive DPT vaccination. Studies that do not control adequately for this form of
“confounding by indication” will tend to underestimate any real risks associated with
vaccination.”
AND
> “Confounding…is a general problem for studies of adverse reactions to prophylactic
interventions, as they may be withheld from some individuals precisely because they are
already at high risk of the adverse event.”
AND
> “If such studies are to prove useful, they must include strenuous efforts to control for
such factors in their design, analysis and interpretation. Whether this is possible at all may
be open to discussion. The difficulty of doing so is indisputable.” (emphasis added)
So, simple question about this new MMR study: Is the word(s) “Healthy User Bias”
anywhere in the study? No, of course not (run a word search yourself), because this
isn’t real epidemiology, this is corporate epidemiology to generate a headline, and it
will probably work. They don’t take Healthy User Bias into account in a situation where
that behavior will massively impact the results. Without it, the data really is meaningless.
The authors brush by this topic in the conclusion, but don’t give it anywhere near the
attention an honest vaccine epidemiologist knows it deserves:
As you already learned, “HUB” will have a massive impact on results, especially when
only 1% of subjects have the thing you are measuring for (autism). But why let details get
in the way of a good story?
My detractors love to point out that I’m not a scientist, so how dare I write these essays
talking about science? So, here’s a great blog post about this study from a scientist, Dr.
James Lyons-Weiler. If you have a friend who is an epidemiologist, I’d send them to this
link:
An Autopsy on Hviid et al. 2019’s MMR/Vaccine Science-Like Activities
---------------
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s
Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend
the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is
essential to CHD’s successful mission.
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 13, 2019 10:31 AM
To:Joe Simitian; susan.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:MMR/autism Invalid --79 vaccines to study
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com
No aluminum in MMRII‐‐Denmark study a farce, 79 more vaccines to study
1. The recently announced MMR vaccine study in Denmark is not valid as a test for
autism. It surveyed information on only one vaccine of 80 FDA-approved vaccines. The
MMR vaccine does NOT contain the suspected aluminum that is believed by some to cause
autism and found in autistic/Alzheimers brains!.
The study was a survey of half a million of public records (not considered accurate in
past tests). Some kids now get 5 or 10 vaccines in one day.
**** Dirty Vaccines: Every Human Vaccine Tested Was Contaminated With Metals and Debris in New
Study by Celeste McGovern
***Newborns injected with 17 times the allowable amount of
aluminum. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17300950?via%3Dihub
2.
CDC members have 56 vaccine Patents
Actually some 56 individual vaccine patents are found to be owned or shared by one or
more members of the CDC committee charged with safety of vaccines.. The CDC is indeed
biased about vaccines.
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out
over $4 billion for vaccine
damage. https://www.lawfirms.com/resources/environment/environment-
health/cdc-members-own-more-50-patents-connected-vaccinations
3. Anti-Vaxxer....a Bully Name
The Media continues to blame 'anti-vaxxers' for misinformation on the subject. Anti-
vaxxers is a bully name, a Fake Name. Very few people are totally against all
vaccines. Many parents are against the 'UNSAFE INGREDIENTS" in vaccines. We want
vaccines tested better and not given Immunity for improper testing (as Pres. Reagan
did when 3 of 4 vaccine companies were going out of business from lawsuits for damaged
babies in 1980s.
4. Fake News lacks Ethics
The media does Fake News without the ethics of examining both sides.
54% of U.S. children have chronic health problems that did not exist 50 years ago.
Media writes Measles is an epidemic for a few hundred cases in 330 million people with 0 to
11 deaths in 18 years. Some deaths followed measles with pneumonia which likely
was the cause of death!" The media never writes about the epidemic of over 50,000
plus autism cases.
2
Arlene Goetze, MA., spiritual and health writer/editor,
First Dir. of Communication for Diocese of San Jose; founder/editor of Catholic
Women's Network‐‐a non‐profit educational organization with all publications now in the Archives of Santa Clara
University for Education;
freelance to national newspapers in 1970s & 1980s. Mother of 7; grandmom of 18.
All my 7 children received vaccines given during their childhood when only 5 vaccines were given by age 5 and not
the present 40 to 50 vaccines or they are
banned from public and private kndergarten. Parents have lost their Constitutional
rights for vaccine exemptions for their children in Calif. and a few other states.
Please share this info with others.
Also‐‐ How to End the Autism Epidemic by J. B Handley
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday, March 13, 2019 9:32 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:MUST READ re "housing crisis"
Greetings Council Members
State Senator Scott Wiener's proposed housing bill SB-50 continues to be controversial, including
here in Palo Alto. I do not envy the task our council members have in trying to determine how our
town will respond, should this bill become state law. I am personally concerned, because while I
appreciate there may be need for more housing, I ask if the solution means that we have to destroy
our present community in the process.
In fact I ask myself, is this proposed bill really the correct answer? The citation below causes me to
re-think the entire problem as it is being presented to communities throughout our state.
This is the most comprehensive and understandable document about the so called housing crisis I
have read. The author, Michael Goldman, Sunnyvale City Councilman, presents a compelling
analysis of the housing situation in California, stating very clearly, with good documentation, that the
State's Legislative Analyst Office (LOA) is taking the wrong approach in analyzing the State's so
called housing crisis. In fact, he claims, the present approach may make the problem even worse.
I hope you all will take the time to read Goldman's study. I believe it will be a great help to all of you
as you navigate this thorny problem.
Thank you.
Richard C. Placone
601 Chimalus Drive
Palo Alto
HERE IS THE LINK
https://meetingthetwain.blogspot.com/2019/03/lao-on-housing.html
1
Carnahan, David
From:Husna <husnah@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 4:29 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:PA City Council Meeting-- Monday March 18 (Connecting Palo Alto Project)
Honorable Council Members:
I am contacting you regarding Connecting Palo Alto Project and the proposed closure of Churchill Avenue crossing. To
address the significant impact of this closure on Embacedaro and Emerson, I urge the City Council to please:
1. Oppose any traffic mitigation plans that result in a substantial increase in traffic to Professorville residential streets,
specifically our already busy residential blocks.
2. Advocate for a mitigation plan that protects the safety of the pedestrians and bicyclists that follow the
bicycle/pedestrian route at the end of our block to Paly, Town & Country, Stanford and other destinations.
3. Hire a Chief of Transportation Officer who will work with concerned residents and conduct a more rigorous and
accurate traffic study.
4. Oppose the current traffic consultant's "concept plan" that puts a potential traffic light at the end of Emerson street.
The proposed light would likely make our street an alternative to Alma pushing a large volume of fast‐moving traffic
north/south.
5. Recognize that the Stanford GUP (General Use Permit) plan is likely to bring even more traffic to the Embarcedero
corridor, so solutions that bring less traffic to Professorville neighborhoods, not more traffic should be a priority.
I appreciate your time and effort in keeping our neighborhood safe for all.
Sincerely,
Husna Hashmi
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sumbul Ali-Karamali <muslimnextdoor@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 19, 2019 9:42 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please pass a resolution against Islamophobia
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Although I know Liz and Alison personally (I was honored to receive Liz's "Asian American Hero Award" several years
ago), I am reaching out to the Council in its entirety today to ask that you pass a resolution against Islamophobia.
The shooting of 50 Muslims at two mosques in New Zealand is simply a logical and inevitable result of years of increasing
malignant speech and conditioning against Muslims. Islamophobia is perhaps more accurately called anti‐Muslim bigotry
or anti‐Muslim hatred or anti‐Muslim racism (which has nothing to do with biology but is a cultural racism). There is a
long tradition of it in the West, akin to anti‐Semitism, but lately ‐‐ in addition to negative stereotypes of Muslims in TV,
film, education, books, and internet ‐‐ but in the last few decades it has become structural and political, as well.
Prejudice, stereotypes, and bigotry hurt all of us. They hurt our country. A resolution from the Palo City Council would
be a first, crucial, much‐appreciated step in stalling some of the current vicious trends in our country, even in the Bay
Area.
For example: my daughter's 9th grade Gunn HS social studies teacher showed the class a Youtube video which claimed
that all conflicts involving Muslims in the last 300 years were the result of Islamic fundamentalism (even the 1857
uprising in India, which resulted from a colonized people ‐‐ just as many Hindus as Muslims ‐‐ rising up against their
colonizers).
My son's Gunn HS social studies teachers told her class that the "Ottomans committed genocide against the Armenians
because the Ottomans were Muslim and the Armenians were Christian." That tragic event had nothing to do with
religion and everything to do with politics and power. None of the Armenians I have ever met make this claim, but the
Gunn teacher did.
A Palo Alto parent told my daughter's JLS social studies teacher that she didn't "want her child learning anything good
about Muslims."
Muslims are like any other community of people ‐‐ some good, some bad, but overwhelmingly moderate and peaceful.
(Indeed, Professor Steven Fish at UC Berkeley has shown that homicide rates in Muslim populates are lower than
homicide rates in non‐Muslim populations. This hardly supports the "Muslims are more violent than others" rhetoric.)
We have tolerated decades of attacks on mosques, hate crimes, and even murders. In 2015, Americans were more likely
to be murdered because they were Muslim than by a Muslim.
Please pass a resolution against Islamophobia as soon as possible. We need our civic and political leaders to take a stand
against bigotry in our communities and our schools.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Sumbul Ali‐Karamali, JD, LLM (Islamic Law)
Author of The Muslim Next Door: the Qur'an, the Media, and that Veil Thing
and Growing Up Muslim: Understanding the Beliefs and Practices of Islam
www.muslimnextdoor.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:YORIKO KISHIMOTO <yoriko12330@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 4:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail crossings: connecting Palo Alto (Item 1)
Dear Vice Mayor Fine and Honorable Council members:
I know the city council is under much pressure to make some decisions on the rail crossings this year. As
a recent City Council member and Mayor and as a resident on a residential arterial, I am however
alarmed that fundamental analysis and development of proposals about our land use and transportation
future are being made by outside consultants and what appears to be skeletal planning and transportation
staff. Not one mention in the staff report is made of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, which puts
sustainable transportation and reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicles as its first goal of city-wide
transportation planning.
My comments address the three topics staff is requesting direction on
a. “Accept updates to the timeline for the Connecting Palo Alto Rail Grade Separation planning
effort.”
* Recomendation: phase “South Palo Alto” and “North Palo Alto” projects including project
development, alternatives and mitigations development and environmental analysis
* Don’t force such a critical decision with only one more city council meeting.
b. “Review and consider recommendations to the City Council-adopted criteria for Rail Grade
Separation”
* Current tier one: “Traffic Congestion: reduce delay and congestion for automobile traffic at rail
crossings”
* Recommendation: Replace with “Decisions on rail crossings will be made according to the
priorities and goals in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, ie. sustainable transportation that
reduces our dependence on single occupancy vehicles, promotes traffic safety and complete
streets and reduces greenhouse gases.
c. Approve an upcoming contract amendment to contract C18171057 with AECOM funded in the
Grade Separation capital project (PL-17001) to continue work to assist the City with the selection
of a preferred solution for environmental review.
* I’m alarmed to read, “Task 1: Project Management – … will extend general project management
tasks required for managing all aspects of the planning effort.” All aspects of the planning
effort? The traffic consultants do not know Palo Alto or its comprehensive plan which was written
to help make the toughest decisions as we face huge pressures from growth. It should be Palo
Alto dedicated professional land use and transportation planners who oversees the consultants
and does the hard thinking and policy proposals to present to the council and public.
* CIty manager’s report says: “Technical Advisory Committee Meetings – reduced number of
meetings for the Technical Advisory Committee. The reduction is to reflect the realistic number of
meetings needed total.” - perhaps because there is no Palo Alto professional staff to work with.
Finally, as a resident of a historic house in Professorville on Embarcadero Road I was alarmed to
see in your scenario for long term “mitigations” (indeed, in this case, the “cure” may be worse than
the original disease) the shocking proposal for highway type interchanges at Embarcadero and
2
Alma. And taking three feet away from Embarcadero Road sidewalk when it’s already much too
narrow for a busy street? This is not San Jose or Los Angeles or the 1950s!
Please don’t set the clock back twenty years. Any changes to Palo Alto’s street system should be for the
better not worse.
Thank you for your hard work and dedication,
Yoriko Kishimoto
Former Mayor of Palo Alto, member of 1990s Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee
251 Embarcadero Rd
yoriko 12330@icloud.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Erick
Sent:Tuesday, March 12, 2019 6:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Recent experience.....
Hi my name is Erick I'm writing to you in a lot of fear and not sure of who to talk to about what happens
when you talk out loud about sensitive information regarding things of great economic importance in the City of Palo
Alto. Fully aware of my value to the medical world and how little value as a human being I have to them I found myself
harassed at Eleanor Cogswell Park on Lytton Avenue by the police the afternoon honor about February 3rd 2019. I had
just discussed at a local Walgreens the great difficulty life is these days as my path is obstructed by those who are in
positions of power over my life. There were people standing around when I talked about a narcotic that is being
researched at the local University and how my life has been upside down Topsy Turvy since certain people gain
knowledge of my exposure to this chemical don't. Carrying my groceries I made it to the street corner there and sat on
the bench as a police officer tactically came up behind me. He snuck up behind me because I was wearing camouflage
wetlands pattern jacket with a hood and Army Surplus camouflage pants with a tie‐dyed Grateful Dead t‐shirt.
Apparently there is some type of law regarding wearing camouflage in public these days the police officer said as he
searched me from head to toe and went through my bags commenting about his dislike for hippies and the Grateful
Dead along with his comments on how much trouble they caused the City of Palo Alto when they would play at the
shoreline. He made it so three other officers showed up and delivered and indignant public display of power. A man
handle me and put cuffs on me insat me on that bench with a knife he pulled out of my pocket in reach that he may
maximize the potential to escalate the situation by placing a weapon within my reach as he continually instigated and
used words to escalate the situation by insulting me my identity what I was doing there and the Very existence of a rock
and roll band. Because of that I recently have turned away from loyalty to those who are involved in illicit narcotics
manufacturing and sales throughout the local area. It was laundry day and I had no desire to talk with the cops. He
wanted to exercise his power over me by placing cops on me and doing all that he did. Therefore I am against drugs and
I recently called into one of your officers to let him know that there's somebody who lives in my building who
manufactures methamphetamine within the structure and then goes up to The Patio Bar & Grill and some other local
Social Bar and Grill type places on Ramona Street to make sales available of meth that he makes here in this building in
East Palo Alto. The officer that called who I spoke with when I returned his call was just as indignant narcissistic and self‐
righteous about me calling them about others whose criminal lifestyle is their ways and means. He kept forcing me back
to my local police department who does nothing absolutely nothing within this town to make this place livable by
everybody and anybody who wishes. Both of those officers were truly and clearly carrying out an arbitrary enforcement
of the local ideology that is in complete opposition of any Democratic or civilized law that is in place. The officer I spoke
to today in the officer who made contact with me in the beginning back on February 4th seem to be from the same tree.
They're passive aggressive and even at times out right hostile rebuttals 2 mi tips about illegal activity going on in their
Town clearly made it evident that I was being singled out in that the worst thing I could ever did was talk against the
local ideology because now I have to look at the fact that my civil rights as far as free speech have been in infringed upon
buy a department of officers who seem to be a duplicate of each other and possibly more people. I'm very sad and
dejected to know that such a beautiful little city is held and patrolled by a fascist Police Department to uphold the
economic value placed upon sick and disabled people by the local University and the pharmaceutical industry that
silently exist in plain daylight. Nothing scares me more than walking up University Avenue and lifting up my head to see
something felonious go down in plain sight. I just want you to know that for those who choose to live that lifestyle and
do everything and anything to maintain a lifestyle of staying in one place and Manufacturing dope and selling it at a
place that is supposed to be open to everybody. Your city is not a place for an average citizen to walk along the Avenue
and enjoy window shopping and the Sunshine on his shoulders. It is a held controlled purposed private territory that I'm
not welcome in and there is men with guns badges radios in cars to back up the unwelcome. I look forward to someday
connecting with the legitimate medical provider that I may get my life back on track earn enough to break away from
this black hole of slow chemical slavery and death. I'll have you know that University Avenue in the adjoining
2
communities are a cesspool and a source I've local drugs on the street. Anytime my punk neighbor is up there in your
neighborhood he's up to no good. He went to college in LA and move to Northern California simply to manufacture meth
and sell it. I guess your officers or the officers in my local community won't really care until the building explodes.
because you got to remember no stop sign ever goes to a virgin intersection until a kid gets killed on his bicycle. That's
America this is Palo Alto and I'm telling you I'm getting with what I believe in and it just doesn't jive with what you guys
believe in. Your officers clearly displayed that a person like myself is not welcome in a city like yours. And the racial
tensions in the city that I'm writing you from are the same. this is my experience I'm telling you the whole truth and
nothing but the truth so help me. I'm willing to go under oath to share with you in person again what I just wrote from
my heart.
Thank you.
Erick and Nala ,"the callico cat".
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mike Forster <mike@mikeforster.net>
Sent:Monday, March 11, 2019 12:08 PM
Cc:'Mike Forster'
Subject:SB 50 and Daylight Planes - Restricted Building, Eminent Domain, and Solar Impaired
March 11, 2019
To:
State Senator Scott Wiener
Council Members of Palo Alto
Supervisors of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties
Council Members of the City of Palo Alto
NRDC
CALPIRG
Environment California
AARP
SB 50 and Daylight Planes - Restricted Building, Eminent Domain, and Solar
Impaired. Daylight planes will interact with California Senate bill SB 50 - the More Homes
Act - to restrict building options, generate large eminent domain costs and legal challenges,
impair solar power, or all of the above.
Restricted development. Often, the property immediately behind a commercial property along
a thoroughfare such as El Camino Real is a residence. In Palo Alto, a residential owner has the
purchased, expected, and historic right to a daylight plane starting 10 feet above the property
line extending at a 45-degree angle; many cities have similar regulations. So, adjacent housing
could not reach SB-50's maximum height of 55 feet closer than 45 feet to the property
line. This would make tall developments practically and financially infeasible in many
locations.
Eminent domain. If new housing were allowed to intrude on the daylight plane, government
would have to use eminent domain to compensate the residential owner for the permanent
reduction in property value. Daylight access is a key feature of a property, with value. Per our
Constitution, government would have to compensate owners for this loss in value. Caltrain
noise could be considered a detriment comparable to daylight access. A quick study of 8 homes
sold in Palo Alto's South Gate neighborhood between 2016 and 2018 shows that homes next to
the Caltrain tracks sold for an average of 17% or $308 per square foot less, or $511,000 dollars
per home, than comparable homes 2 to 3 blocks from Caltrain. Other less expensive cities
would have lower cost impacts - but even so, with likely thousands of such properties statewide,
SB 50 could cause a huge cost to our government, as well as court challenges.
2
Solar impaired. Any intrusion into the daylight plane could also impair access to rooftop solar
power for those residences adjacent to new SB 50 developments, by shading the rooftops and
reducing the solar power production.
A better approach - Mandate maximums under current zoning laws. Instead of SB 50, the
state could mandate that all new construction in the desired areas - near mass transit or along
transit corridors - maximize the height, useable floor space, and housing units according to
existing local zoning regulations. This would maintain local control, but maximize the number
of units in the desired areas.
Mike Forster, Palo Alto
Mike Forster
420 Stanford Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
mike@mikeforster.net
650 464 9425
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 17, 2019 10:27 PM
To:Council, City; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Kniss, Liz (external); council@redwoodcity.org;
wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; gstone22@gmail.com; HRC; ibain@redwoodcity.org;
griffinam@sbcglobal.net
Subject:SB 50 undermines single-family neighborhoods & diversity...... Article in PA Weekly ...by Greer Stone -
member Palo Alto HRC & and former PA Mayor Pat Burt- PA Weekly -March 15, 2019
Reparations & SB 50
Dear Mr. Stone: (Member Palo Alto Human Relations Commission)
Although at first blush I find myself strongly supporting SB 50, I appreciate
the scope of the questions you and your co-author have raised re this
critical debate.
In the past, I was part of a group in Palo Alto (STB) Stop The Ban —that
fought to overturn/forestall Palo Alto’s then proposed ban on vehicle
dwellers.
STB worked tirelessly for several years to convince the city council and
faith groups to support a Safe Parking Program or what your article refers
to as...”managed location for RV dwellers.” The resistance to the program
was overwhelming.
We organized a well-attended panel discussion on the topic, at a local
church, that was attended by about 100 folks, including former city council
person Karen Holman.
Our keynote speaker was a counselor from a very successful Safe
Parking Program in Santa Barbara.Still, no success in getting the powers
that be in Palo Alto to consider such a program.
2
I’m wondering if the answer is not a total refusal to support SB 50s call for
more and dense housing, but rather, making certain that the bill includes
provisions for a very large percentage of the dense housing, envisioned by
SB 50, to be set aside, in perpetuity, for low and very low income
individuals, including seniors, people of color, the disabled, the formerly
unhoused, etc.
In addition, we could begin a discussion of mandating housing for the
victims, and their families, of housing segregation going back generations
in Palo Alto.
Yes, a big time discussion of providing permanent free, or very low rent
housing, as a form of reparations, for the wrongs Palo Alto visited and
continues to visit on our African American brothers and sisters. SB 50
could include language that would require a principled discussion of
reparations statewide.
Thanks so much for being so involved in making our democracy work.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Aram James
>
>
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 12, 2019 6:18 PM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Subject:SB50 Update
Sen. Scott Wiener makes sweeping revisions to transit-housing bill
Sen. Scott Wiener makes sweeping revisions to
transit-housing bill
Adam Brinklow
California lawmaker packs "More Homes Act" with affordable-
housing language, adds ferry lines to the menu.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andy Robin <werdna39@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 10, 2019 5:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SB50
Hi,
I hope you’ll use every bit of influence any of you may have to help kill SB50, which is absolutely HORRIBLE!
Thanks,
Andy Robin
Walnut Dr
Palo Alto
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 12, 2019 5:20 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan; Rebecca Sanders
Subject:staff report 9921 feedback (NVCAP)
Staff Report #9921 was submitted to the City Council at the 11 March 2019 joint meeting held at the Ventura
Community Center and I would like to submit my feedback regarding this report. Some of my comments are very
general, others are quite specific; I have tried to present the most important comments at the beginning, meaning that
some items which deserve attention may be buried at the bottom (including suggested corrections to errors).
I recognize that R‐1 single family homes on Olive and Pepper Aves are at risk, but am not willing to quietly sacrifice them
for the "greater good”. The 1960’s saw any number of Urban Renewal projects which we now look back upon with
shame.
Though it is mentioned in the grant proposal for the NVCAP project, there has been virtually no focus by the Working
Group on the large 395 Page Mill Rd parcel. If the NVCAP is to offer a “non‐piecemeal” approach, shouldn’t potential re‐
zoning of that parcel be an explicit focus? Who is the owner of that parcel and why was that person/entity not listed as
a stakeholder?
As it is stated that this plan “should describe a vision for the future” (Comp Plan Program L4.10.1), I would like to offer
that it should include provision for a light‐rail line running from the California Avenue Caltrain station up to the Stanford
Research Park. Presumably this would run along Page Mill Rd, but conceivably it could run through the center of the
study area and cross El Camino Real at Hansen Way (perhaps forming a loop back via Page Mill Rd).
The Stakeholder Meeting Notes (Attachment C), include input from a variety of individuals who spoke with staff and
consultants at non‐public meetings. I requested to speak at the “Transportation Interests” meeting due to my position
as Vice‐Chair of Palo Alto’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee and membership in the local SVBC chapter. After
attending that stakeholder meeting, I was asked by the NVCAP team to review the notes from the meeting I attended
and I submitted corrections; however not all of those corrections were incorporated into this staff report. Specifically,
the report contains the statements “Page Mill/ Ash Street crossing: may be a desirable pedestrian crossing […]” and
“transit through the Plan Area may not be sufficient”; I refuted those assertions, but that was not reflected in the staff
report. NB: I am told that the stakeholder meeting notes on the project www site have been edited to reflect all of my
corrections.
Some specific points which I raised at the “Transportation Interests” stakeholder meeting were not captured in
the summary, so I include them here for the record: (1) because it is a designated Bicycle Boulevard, disruptions
on Park Blvd should be limited to excavation of utilities (2) any steel plates installed during excavation of utilities
should be installed flush to the asphalt roadway (3) a bike lane on Park Blvd should be treated like a street tree—
during construction, there should be a “virtual fence” around it which cannot be breached by any contractor work
(4) pedestrian tunnels should be constructed whenever a sidewalk is disturbed, so that walkability is never
interrupted (as has been done during construction downtown)
The staff report included the text of Comp Plan Program, L4.10.1, which contains the phrase “an interconnected street
grid”; the NVCAP project goals approved in March 2018 state that a connected street grid should be created where
appropriate (emphasis added). Perhaps those things are the reason that the P+W “Existing Conditions” memo
(Attachment E) contains the statement “volumes within the site are extremely low in comparison, potentially again
reflecting the lack of effective permeability through the site for cycling”. As a long‐time resident of the Ventura
neighborhood and a regular cyclist, I do not believe that the low volume of cyclists within the study area compared to
2
the bicycle boulevard on its perimeter has anything to do with the “permeability” of the street grid. I believe that the
consultants have placed an inappropriate emphasis on demand for a connected street grid and that their assertions
should be regarded with a keen eye.
The P+W “Existing Conditions” memo (Attachment E) mentions vaguely how consultants studied pedestrian flow
through and around the study area. I would like to see more transparency regarding the methodology used to assess
pedestrian demand at Ash St & Page Mill Rd. Please clarify this with staff/consultants. Note: I addressed this
intersection in my comments following the November 2018 Working Group meeting
At the joint meeting between City Council and the NVCAP Working Group, one Council member questioned
whether it would be appropriate to have a grade separated crossing at Ash St & Page Mill Rd. Given the proximity
of controlled crossings at both El Camino Real and Park Boulevard, I believe that pedestrians do not currently
experience an undue burden (nor do bicyclists). As I stated in my comments during the “Transportation Interests”
stakeholder meeting, I believe that new residents of the Ventura neighborhood should have the ability to drive
toward Hwy 101 without having to go through the intersection at El Camino Real & Page Mill Rd. As such, I would
argue against a grade separated crossing at Ash St & Page Mill Rd (motorists in that part of the Ventura
neighborhood should be allowed to make a right‐hand turn to head toward northbound Oregon Expwy).
Should the “Existing Conditions” section of this staff report describe the transportation choices of employees of
businesses located in the study area, in addition to those of residents (Census Tract 5107 Block Group 1)? Is there any
TDM data showing how existing employees at Cloudera, Playground Global, etc. commute to work? If the “drive alone”
mode share for study area residents (52%) is lower than that for Palo Alto as a whole (71%), is the same true for
employees of businesses in the study area?
The meeting notes for the February 2019 Community Workshop #1 (Attachment D) summarizes input gathered
there. Unfortunately, the questions posed during the “Interactive Study Discussion” are not printed in the staff report,
only bullet items explaining the participants' votes. The staff report will be a better record of the Community Workshop
if it is amended to contain the slides presented to City Council by P+W on 11 March 2019. That slide presentation
should be added to the joint meeting event page on the project www site as well (it is missing there).
In the “Residential Interests” Stakeholder Meeting Notes (Attachment C), there is the statement
"Olive and Pepper restricted to vehicular access from El Camino to prevent cut-through traffic”. As that
meeting was not open to the public, I was not in attendance, so can only surmise that is simply an awkward
wording. I would think that the intent was to say "restrict vehicular access from El Camino Real onto Olive & Pepper to
prevent cut-through traffic”. Please clarify this with staff/consultants.
I believe that the following should be considered errors in the staff report and perhaps could be corrected in an
amended version of the report: (1) Fig 2 [P+W memo] shows Portage Ave as a through street connecting El Camino Real
& Park Blvd (2) Fig 3 [P+W memo] does not show existing office use on Portage & Lambert (perhaps legal nonconforming
uses) (3) The “Open Space and Creek Corridor” section [P+W memo] states that Community Playing Fields are used for
Stanford sports practice; City Council already asked that those fields be removed from park space calculations (4) Fig 18
[P+W memo] walking isochrone shows it takes greater than 10 minutes to go from the origin to 441 Page Mill Rd, calling
into question the methodology of generating that map (5) VTA 522 is not reflected in the report, though the stop at El
Camino Real & California Ave is within 10 minutes walk of the map origin for Fig 18 [P+W memo] and it offers 77 stops
eastbound per weekday (6) Fig 30 [P+W memo] does not reflect off street parking such as that at 195 Page Mill Rd,
distorting the amount of parking in the study area (7) in census tract 5107 analysis, the methodology is not transparent
which raises questions about the conclusions: what is the sample size and how does it reflect non‐resident commute
time to businesses or the ratio of building types (housing)? how many vehicle trips in the study area are by residents vs.
non‐residents?
Though it is outside the scope of the project, I encourage the City Council to consider how Caltrain commuters tend to
walk on the automobile bridge which links the “south” end of the California Ave station’s parking lot to the Ventura
3
neighborhood (i.e., at the intersection of Sherman Ave & Page Mill Rd). If a pedestrian/bicycle path on the railroad
right‐of‐way over Oregon Expwy were created, the commuter experience would be significantly improved.
As they say, “all politics is local”. Because the NVCAP project is happening in my neighborhood, I have an inordinate
focus upon it. Thank you very much for considering all of my thoughts on this matter.
respectfully,
Ken Joye
Ventura neighborhood
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 19, 2019 2:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:The "New" Palo Alto Shelter
I would like to give my imput on the group who has taken over. I have called them multiple times and there is
never a live person who answers the phone and they don't call back. My situation is weird but the end result
is that I have a ferral cat needs to go down and I don't want to pay for it. We used to have our own animal
shelter where I could call and get help picking up the animal and taken away. The new pets in need is not
working for the palo alto shelter. They are un‐responsive and that is a problem!!
Amy Keohane
650‐346‐5306
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dan Nitzan <dan.nitzan@pobox.com>
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 6:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Traffic
Dear City Council‐
We have been watching with dismay as so‐called "traffic experts" continue to produce clueless quack studies.
We are specifically watching the intersection of Emerson and Embarcadero. This intersection is crossed daily by
hundreds of bicyclists and pedestrians on their way to Caltrain, Paly, Town & Country and Stanford. The idea of opening
Emerson to through traffic across Embarcadero is a recipe for fatal accidents involving our children. With the potential
closing of the Churchill crossing, and three Embarcadero traffic signals near El Camino, it is also a recipe for both
speeding cars and utter gridlock backing into neighborhoods.
The City would do better to close Emerson to vehicle traffic altogether!
Why hasn't the City hired a Chief Transportation Officer? With so many embarrassing failures (Arastradero, Ross Road,
Middlefield) it's time we got serious!
Why hasn't the City pushed back on the sources of new traffic? As your constituents we demand that you reign in new
development at Stanford and downtown. Enough is enough!
Sincerely,
Dan Nitzan
734 Waverley St
Palo Alto CA 94301
dan.nitzan@pobox.com
Virus-free. www.avg.com
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 12, 2019 3:28 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan; Rebecca Sanders
Subject:unclarity around joint meeting City Council/NVCAP WG
I would like to repeat my thanks to consultants, staff, working group members and City Council members for coming to
our neighborhood last night. Though the joint meeting of the NVCAP working group and Council was enlightening in
many ways, I left with some uncertainty:
is the focus is on the Fry’s site or the entire area?
should a parcel zoned RM‐30 be for multi‐family residential use or will existing legal non‐conforming uses will be present
in perpetuity?
is the Working Group expected to advise consultants or staff on re‐zoning of parcels within the study area?
what number of options will the consultants prepare for staff presentation to the Working Group and City Council?
I hope that the answers to these questions become clear soon, given the short time‐frame for the Working Group.
thanks again,
Ken Joye
Ventura neighborhood
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ivy Li <ivysun88@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 18, 2019 4:40 PM
To:Filseth, Eric (external); Council, City; tomforcouncil@gmail.com
Subject:WBP ------Palo Alto Tunnel Is the must. let our posterity to remember
For All:
Please consider very careful for the city future. do not let our posterity to regret why there
are the Viaduct in our city.
Just catching up to the rest of the world : The rest of the world including New
York and London and many, many other cities already have subways
(underground trains). Tunnels are being build under rivers. even under the
sea . We will definitely not be leaders if we build a tunnel under a creek, we
would just be catching up.
Scalable : Today we have two tracks. Assuming we go with a hybrid to
support two tracks, how do we then scale up when 4/6/8 tracks are needed to
meet our ever increasing transportation requirements? We tie ourselves down
when we do not choose the underground and tunnel options. As soon as we get
efficient at developing tunnel and underground options, we open up near
infinite space not only for the rail but also for roads.
Best regards
Ivy
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
1
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ED SHIKADA, CITY MANAGER
MARCH 11, 2019
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1 -UPDATE ON THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED
AREA PLAN (NVCAP) PLANNING PROCESS, REVIEW OF NEXT STEPS, AND
POSSIBLE COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON NEXT STEPS
Subsequent to the release of the Council packet, staff received information that is pertinent to
the town hall discussion. A summary of this information is provided below, and more detailed
information will follow in the course of developing the North Ventura Co.ordinate Area Plan
(NVCAP). . I
As part of the NVCAP process, staff and consultants are evaluating the historic significance of the
North Ventura area, including 340 Portage, the Fry's building site. Initial findings show that the
Fry's site appears to qualify as a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Specifically, the evaluation found that the site is associated with the historic Santa Clara County
cannery industry and is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.
The historic component of the Fry's site includes the main commercial building, which is the
former cannery building and an associated oJfice building located at 3201-3225 Ash Street. The
cannery building was initially built in 1918 as several structures forthe Bayside Canning Company,
owned by Thomas Foon Chew, and was subsequently expanded by the Sutter Packing Company
in the 1930's and 1940's. The Bayside Canning Company, which included a cannery in Alviso
neighborhood in San Jose, had a significant role in the Santa Clara County canning industry. Mr.
Chew built and ran the Bayside Canning Company until 1931 when he suddenly died. Under Mr.
Chew's leadership, the Bayside Canning Company became the third largest cannery in the
country, behind Libby's and. Del Monte and he was the wealthiest Chinese-American in California
at the time of his death. The Sutter Packing Company took over operations from 1933 to 1946,
when Safeway acquired the building for grocery and food processing. This site operated as a
cannery until 1949. The former cannery and associated office building have had some building
alterations since 1949, including modifications to make several buildings appear as one, but it
has retained its distinct cannery features such as the prominent monitor and arched roofs and
the original loading docks and rear cooling porch.
Based on this association with the canning industry and since the buildings have retained much
of the features associated with the cannery operation, this site appears to be a historic resource.
The consultant found that the property is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources at the local level of significance for its association with the history of the canning
industry.
Staff anticipates releasing a draft historic resource evaluation report to the Working Group in the
coming weeks. This report will also be incorporated into the environmental review process.
Together, staff, consultants and the Working Group will explore options that balance the cultural
significance of the site with the City's interest in creating more housing opportunities, consistent
the Council's adopted NVCAP goals and objectives. The public will have additional opportunities
to provide input and the City Council will provide direction to staff on how best to advance the
City's goals in this planning area.
tor
Planning and Community Environment
Ed Shikada
City Manager
2 of2
• CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
3/19/2019
[X] Placed Before Meeting
[ ] Received at Meeting
Item #2
TO: FINANCE COMMITTEE
DATE: March 19, 2019 ID# 10179
SUBJECT: 2019 Fiscal Sustainability Workplan & $4 million FY 2019 Budget
Referral Update
Attached to this memorandum is an example of the services inventory that staff has been
working on based on City Council direction. It is based on FY 2019 Adopted Budget resources for
the Library Department and illustrative of the efforts currently underway.
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER:
Ki ose
Interim Director, Administrative Services
Ed Shikada
City Manager
DRAFT/WORK IN PROGRESS
Ubrary Department Service Portfolio
DEPTf Proirim• d!iifliiiOifiiila'ilicliiiiY~1 "\~ -.. -lircost ... ~~ ~ ~~,~~ ~-f ~~ ·~1 ~'1 .• '<" ·-. • '' ··-·~~·· ... ~~~ ............... ____ ........., -:L....i '"' iiiitli'C:, _ ~ Rmiliifca1 -· LIB I Business 'Contracting services, facilftles management, I$ 37,025 $ 1,271,282 0.40 2.9" Ensure 13,520 hours of low Cost Recovery: I N/A I Other
Operations coordination of library operations and library services can be Some facilities rental
planning. I redered annually. (20% feesare meant to be
Increase from FY 2008) collected, but aren't
currently. us !Access to IThe library provides free and open access to $ -r·~r,, 0.0" J 18.S Library checkouts Low Cost Recovery: No I Municipal Code I Other
Collections collections (books, media, eBooks), resources, per capita of the Intended relationship
and services to all by acquiring print & digital approximately 500,000 between the amount
resources for circulation In the library system titles readily available paid and the benefit
for public use. library staff processes within an average of 2 received, public benefit
feedback from the public on materials business days.
acquisitions and considers the public's
opinions when acquiring new materials.
Materials are rotated as needed based on
public feedback and industry best practices.
This Includes digital material content, access
to which is provided through Olgltal literacy
Program.
LIB !Access to 'The Library provides and ensures adequate $ 15,000 $ 1,091,354 5.72 , 1.4" Low Cost Recovery: No I N/A I Other
Technology and equitable free public access to unique, intended relatlonshlp
useful, and educational technology. This
I
between the amount
access Includes public computer access, web paid and the benefit
communication, technology used for public received, public benefit
programs, and emerging technologies.
•Perform experiments on integrating
I J__ technology Into library services (Grant
funded)
DRAFTM/ORK IN PROGRESS
Library Department Service Portfolio
rr /Alln••~ < .. .• ~~e'' . .-p ~' ~~~ r 1(K~~ ~ ~i~ .~'~!~· ,,,.__ (~ imJ -L ~ _F.Ow..--~ ~-:,t __ _Jf . . • metilc .JlisOtiraisL_
LIB Digital Literacy The Library provides digital literacy support, s -s 479,210 2.51 0.0% Complete 305,111 online low Cost Recovery: No N/A Other
Service which is the ability to use digital technology database sessions and intended relationship
to find Information, and to critically evaluate 150,000 internet between the amount
that Information's authority and relevance. sessions paid and the benefit
ellbrary services for digital materials access, received, public benefit
and special programming for new
technologies for public access. Make
technology related services and technology
based collections available to the public.
Integrate apps for successful public use.
Provide customer service to enable the public
to successfully access library technology
resources. This does not Include digital
material content (which is part of Access to
Collections Program).
-LIB Children's The library provides programs and focused s . s 1,998,520 18.25 0.0% Support over 1 million low Cost Recovery: N/A Other
Services staff time to promote childhood literacy and visits annually, 1,914 Programs supplies
leamlng. ActMtles lndude a Readers Advisory programs with 74,299 supported by Friends
(advises children on what books to read for attendies at the five group, No intended
assignments and personal Interest), children's branch locations and relationship between
storytime, special event performers, and nearly 55,000 the amount paid and the
more. General library use and materials cardholders. benefit received, public
circulation by the public is Included In this benefit
service area ..
LIB Teen Services The Library provides programming for teens s s 277,446 2.43 0.0% Serve 6,000 participants low Cost Recovery: N/A Other
such as creative writing workshops, Reading through teen programs, Programs supplies
Advisory services that provide book annually; a 174% supported by Friends
recommendations specific to the age group Increase from the prior group, No intended
and Individual, and other services that are peek in FY 2012. relationship between
meant to develop youth ages 13 to 17 In Palo ' the amount paid and the
Alto. A partnership with local schools allows benefit received, public
teens to use their school ID card as a library benefit
card, encouraging. A Teen librarian is
dedicated to teen services. I I
Ubrary Department Service Portfolio
IQdti
LIB
LIB
Adult Services
Community
Connections
Besides targeted Children's and Teen services,
the Library provides services for the general
adult public. The Library develops programs
for adults based on community feedback.
They work dosely with partners, such as the
Community Services OepartlT)ent and Palo
Alto Adult School, to provide teaser programs
for classes provided by CSD (i.e., Digital
Photography, Excel, yoga). Other services for
adults Include reader's advisory, reference,
and ESL classes. General library use by adults
facilitated by staff Is Included In this category
of services.
The Library provides community space though I $
access to collections, to meeting and working
space, community outreach, community
events, emergency response services,
community services (Ballot Boxes/Early
Votln11, PAHA, Citizenship, Tax Assistance),
and more. Health and wellness activities are
also provided for in the Library space.
~
~-
164,269 I S 2,995,516
$ 596,509
25.52
2.43
5.5%
0.0%1 Support 12,434 room
reservations annually, a
25% year Increase
between FV 2016 and FY
2017.
DRAFT/VVORK IN PROGRESS
Low Cost Recovery:
Programs supplies
supported by Friends
group, No Intended
relationship between
the amount paid and the
benefit received, public
benefit
No cost recovery at this
time. Cost recovery for
room usage was
planned, but is not
currently being
implemented. This may
be moved to CSD next
FY.
---<o..1~ ... ~~~~t~~·
N/A Other
N/A Other
. -
I. Wastewater -
II Water Uti I ity·
Refuse 11 I,
I ·-~---•"•--
Storm Drain1 ' I
Bill Change {%) I
($/mo)
FY 2020
8%
10%
7%
4%
-
4.5%
5%
FY 2021 FY 2022
~ec. • Al M.,\~
Fc....vn ~\t~lt ~
"'I.~..e...~ \
FY 2023 FY 2024
L. 3%-5% JL 3%-5~ JL 3~-_5% Jl 3~5% L __ 10% JL 10%-~[ 2%-3% r _2%-3%
[-6%~[ 6% ~=----6% 11 6%
,[ 2% ][__ 3% ·i 6% JL 6%
L_3% lC3% -.13% 113%
I 2%-3% 11 2%-3% " 2%-3%
5% 5% 4% 4%
...-=--. 6c1TY OF
¥PALO ALTO 55
CITY OF PALO ALTO
North Ventura
COORDINATED AREA PLAN O CITY OF
PALO ALTO
PROJECT OVERVIEW
WHERE AND WHAT?
The area being planned is the rectangle roughly bounded by Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue and the Caltrain tracks in Palo
Alto. The project area includes one of the City's largest housing opportunity sites, which is currently occupied by Fry's Electronics, as well as
a mix of small and large businesses and single-family
residences.
This area was identified in Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan
as a location that has the potential to become a walkable
neighborhood with multifamily housing, commercial
services, well-defined connections to transit, and bicycle
and pedestrian facilities. It represents a rare opportunity
within the City to plan proactively for a transit-oriented,
mixed-use neighborhood.
WHY PLAN?
The purpose of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
(NVCAP) is to provide a vision for the future of this area. The
goal of the NVCAP is that it should strengthen the
neighborhood fabric and consider infrastructure needs,
providing for a mix of land uses that take advantage of the
proximity to the Caltrain station, the California Avenue
Business District, and El Camino Real.
The resulting plan document will set out planning policies,
development regulations, and urban design strategies and
guidelines aimed at strengthening and supporting the
neighborhood fabric, connections to transit, and pedestrian
and bicycle facilities.
WHO IS INVOLVED?
The process by which plans are created are themselves an important opportunity for building a sense of community through public
involvement in the creation of a shared vision. Residents, businesses and property owners will help shape the physical elements of their
neighborhoods through early, ongoing, and meaningful participation.
The NVCAP planning process is led by the City of Palo Alto with the goal to set an integrated direction for the future of the planning area,
and community engagement and outreach is an integral part of the process. The community engagement activities for this process include:
NVCAP Working Group Meetings, Community Workshops, Public Hearings, Stakeholder Meetings, and a Project Website that is regularly
updated with information and supporting materials.
WHAT IS THE TIMELINE?
The planning process was kicked off in October of 2018 and is anticipated to be completed in mid-2020.
MORE INFORMATION AND STAFF CONTACT:
Please visit the project website for more information and to sign up for the project email list:
https://www.paloaltonvcap.org/
Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Email: NVCAP@CityofPaloAlto.org I Phone: {6SO) 617-3196
OTYOf PALOAUO North Ventura
COOROINA TED AREA PlAN I www.paloaltonvcap.org 0
' ' PALO ALTO
-= 2-;r~ Vrkvl
Save Palo Alto's Groundwater and the City of
Palo Alto are pleased to present
Planning for Rising Waters:
Sea Level, Groundwater and the Bay Edge
by Dr. Kristina Hill
Assoc. Professor, Landscape Architecture and Environmental
Planning and Urban Design, U.C. Berkeley
ICO~Cit,.MEETING ~
, f fjKtt 2 . . 1
(-] p~Before Me.eting '
( ~ecc:ivcd at Mceuns
April 24, 2019, 7 -8:30 pm. Doors open at 6:30 pm
Mitchell Park Community Center, El Palo Alto Room
3700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto
Free Admission but please register at:
http:/ /savepaloaltosgroundwater.org/you-are-invited/
"' • SIERRA CITY OF
CLUB PALO
LOMA PRIETA ALTO
11
SAVE
Palo Alto's
Groundwater
Tuolumne River.
Peninsula ~ Interfaith
Climate Action (PICA)
~-1 __.;--_ I j 11a119
1 I I (YA C1r>W/ [ ] ~ed Before Meeting
.YfReceived at Meeting '
I-Iundreds of research studies done since the FCC
1996 Telecommunications Act show adverse
biological and health effects.
CJ Cancer (e.g., Cancer epidemiology update following the 2011 IARC evaluation of
radiofre!luency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102). Environ Res. 2018 Nov; 167:673-683.J
CJ Autism (e.g., Autism and EMF? Plausibility of a pathophysiological link -Part
I. 2013 Jun;20(3):191-209.)
CJ Depression (e.g.,Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce
widespread neuropsycniatric effects including depression. J Chem Neuroanat. 2016
Sep;75(Pt 6):43-51.)
CJ Sleep disorder (e.g.,Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and
cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations.
Occup Environ Med. 2006 May;63(5):307-13.)
CJ Sperm DNA damage/Infertilitv (e.g.,useoflaptopcomputeraconnected
to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm mo61ity and increases sperm DNA fragmentation.Fertil Steril. 2012 Jan;97{1):39-45)
[J Di a betes (e.g .. Electromagnetic hyperaensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with
emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis.Electromagn Biol Med. 2006;25(4):259-68. Review.)
CJ Immune dysfunction/Increased Inflammatory proteins
(e.g. Microwaves and cellular immunity. I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg. 1999 Oct;49(1) :29-35.
In 2018, the National Toxicology
Program of the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) reported that long-term
exposure to EMF radiation causes brain
and heart cancer.
1
.. ·.· ..
.' ..
In 2017, an NIH-funded Kaiser Permanente
study -reported in the top academic journal
Nature -found that 25 percent of pregnant
women exposed to higher levels of EMF
miscarried, compared to 10 percent of those
exposed to lower levels of EMF.
'I'he US permits far higher exposure to EMF
than most of the rest of the world.
Outdoor Pulsed RF Radiation Exposure Limits
~ --~ountry Comparison (~~/c'!12) --~
1200
1000
BOO
600
400
200
100
0 0001 D.1 :z.• 4.25 9.5 10 •
s.tz1u1 u.c~.-lulpil ~ ~ s.tuntand Olltl. ._., USA,
~ letp.n.. ltc...... llieMQIJ UCllulrN brwl Allllrall .,.,.... hllqiiiUb) Aua&I. ~ --ehtrust.org
3/18/19
2
Q)
~ :x
Q) ..
Office of the Clerk
Please distribute to all C't 250 Hamilton A ' Y Council Members
Palo Alto, CA, 9:;~~e, 7th Floor