HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180514plCC701-32
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: 5/14/2018
Document dates: 4/25/2018 – 5/2/2018
Set 1 of 2
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:jaclyn schrier <jaclyn@schrier.net>
Sent:Saturday, April 28, 2018 5:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Office Cap
Palo Alto City Council Members:
I urge you to read and heed the Editorial published in the Palo Alto Weekly on April 27 regarding the office development
cap and:
1. remove the rollover provision, 2. restore the competitive review, and
3. vote to make the cap permanent.
Please do *not* accept any amendments that would further weaken the cap.
If you truly have the best interests of our city in mind, consider ways to strengthen the cap, for example, by extending it to cover the entirety of Palo Alto, not only the downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino areas.
Or better yet, consider a moratorium on office development and ways to convert existing office space to housing.
We already have far more office space than our city can sustain. Any additional office space serves only to worsen
housing, traffic, parking, and environmental conditions.
Show us that you prioritize quality of life for our citizens over commercial development interests.
Thank you.
jaclyn schrier 427 Alma Street #307
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Meyer <meyere@concentric.net>
Sent:Sunday, April 29, 2018 11:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Office cap, April 30, Item 12,
Members of the City Council:
If you really want to have a cap on excessive office development, you need to remove two loopholes that weaken it.
Or, Is weakening the cap your intent?
* Limiting the cap to just a few specific areas may have the effect of declaring open season on the rest of the
city. It tells office developers to build in other parts of town, where there are no limits. Perhaps that is why the
developers appear not to oppose this ordinance. They can build elsewhere. This makes the cap meaningless, it has to apply to the whole city to be effective.
and
* Remove the rollover loophole - carrying over unused square footage to the next year invalidates the effect of a cap. Please remove it.
In summary, please apply the cap on office development to the whole city, and remove the rollover.
The limitation on office construction could encourage the construction housing instead. You say you want more housing, this would be a positive move in that direction.
Sincerely,
Elaine Meyer
meyere@concentric.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 6:52 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Commercial Cap
Please count me among the many residents of Palo Alto who urge you to retain the cap on commercial development.
Doing so is a positive move for many reasons, including not worsening the jobs:housing imbalance. I also urge you to
reverse the rollover provision.
At this point every move you make regarding development should be damage control. Palo Alto is over‐built and the
infrastructure is insufficient to sustain more development. Until that equation improves, adding to the problem is the
same as planning to be dysfunctional.
Annette Ross
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 10:02 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Keep the cap and impose further caps on office development
I'm on of the many residents who believe office growth here is way out of control and is severely effecting our quality of
life and making housing less affordable for all by increasing the competition for housing.
We've got a 5:1 jobs imbalance that's creating huge traffic problems as the commuters flood our town and make it
impossible for residents to go about our daily business.
The office building boom pushes up the price of ALL construction, including city projects where the increased costs get
pushed into the residents since the City Council is so averse to making businesses and developers pay their fair share.
We don't have the infrastructure to support more growth, especially with the city wasting tens of millions of dollars on
"traffic calming" and road barriers while putting tens of thousands of NEW commuters onto the newly narrowed
streets. That's just nuts. You know what happens when you try to cram too many rats into smaller and smaller spaces.
We've got ever‐increasing parking shortages and residents are stuck paying the costs while the city wastes tens of
millions of dollars on poles and barriers that force us to go miles out of our way, (There are at petitions from at least 5
neighborhoods against this costly nonsense and the city wastes even more money to hire consultants to tell 918
residents WE"RE wrong about the dangers of these barriers.
Start shifting the burdens to the developers and businesses destroying our community instead of to the residents.
Please show some fiscal responsibility and start taxing businesses. We've got huge unfunded pension liabilities.
Most sincerely,
Jo Ann Mandinach
1699 Middlefield Road
650 329‐8655
Jo Ann Mandinach
Need To Know Info Solutions
http:.//www.needtoknow.com
650 329‐8655 or cell 650 269‐0650
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 3:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Duplicity, or Walking the Talk
Dear Council Members who are not yet supportive of BMR housing:
The housing crisis is REAL. One of the easist ways that you could show support for low-income, not the 'missing middle' income housing, is to place a moratorium on office development until the jobs/housing ratio
changes. Stating that you are for low-income housing and then allowing massive office development to continue
is duplicitous at best. A second way to show support would be to place a moratorium on demolition of rental
housing until replacement housing is built.
Two strategies to show support for BMR low-income housing: * Moratorium on Office Development
* Moratorium on Demolitions of Rental Housing until Replacement Housing is Provided.
Sincerely,
Roberta Ahlquist, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, Low-income housing sub-committee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Akif Malik <akif@podium.vc>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 2:35 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:DuBois, Tom; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Wolbach, Cory; greg@gregtanaka.org;
Tanaka, Greg; Scharff, Greg; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric
(Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Keene, James; Gitelman,
Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Campbell, Clare; Lee, Elena; Reich, Russ; Atkinson,
Rebecca; Rivera, Roland
Subject:Office Space Caps
Hello City Council,
I understand there is consideration of extending and/or making permanent caps on additional office space in
Palo Alto. We work closely with early stage technology startups and entrepreneurs and hear almost every week how they
would like to move to and/or grow in Palo Alto, but cannot due to limited availability and affordability.
In addition to the housing crisis, the office space crisis is especially challenging for new startups and small business, many with limited or only self-funding.
While I recognize there are many factors to these issues, neither square footage restrictions nor height
restrictions seems to solve the long-term problem.
On the contrary, it appears to make the situation worse and negatively impacts the fabric and future of the community to be diverted, deteriorate or delayed.
Please consider phasing out any ending office space caps and height limits.
If any cap remains, it should be temporary combined with specific solutions for new startups and small business to locate and exist here.
Palo Alto is an incredibly wonderful community so we welcome any opportunity to be part of solutions
for the best interest of all.
Thank you for your consideration.
Akif
Akif Malik CEO / Partner @PodiumVC Accelerator and Fund for Sports and Entertainment Text/Cell 415-324-9533 @akifmalik | Linked-In
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 12:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Hold Firm on The Office Cap/ We've already got a 5:1 new commuter to housing rate.
For CC and community members who might have missed the Palo Weekly's excellent editorials.
I urge you to read the editorial and the comments. And I urge you to follow the comments on this issue, transportation and "traffic calming" "improvements," parking and other issues to see how the community feels
as the
majority keeps pushing its pro-development agenda on us at great costs in time. money and inconvenience.
You do want to know what the voters are thinking don't you. See also the excellent discussion on how Seattle is imposing a $75,000,000 "Amazon tax" for to mitigate the impacts of the 45,000 new workers there.
which ironically is less than the planned Silicon Valley plan to add new workers. How about a similar "Palantir
tax"? https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2018/04/27/editorial-hold-firm-on-office-cap
Palo Alto Weekly
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2018/04/27/editorial-hold-firm-on-office-cap Spectrum - April 27, 2018
Editorial: Hold firm on office cap
Beware of last-minute attempts to loosen office-development
restrictions
Palo Altans should take careful note of what City Council members say and how they vote Monday
night as they decide once again how much future office development should be allowed each year
in three major commercial areas of the city.
With a City Council election approaching in November, Monday's vote will take on additional
significance, especially for the three council members eligible for re-election to a second term:
Tom DuBois, Eric Filseth and Cory Wolbach.
Last September, when the same issue came before the council, a 50,000-square-foot annual cap on
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
4
commercial office development in downtown Palo Alto, California Avenue and along El Camino
Real originally adopted as a temporary measure in 2015 was extended through this June while city
staff prepared a permanent ordinance.
But on a pair of 5-4 votes, the council also narrowly approved two changes: the addition of a rollover provision that added to the next year any unused allotment from the previous year and the
replacement of a competitive review process for selecting from among development proposals with
a first-come, first-approved approach.
These votes allowed every council member to take credit for voting for continuing the 50,000-
square-feet per year office cap, even as five (Wolbach, Tanaka, Scharff, Kniss and Fine) were
voting to dilute the effectiveness of the ordinance. By their vote, the five undid provisions that a
previous council had approved and that had not yet even been tested in practice.
The issue now returns to the council as a permanent ordinance containing the two weakening
provisions.
Based on recent experience with how some members of the council have chosen to operate, there is
no telling what new surprise efforts may be made Monday night to weaken or modify the cap.
Significant and sometimes half-baked proposals or amendments have increasingly been offered by
council members after public comments have been completed, leaving residents with no
opportunity to express their views on them.
It's a legislative tactic that can appear manipulative and lead to sloppy and unexpected outcomes and that more often than not are inherently divisive. We hope council members with significant
proposed amendments to staff recommendations start announcing them in advance so at least the
public has an opportunity to comment.
Given that the switch of a single vote would change the outcome on the office cap, we also hope
that the council revisits the two changes it made last fall. The arguments for those changes are as
weak today as they were back then.
There is no constituency other than commercial development interests supporting new office
development in Palo Alto, and every square foot of new office development approved in the city
makes our housing shortage and road congestion worse.
With the city's current focus on expanding the number of housing units for low-income individuals,
families and seniors, there is no rationale for loosening the 50,000-square-foot office cap, rolling
over unused allocations to the next year or eliminating the competitive review process.
Since it took effect in 2016, applications for office development projects in the three commercial
areas haven't once exceeded the aggregate 50,000-square-foot cap, so the competitive review
concept has never even been given a chance.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
5
As conceived, the competitive process was to occur in March and evaluate all submitted proposals
based on factors including sustainable design, mitigation of traffic impacts and the inclusion of
public benefits such as affordable housing. It was an untested concept that was intended to create an incentive for a developer to propose a high-quality project.
Wolbach and then-Vice Mayor Liz Kniss argued last fall that evaluating and ranking proposals
would be nearly impossible since everyone's taste in design is different, to which Councilmen
DuBois and Filseth responded that there are many qualities besides design that would cause a
proposed building to be scored higher than another.
No one in the community is clamoring for more new office buildings. The city is not suffering in
any way from having established the 50,000-square-foot annual cap and not a single developer has
come before the council to argue it is having adverse impacts on the market.
The current office cap is working just as intended in the affected three commercial districts and
should be approved by the City Council Monday night as a permanent ordinance.
Comments
80 people like this
Posted by Let's Make It Better
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 27, 2018 at 5:00 am
Palantir, Hewlett-Packard, the Chamber of Commerce, and others opposed the office cap. Their political allies on the Planning Commission still attack the cap. They told us it would "destroy"
Palo Alto's "vibrancy." Of course the opposite is true - it's wonderful for our community. Let's
extend it to the rest of the city and get rid of all the loopholes.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
79 people like this
Posted by anon
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Apr 27, 2018 at 9:51 am
Great editorial! thank you weekly staff.
Please please go to city hall Monday and demand that the elected officials listen to the will of the
people who elected them and not special interest groups seeking finical gain.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
6
76 people like this Posted by Novelera
a resident of Midtown on Apr 27, 2018 at 10:20 am
Novelera is a registered user.
Wow! What a terrific editorial! We need common sense from our City Council members. I'd like to
believe in their motives, but the last election's shady looking financial support from developers
(that caused investigation by the California Fair Political Practices Commission due to not having
been revealed until after the votes were cast) makes me skeptical of who the 5-4 majority really
represent.
I'd like to thank the Weekly for putting their feet to the fire!
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
70 people like this
Posted by JCP
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 27, 2018 at 10:29 am
JCP is a registered user.
Excellent editorial. Thank you PA Weekly. I wish others could see how special interests are ruling
the roost.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
61 people like this
Posted by BP
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 27, 2018 at 10:47 am
I can't wait to see how the 5 member majority are going to gut this office cap, so they can get more
secret donations from developers.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
7
38 people like this
Posted by Sunshine a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 27, 2018 at 12:07 pm
We should immediately halt all new office buildings in Palo Alto. So far Palo Alto has been ruined
by all the new development. We now face a shortage of art spaces, locally owned art supply shops,
small locally owned restaurants. We need to roll back all chain stores and restaurants.
It is now necessary to go out of Palo Alto or find a good place to dine (there is a big difference
between eating something to stay alive and dining on a fine meal. The latter is what Palo Alto
lacks. ). We also need good shops for local residents of all ages--bookstores, art supply stores, used
book shops, stationery stores that carry things at a variety of prices, not just high priced cards.
You won't revive a good commercial district until there are shop windows along university and
California avenues. Exercise machines in a store front do not attract interest by shoppers. These
should be only on side streets.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
42 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland on Apr 27, 2018 at 12:15 pm
Online Name is a registered user.
"The issue now returns to the council as a permanent ordinance containing the two weakening
provisions."
The key word is here is PERMANENT.
Another unseemly rush to push this through something without discussion and without VOTER
support. Given the timing I suspect the pro-development majority is afraid of all the support
garnered by last week's announcement of a petition drive for a ballot initiative to curb -- not cut --
office growth.
Thank you, PA Weekly, and shame on the CC for their tacky sneaky attempt to ignore the will of
the residents. This is item #12 on the CC agenda Monday @ 5:00. We need to tell them ENOUGH.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
8
35 people like this
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace on Apr 27, 2018 at 1:44 pm
Annette is a registered user.
At least the issue isn’t on the consent calendar!
I appreciate this editorial - thank you. If CC further dilutes or elimnates the cap we will know
exactly where they stand on housing.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
36 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 27, 2018 at 3:51 pm
"...makes me skeptical of who the 5-4 majority really represent."
It makes me certain of who they represent, and it isn't the residents of Palo Alto.
So let's be ready when Cory Wohbach dusts off his Residentialist mask for the upcoming election.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
+ Like this comment
Posted by Gale Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 27, 2018 at 6:06 pm
Gale Johnson is a registered user.
To the broader audience, enjoy your life wherever you live.
I guess I shouldn't say too much because people would do a back check on what I said before and it
would be an "I gotcha" moment. I previously saw the logic in the carryover. If CC signed up to a
certain amount of added office space over a period of time, then what's the big deal about when it
happens...some light years...some heavier years...of development...if it all adds up to the same total
they agreed on? But, I am also aware of the effort and drive by our PTC and the majority CC
members...pals, and many members of PAF, to dilute the ordinance. There's no reason to do that.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
9
No twiddling needed. The current ordinance seems to be effective, so why fiddle with something
that's working?
To CC members: Thanks for putting in all the time and effort you do, but put us current residents in
front of the line when making decisions about our future...our community and neighborhoods. Did you forget who votes in our town to get you elected to serve us on CC? Not developers
directly...they live in Atherton, Woodside, or Portola Valley, but they tinker and pay for so many,
too many, campaign contribution ads, from a distance, to get our CC members elected. Remember,
all CC members, those other big issues on your agenda? Check your CC calendars if you've
forgotten. You might have a meeting this coming Monday. Just curious...how many CC meetings
are held every year? Maybe that's part of our problem. Too few for the problems we have. When
will the soda tax come up? If more than 15 minutes is spent on that issue, I will be disappointed.
But, we chug on, as perfect or imperfect as we've ever been. Ole!
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
18 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 27, 2018 at 7:02 pm
Online Name is a registered user.
Another reason for a firm and reduced office cap is the ever-increasing cost of construction,
including for city projects for which we'll be footing the bill. Every article about any city project
says we should expect costs to rise due to rising construction costs.
The least we can due is our part to rein in demand for more offices which increases the number if
commuters clogging our jammed streets and pushing up housing costs.
How about some fiscal responsibility from our City Council?
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
11 people like this
Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 28, 2018 at 3:47 pm
Annette is a registered user.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
10
The cap ordinance would be better and more meaningful if the two weakening measures were
removed, particularly the roll-over provision.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
8 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 28, 2018 at 4:37 pm
"I previously saw the logic in the carryover. If CC signed up to a certain amount of added office
space over a period of time, then what's the big deal about when it happens...some light
years...some heavier years...of development...if it all adds up to the same total they agreed on?"
That is true. However, there is merit in regulating the rate of growth as well as the net total growth.
Intense construction spurts to "clear the backlog" can put heavy shock strains on the public
infrastructure.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
19 people like this
Posted by Abitarian
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 28, 2018 at 5:13 pm
Excellent editorial. Thank you Palo Alto Weekly.
Please remember that few Council members read Town Square. If you want them to hear your
opinion, either attend the meeting and speak when they are taking public comments, or write to the
Council at city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
16 people like this
Posted by Abitarian
a resident of Downtown North
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
11
on Apr 28, 2018 at 5:19 pm
Gale Johnson wrote:
"I previously saw the logic in the carryover. If CC signed up to a certain amount of added office space over a period of time, then what's the big deal about when it happens...some light
years...some heavier years...of development...if it all adds up to the same total they agreed on?"
----------
No, no, no! We have been over this before. It does *not* add up to the same total.
Let's say in one year, no offices are built.
If there is *no* rollover, the next year, developers could build no more than 50K, so the maximum
total for the two year period would be 50K.
If there *is* a rollover, the next year, developers could build 50K + 50K, so the maximum total for
the two year period would be 100K.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
+ 11 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 28, 2018 at 9:54 pm
Another interesting vote to watch: Liz Kniss.
Her support for BMR housing (including housing for the well-off, 120% of Area Median Income is
fine with her) which is in competition with office development.
It will be interesting to see how she votes, for office developers, or for potential housing.
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
14 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 28, 2018 at 10:07 pm
[Portion removed.] Scharff added an amendment to allow roll-over from year to year. He owns
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
12
office buildings on Park Blvd. and 616 University Ave. His biography says
"Mr. Scharff has acted as in house counsel for several large real estate developers and has served on the National Board of Directors for the National Association of Office and Industrial Park
developers and owners."
Also: the cap should cover the whole city, not just particular points. The office developers will
simply build in our neighborhoods!
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
18 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 28, 2018 at 11:33 pm
Online Name is a registered user.
Interesting. Then why doesn't Mr. Scharff have to recuse himself?
Report Objectionable Content
Email Town Square Moderator
22 people like this
Posted by Patrick Burt
a resident of Community Center
on Apr 29, 2018 at 11:56 am
Patrick Burt is a registered user.
Thanks to the Weekly for clearly laying out the issues.
The "rollover" change clearly undermines the impact of the office cap. The council majority who
supported both the rollover and elimination of the design competition had all previously voiced
opposition to the cap in principle. These measures to erode the cap appeared to be the most that the
majority could accomplish last year to undermine the cap without provoking a community
backlash.
The community needs to distinguish between those who embrace unrestrained development in
general and those who want to address the housing imbalance. Healthy tech job growth has brought
many benefits to our region, but unrestrained job growth is what has been driving huge disruptions
in our housing market locally and regionally. Over the past eight years our region has added more
than five times as many jobs as housing units, so even doubling or tripling housing growth will not
adequately address the problem unless demand is also moderated. In addition, high end tech jobs
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Peter Brewer <peter@brewerfirm.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 28, 2018 7:30 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Do NOT Increase the Documentary Transfer Tax
I understand you are considering raising the property “documentary transfer tax” from its
already high $3.30 to as much as $15.00 per thousand dollars of assessed value. As a Palo
Alto property owner and business owner, I am decidedly against this proposal. Real estate
taxes are regressive taxes and impose the most burden on those who can least afford
it. Palo Alto property is already out-of-reach for all but the most fortunate and elite, and I
am against pushing that cost even higher. This also imposes an unintended burden on
seniors or long-term residents who now wish to downsize or move away, and would be hit
with an exit tax of up to $40,000 in order to sell their homes. This impinges on freedom of
alienation. Peter Brewer
Peter N. Brewer, Esq.
Law Offices of Peter N. Brewer
2501 Park Blvd, 2nd Flr.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 327‐2900 x 12
www.BrewerFirm.com
BayAreaRealEstateLawyers.com
Real Estate Law – From the Ground Up®
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Coale <david@evcl.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 8:28 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Friend, Gil
Subject:Project funding gap
Attachments:Analysis of the Finance Committee Staff Report.pdf; Garages.pdf
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is David Coale with Carbon Free Palo Alto.
As the Council continues to try to find funding sources for project short falls the Council should prioritize the
potential projects with regard to Comp Plan and SIP goals/compliance and the true need for each project. So far
this has not been done.
If you look at the Cal Ave and downtown garages, these two projects fall outside of the Comp and SIP, which both call for the reduction of dependence on the automobile and the reduction of SOV trips and associated GHG
emissions. As was stated in the Earth Day SIP review, transportation is the largest source of GFHG emission
that the city needs to address.
If we look at the need for each one of these projects we see that the downtown garage is really not needed do to the success of the TMA efforts. The TMA is a great success story and should be replicated in the Cal Ave area before we spend over $40 million on a problem that only exists for 10 hours each week.
Please consider prioritizing the projects based on Comp and SIP compliance and on the true need for each
project. I think you will find that the garages fail both tests and should be taken off the list of project. This
would solve the funding problems for the rest of the projects.
Sincerely,
David Coale
Carbon Free Palo Alto
Attachments:
Comments to the Finance Committee on 3-20-18
Letter to Finance Committee for 3-20-28
Letter to Council on 1-22-18
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:57 AM
2
Comments to Finance Committee on 3-20-18
Dear Finance Committee and chair,
My name is David Coale with Carbon Free Palo Alto.
I hope you had time to read the letter from Carbon Free Palo Alto. I would like to add a few more numbers
here, since you are numbers type of guys.
Each for the Cal Ave garage the cost for each net new parking space is $124,000 and for the downtown garage
it is $112,000. This has to be a new record for the cost of a parking space.
The good news is that we have solutions that are much less expensive and that have been proven many times
over. Stanford is one, the study sighted in our paper is another where UCSD used DTM to avoid building 13
garages and perhaps the best is the recent success of our own TMA.
If you are going to be polling people about potential funding measures you should cast a wide net and include a
parking assessment district and a business tax as well as the other measures you have listed.
So there are other good options here. If you are committed to the garages, a future headline might read:
“Council votes for a $68 million boondoggle – breaks budget and embraces the past”.
If you are committed to solving the problem, keeping your promise to the Cal Ave community, the Comp Plan
and the SIP, a headline might read; “Palo Alto leads with innovative parking and congesting solution saving $60
million while re-affirming their commitment to addressing climate change and quality of life”.
Thank you for your consideration.
David Coale
Analysis of the Finance Committee Staff Report:
Initial Public Opinion Survey for Infrastructure Funding Needs
by Carbon Free Palo Alto
The recent Finance Committee Staff Report (ID #9039) on funding infrastructure needs for city
projects fails to consider important options when it comes to building the California Avenue
Garage. It should take into account recent trends and changes in transportation options and
choices, and should consider the success of the Palo Alto Transportation Management
Association (TMA) in reducing solo car trips in the downtown area.
The recent article in the Palo Alto Weekly
(https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/14/palo-alto-nonprofit-revs-up-efforts-to-
reduce-traffic) shows that the TMA efforts have been successful in reducing solo car trips
downtown to such an extent that the downtown garage is not needed. This success has
occurred with a minimally funded program that is not even fully developed. As the article
states, the TMA would like to expand to the Cal Ave area where currently there are similar
parking and congestion problems. The TMA can readily deploy the same solutions that it has
applied to the downtown area. Traffic Demand Management (TDM) has proven to be very
affective in reducing congestion, cost and GHG for our area
(http://www.transformca.org/sites/default/files/Windfall for All Summary.pdf).
This success, combined with the increasing use of ridesharing programs (New Jersey town
decides to pay Uber instead of building a parking lot)1, the electrification of CalTrain, the bike
share program (free to the city), and the eventual introduction of autonomous vehicles, along
with changing demographics where people will not even want to own cars, means that the
reductions of solo car use/trips could be sustained even with the increasing growth in the Cal
Ave and downtown areas.
Attachment B of the Staff report, Estimated Savings From Deferring/Eliminating Projects,
shows that the elimination of the Cal Ave and downtown garages would save about $65
million. Fully funding the expansion of the TMA effort into the Cal Ave area over the next ten
years would cost $4.8 million, assuming it would cost the same as the downtown
effort. Therefore, the city could save approximately $60 million with a solution that would
reduce congestion and parking. This solution would also comply with the Palo Alto Comp
Plan and the Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP), and would avoid the disruptions of
building the garages.
With this savings, the rest of the budgeted city-wide infrastructure projects (listed in Table 1),
could be funded by the available or anticipated project funding (listed in Table 2).
This could eliminate the need for a questionable revenue generating ballot measure
mentioned in the staff report as a viable option to raise the requisite revenue to pay for the
projects.
The city should also include several additional options in the proposed public opinion survey:
1) define a special assessment district, which has funded projects in the past and 2) consider
a business license tax which almost all other cities have. The amount of the business tax
should include two options: one similar to that of our neighbors and one similar to the San
Francisco business tax, which is higher and will fully fund all the current and future projects
including some of the grade separations.
The proposed solution is the type of 21st century solution that is expected from the heart of
Silicon Valley. It can be implemented faster than building the garages, is flexible and scalable
and will avoid building expensive garages that are likely to be obsolete in only a few years.
With the success of the TMA efforts, changes to our transportation systems and changing
demographics, the city can realize this solution for less than $5 million. This solution is also in
line with keeping the promise to address the parking issues in the Cal Ave and downtown
areas while avoiding the disruption associated with building the garages and will preserve the
other projects on the infrastructure list, which have also been in the works for years.
We urge you to seriously consider this win-win-win solution: win for the city budget and
projects, win for the Cal Ave and downtown areas and the Comp Plan, and win for the planet
and the SIP goals.
Sincerely,
David Coale and Bruce Hodge for Carbon Free Palo Alto
Gladwin d’Souza, Transportation Committee, Loma Prieta Chapter Sierra Club
Adam Stern, Acterra
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain
Diane Bailey, Menlo Spark
Chris Lepe, Transform
Craig Lewis, ED Clean Coalition
Stew Plock, 350 Silicon Valley
Green Sanctuary Committee, Palo Alto Unitarian Universalist Church
Barry Katz, Consulting Professor, Stanford University
Sven Thesen, Evergreen Park
Jane Rosten, Cal Ave area
Debbie Mytels
Walt Hays
Bret Andersen
Lisa Van Dusen
John Woodfill
Jeremy Shaw
Amie Ashton
Mark Grossman
Lisa Altieri
Patricia Kinney
Robyn Duby
Jeb Eddy
1 https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/3/13147680/uber-new-jersey-free-ride-parking-lot-train-
commute
Dear Mayor and City Council,
As you are reviewing capital projects for this coming year, there is one project that needs serious
re-consideration and that is the parking garages for the downtown and Cal Ave areas. These
projects are in direct conflict with the Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) and also are not
sustainable from a fiscal point of view. We just don’t have the money to pay for these and the
problems they will incur. What’s more, we really don’t need them as other solutions are much
less expensive and are working.
Environmental/Sustainability/Climate Change issues
The city did a study of the parking downtown. Staff worked with a parking consultant and got a
parking solution. At no time were the garages viewed through the greater lens of sustainability.
While the SIP did try to address the parking garages in the FAQ part of the report (Appendix D,
copied below), this was by no means a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of the parking
garages on our goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. In fact the first part of the FAQ answer to
why are we building parking garages are all the reasons why we should not build them; they are
in direct conflict and moving us in the opposite direction of the main parts of the SIP. We should
not be encouraging more cars, traffic and the GHG produced by the construction of garages and
the induced increase in auto use with these projects.
For each pound of concrete used in the parking garages, a pound of CO2 is produced and for
each pound of steel, 4 to 7 pounds of CO2 are produced (depending on the source1), so building
the garages will have a large GHG footprint.
The even larger environmental impact is the increased traffic, congestion and other impacts that
will happen with these projects. With 338 parking spaces for the downtown garage, if we
assume the parking garage is 80% full, and that each space turns over 4 times in a day we get
1082 car trips. If each car drives 6 miles to get downtown (this is conservative as most of the
traffic in Palo Alto is from outside of Palo Alto) we get 6490 miles each day or about 5,200
pound of CO2 per day or 2.6 tons/day. This conservative estimate does not include the GHG of
the added congestion caused by this additional traffic. So each year this amounts to about 650
tons of CO2 from cars.
The largest part of the SIP is the reduction of auto use in Palo Alto. The garages are in direct
conflict with this. How can we accept awards for our work on addressing climate change from
the League of Cities and then turn around and build two huge parking garages? The parking
garages need to be revisited with a greater eye on sustainability.
Water is also an area that is addressed in the SIP. With the proposed project downtown, there
will parking below ground. A huge dewatering effort may be required to realize this project. I
don’t think this has been adequately addressed and certainly not with respect to the SIP or the
recent dewatering ordinance which everyone agrees needs to be strengthened to be really
protective of our ground water.
Fiscally not viable.
The projected cost of these projects is $68.5 million. Where is this coming from? As of yet, we
don’t know. We also know that the price of any project will be more then projected. This has
never come out any other way.
The more fiscally responsible approach would be to see how the lower cost fixes to our parking
problems are working before building the most expensive, most environmentally damaging
solutions possible.
From the latest Transportation Management Association (TMA) survey2 we see that Signal
Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips have been reduced with their efforts. This is great news! The
TMA efforts are working even though the TMA is under funded.
The Residential Parking Permit program is also helping to ease the parking issues downtown and
this continues to be refined. Parking pricing will also help to reduce SOV and create revenue for
the city.
As use of various ridesharing services increases, the need for parking will be reduced. And with
the advent of self-driving cars, this will further reduce the need for parking.
The continued build-out of the Bike-Ped network will also help to reduce the parking need for
downtown and Cal Ave along with other transit improvements such as the electrification of
CalTrain and other transit options such as the bike sharing program.
Right now we are at the peak of our parking need and due to that, with all the possible solutions
coming into play, we just need some time to let these efforts play out and work.
Building parking garages now where they would only be obsolete in a few years just does not
make good sense, environmentally or fiscally. Besides with all the money we are saving, we
could fully fund the TMA, the Bike-Ped plans, the SIP and more and still have money left over
to address other shortfalls the city is facing.
Conclusion
Anytime the council spends money you have an opportunity to vote for or against sustainability,
and anytime a project of this size is being considered, it is even more imperative to look at the
project through the greater lens of sustainability. In this case, there is a win-win solution by
letting the less expensive solutions work before committing to a very expensive solution that will
likely be obsolete in 5 to 10 years and have a large environmental impact. Use the money saved
from delaying this project to fund the other solutions that will decrease the need for parking and
get us closer to the goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. If you should decide to proceed with
building the garages, a much larger, comprehensive study should be done that looks at all the
impacts on the environment, the SIP and the budget. This study should also include the
possibility of building affordable housing at these garage sites instead and the funding to expand
the successful TMA effort to the California Ave area.
Thanks for your consideration,
Sincerely,
David Coale \
Bruce Hodge |
Bret Andersen | Carbon Free Palo Alto
Sandra Slater |
Lisa Van Dusen /
James Tuleya, Carbon Free Silicon Valley
Green Sanctuary Committee, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Palo Alto
Silicon Valley Climate Action Alliance
Jennifer Thompson, Executive Director Sustainable Silicon Valley
Stew Plock, board member 350 Silicon Valley
Sven Thesen, Project Green Home
Steve Schmidt, ex Mayor of Menlo Park
Debbie Mytels
Robert Neff
William M Robinson
Robyn Duby
Serene Ang
David Alan Foster
Lynnie Melena
Eric Nordman
Amie Ashton
John Woodfill
Jane Rosten
From Appendix D, SIP FAQs
Why is the City of Palo Alto building more parking garages? Won't that encourage people to
drive instead of using other means to get downtown?
The City Manager and staff (as well as the 1998 Comp Plan and the ongoing update) envision a
future in which the use of single occupant vehicles will decline, reducing the need for parking.
We are actively nurturing this vision with policies and actions in
Downtown and elsewhere (including establishment of the TMA, introduction of parking pricing,
more effective management of the parking we already have, and development of Mobility As A
Service solutions through our Federal Transit Administration grant and other programs). This
future will also be advanced by changes in the marketplace, such as the expansion of
ridesharing companies and the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles.
Meanwhile, we need to address today’s challenges, including current parking demand,
without precluding or discouraging future progress, and without wasting resources.
We’ll also need to anticipate how current parking lots could be redeveloped with other
uses as parking demand declines in the future.
1 Amounts of CO2 Released when Making & Using Products
http://www.co2list.org/files/carbon.htm
2 TMA Commute Survey Results
www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56092
rafic
And here is how it went down at city council:
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/01/23/rising-costs-wont-shrink-california-avenue-
garage
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:44 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:William Robinson <williamrobinson@goldenworld.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 11:23 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please prioritize highly bike/ped CIP projects - Agenda 13
Traffic calming and encouragement of non-motorized means of navigating our city are vital to long
term city goals.
Park Boulevard corridor is up for review for Phase 2 of Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard. Projects that entice use of bikes and footfalls have a very low capital construction cost and a very
high health benefit.
‘Rob’ William Robinson Charleston-Meadows
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:NTB <aarmatt@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 1:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Action Item #13 - City Council Meeting, April 30, 2018
To the Honorable Mayor Kniss and City Council Members:
As you contemplate the budget priorities tonight, I ask that you keep in mind the objectives clearly
outlined in the CITY OF PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 2030.
In support of funding for the completion of Charleston/Aratstradero Corridor Project, I cite Policy
T-4.3:
Policy T-4.3 Maintain the following roadways as residential arterials, treated with landscaping,
medians and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to
improve safety:
Middlefield Road (between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road)
University Avenue (between San Francisquito Creek and Middlefield Road)
Embarcadero Road (between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road)
East and West Charleston Road/Arastradero Road (between Miranda Avenue and Fabian
Way). [Previously Program T-41]
And in support of transportation related infrastructure projects already ongoing in the City,
including the following: Neighborhood Traffic Safety/Bicycle Boulevard Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan
Projects, Adobe/Hwy101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge, and, once again, Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor Plan, I cite Policy T-6.1:
Policy T-6.1 Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning.
Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of service at
intersections and motor vehicle parking. [(Previously Policy T-39) (Comp Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure AES-1, AIR-1)] [T134]
Thank you for your work for the betterment of our City and for your support of the goals and
objectives set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Sincerely,
Nina Bell
Greenacres I
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:45 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Cedric de La Beaujardiere <cedric.bike@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 3:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:prioritize bike/ped/transit infrastructure above counter-productive parking garages
Honorable Council Members,
I support infrastructure projects which promote and facilitate walking and biking and public transportation. These are higher priority to me and more beneficial to the city's long-term financial and
environmental health than parking garages and other projects which only support and foster automobile use. I
shop locally whenever possible, and I usually go by bike or foot, I rarely drive, and when I do drive to shop I
have NEVER in my 40 years of living in Palo Alto failed to find a parking garage and given up on my shopping
trip. So the notion that we need parking or free parking to support our merchant community i think is a false notion. Have YOU ever aborted a shopping trip because you couldn't find parking? No? I didn't think so. you
drove around an extra 5 minutes and parked somewhere else and did your errands. Therefore, please don't
sacrifice bike/ped/transit connectivity projects, nor put their grants in jeopardy, to support parking garages.
Specifically, I support the following projects:
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Implementation
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor
Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
Thank you, Cedric
1
Minor, Beth
From:Ng, Judy
Sent:Friday, April 27, 2018 11:18 AM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Richardson, Harriet
Subject:4/30 Council Agenda Questions for Items 6 & 7
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries
made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the April 30, 2018 council meeting agenda.
Item 6: Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office
Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2017 – CM Tanaka
Item 7: Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office
Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2017 – CM Tanaka
Items 6 & 7: Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report
Q. 1. How many recommendations are closed in an average quarter?
A. 1. 4.27 ‐ calculated by counting the 64 recommendations implemented for the
15 quarters from FY 2015 through third quarter (March 30) of FY 2018.
Q. 2. What progress is being made on recommendations this quarter?
A. 2. 11 recommendations (7 for the Disability Rates/Workers’ Compensation
audit, 2 for the Continuous Monitoring: Payments audit, and 2 for the Green
Purchasing audit) were implemented during the third quarter of FY 2018. The
status report for the Green Purchasing audit will be presented at the June Policy &
Services Committee meeting, but we have already verified that those two
recommendations are complete, so we are counting them toward the third
quarter completions. These 11 recommendations are included in the count for
question one and will be shown in the Auditor’s quarterly report for March 2018.
The Auditor’s Office recently worked out a process with the CMO for the Auditor’s
Office to send reminders to departments when their status reports are coming
due. We will be sending out notices shortly to request status reports for one audit
that was due during the third quarter and five audits that are due during the
fourth quarter.
Q. 3. Why were no recommendations closed this quarter?
2
A. 3. One recommendation was closed during the second quarter for the
Community Services Fee Schedule audit. Council will receive an at‐places memo
on Monday to show that correction.
Thank you,
Judy Ng
Judy Ng
City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329‐2105
Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:59 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Francesca <dfkautz@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 8:54 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Vanderwilt Wilt; Debbie Mytels; Jeanne Fleming
Subject:Appeal of Node 143 within 17PLN-00169 Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1, Reference
Number 18-AP-3 - Petition
Attachments:CCE30042018_6.pdf; CCE30042018_8.pdf; CCE30042018_5.pdf; CCE30042018_7.pdf;
CCE30042018_4.pdf; CCE30042018_9.pdf; CCE30042018_10.pdf
Dear City Council,
Over the past few weeks I have been canvassing the Cluster 1 neighborhood with a petition, speaking with the people who would be most directly affected by the cell nodes Verizon is proposing to install, namely, those residing very close to a possible tower. I have spoken with the residents at 2490 and 2802 Louis Road, 891
Elbridge Way, 3409 Kenneth Drive, 795 Stone Lane, 836 Colorado, 419 El Verano and 925 Loma Verde. And
while I did not speak with the residents of the apartments at 201 Loma Verde, I did speak with some of the
occupants of the town homes at 737 Loma Verde and their neighbors. None of these residents want Verizon’s
cell tower equipment installed on the utility pole near their homes. This tally is significant.
These residents have a number of reasons for not wanting Verizon cell towers near their homes, but generally
speaking the reasons fall into four categories: 1) the cell tower is aesthetically unpleasing and does not blend in
with the surrounding environment; 2) the back-up batteries and fans are noisy; 3) these installations pose a safety hazard in an earthquake or fire (e.g., adding hundreds of pounds of additional weight on a utility pole);
and 4) the cell nodes on our utility poles will negatively impact the future hopes of undergrounding our utilities.
All four of these categories would be resolved if Verizon were to underground its installations. Or, better yet,
Verizon should keep these cell nodes out of our residential neighborhoods and use Palo Alto’s utility substations, city, commercial and industrial buildings for its equipment.
I have spoken with Verizon customers at 419 El Verano whose cell coverage is fine and don’t want the cell
node on their utility pole. I spoke to an ex-AT&T customer at 3237 South Court, with terrible coverage, who
switched to Verizon and is now very happy.
There is no need for this blight in our neighborhood, especially since Verizon wants to increase capacity - not
coverage - for their future 5G plans so customers can watch video entertainment on their cellphones. The City
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:59 AM
2
must protect our residential neighborhoods and preserve the visual character of the community. We do not want
to live in an ugly antenna farm.
I am attaching to this e-mail a petition signed by Palo Alto residents, many of whom live closest to the sites
where Verizon proposes to locate its cell towers. The petition asks you, City Council, to:
1. Direct Verizon to locate all of its equipment except the antenna underground in flush-to-the-ground vaults with
no protruding elements; and
2. Ensure that Verizon not install any equipment that exceeds the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto’s ordinances
and policies.
Thank you for your considering our requests,
Francesca Kautz
.. -
Dear Mayor Kniss , Vice-Mayor Filseth and City Council
members Tom DuBois, Adrian Fine, Karen Holman , Lydia
Kou , Gregory Scharff, Greg Tanaka and Cory Wolbach ,
We live in close proximity to the 11 locations in Cluster 1
where Verizon is applying to install cell towers.
We urge you to direct Verizon to comply with Palo Alto's
aesthetics , noise and other ordinances.
Specifically, we ask you to:
1) Direct Verizon to locate all of its equipment except
the antenna underground in flush-to-the-ground vaults with
no protruding elements ; and
2) Ensure that Verizon not install any equipment that
exceeds the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto's ordinances
and policies.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely ,
Name E-mail
Dear Mayor Kniss , Vice-Mayor Filseth and City Council
members Tom DuBois, Adrian Fine, Karen Holman , Lydia
Kou , Gregory Scharff, Greg Tanaka and Cory Wolbach,
We live in close proximity to the 11 locations in Cluster 1
where Verizon is applying to install cell towers.
We urge you to direct Verizon to comply with Palo Alto's
aesthetics, noise and other ordinances.
Specifically, we ask you to:
1) Direct Verizon to locate all of its equipment except
the antenna underground in flush-to-the-ground vaults with
no protruding elements ; and
2) Ensure that Verizon not install any equipment that
exceeds the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto's ordinances
and policies .
Thank you for your consideration .
Sincerely,
i---rrlF-=-~~ r!JJ /a ho o. e,e,,.
-#J.~~~w'J -hJ""b . u->?
Dear Mayor Kniss , Vice-Mayor Filseth and City Council
members Tom DuBois, Adrian Fine , Karen Holman , Lydia
Kou , Gregory Scharff, Greg Tanaka and Cory Wolbach ,
We live in close proximity to the 11 locations in Cluster 1
where Verizon is applying to install cell towers.
We urge you to direct Verizon to comply with Palo Alto's
aesthetics , noise and other ordinances.
Specifically, we ask you to :
1) Direct Verizon to locate all of its equipment except
the antenna underground in flush-to-the-ground vaults with
no protruding elements ; and
2) Ensure that Verizon not install any equipment that
exceeds the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto's ordinances
and policies .
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely ,
Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice-Mayor Filseth and City Council
members Tom DuBois, Adrian Fine , Karen Holman , Lydia
Kou , Gregory Scharff, Greg Tanaka and Cory Wolbach,
We live in close proximity to the 11 locations in Cluster 1
where Verizon is applying to install cell towers.
We urge you to direct Verizon to comply with Palo Alto's
aesthetics , noise and other ordinances.
Specifically, we ask you to:
1) Direct Verizon to locate all of its equipment except
the antenna underground in flush-to-the-ground vaults with
no protruding elements ; and
2) Ensure that Verizon not install any equipment that
exceeds the noise levels permitted by Palo Alto's ordinances
and policies.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Name Address E-mail
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Vanderwilt <vanderwilt@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 10:46 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:'Francesca'
Subject:Cell tower at 419 El Verano Ave.
Attachments:CCE05012018_00000.jpg
Please find attached my response to the proposed cell tower in front of my house. I currently have plans to be out of
town on May 21st so may be unable to attend the council meeting but I urge you to consider alternatives to the current
proposal.
Thank you,
David L. van der Wilt
David L van der Wilt
419 El Verano
Palo Alto, CA. 94306
E: vanderwilt@sbcglobal.net
April 30, 2018
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
Dear Council Member:
In my opinion this year is a pivotal one of decision making for our city council. The council must decide
on two issues which will greatly influence the environment for our citizens for many years. The most
critical one being the solution to grade separation for the electrification of Caltrain. Also affecting our
environment is the cell tower issue. One of these towers is scheduled to be erected on the utility pole in
front of my house. My main objections to the cell tower are: 1) Visual pollution and 2) Noise. I have
visited a number of these towers already installed and do not want to imagine gardening in my yard
with a constant hum emanating from the utility pole. I understand the cell company's assurances that
there will be no noise but frankly I do not believe them. Once approved this assault to our environment
will be something that we all will have to live with indefinitely. As you know technology is always
changing. Devices have become faster, cheaper and more user friendly every year. If the current
technology is too expensive to put under ground or impossible to be completely without noise then
perhaps we don't want it. If we demand of the cell company that they build it to our specifications, they
will do it and they will learn to do it cost effectively.
I have lived and worked in Palo Alto for over 40 years- -retiring from my dental practice just last year.
Palo Alto has been a beautiful community in which to live and raise my family and where I hope to live in
retirement. The Caltrain solution whichever one is chosen has a very high risk of negatively changing the
nature of our town, but the train must be accommodated somehow. We have a choice regarding the cell
towers. I urge the council to require underground installation of equipment and no noise from the
towers.
]iL~li!iJi~
David L. van der Wilt, DDS
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 8:21 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:dprice@padailypost.com; Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group; WILPF Peninsula Palo
Alto; Paul George @ PPJC; MN Letters; letters@paweekly.com; Letters, NYT; DNG
Letters; kdesa@sfchronicle.com; Jason Green; Eric Kurhi; Joe Simitian; Dave Cortese;
Dave Barbe; Robert Aguirre; Robert Norse
Subject:Commercial development = Killing the Golden Goose
April 30. 2018
Palo Alto is a great small town/comfortable suburb currently being Californicated for the further
enrichment of a few and at the expense of those who are not rich and used to be able to survive by
doing the unwanted chores of the rich.
I agree with the Palo Alto Online editorial:
"There is no constituency other than commercial development interests supporting
new office development in Palo Alto, and every square foot of new office development
approved in the city makes our housing shortage and road congestion worse."
Couldn't be said any simpler.
If the City Council had a clue and some gumption, it would ban all commercial development for the
next five years or until there is sufficient AFFORDABLE/BMR/Low cost housing to house all the
middle class and working class people who've been evicted in the last five years.
Although the present situation bears many resemblances to the beginnings of the French Revolution,
I continue to argue against and object to those who insist on eating the rich.
House the poor now!
Chuck Jagoda
495 N Wolfe Rd
Sunnyvale, 94085
516.398.5100
chuckjagoda1@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joseph Baldwin <zbrcp1@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 5:05 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:zbrcp1@comcast.net
Subject:Commercial Development Cap
Ladies & Gentlemen,
Since I moved to Palo Alto 45 years ago, council & developers have created chaos and havoc in our wonderful city. Life
here is a grotesque shadow of what it was in 1973..
1. Traffic jams & long delays are the daily norm.
2. Housing supply is inadequate; what little exists is affordable only to millionaires.
3. A nightmare for residents, commuters, business owners, and customers occurred as developers built millions of
square feet of space with less than required parking.
For the love of all that’s holy, at LEAST cap citywide commercial development at its historic 58,00SF/year.
Respectfully, yet hopefully,
Joseph Baldwin
850 Webster Street Apt. 524
Palo Alto CA 94301
650‐324‐7378
zbrcp1@comcast.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Linda M. Saunders <linda.saunders@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 4:51 PM
To:editor@paweekly.com; news@padailypost.com; editor@almanacnews.com;
laurie.friedman@stanford.edu; usafetypcore@lists.stanford.edu; Mark C Lawrence;
doc_coordinators@lists.stanford.edu; orouke@stanford.edu;
stanfordstaffers@lists.stanford.edu; Jo-Ann Cuevas; Bob Wheeler; cardinalatwork;
hrcommunications@stanford.edu; OConnell, M; Police; Clerk, City; City Mgr; Council,
City; Dueker, Kenneth; Perron, Zachary; Minshall, Suzan; policechief@menlopark.org;
police@losaltosca.gov; vgeenlew@pausd.org; vlao@pausd.org;
Msanchezlopexz@pausd.org; board@ctra.org; stanfordwestapartment@stanford.edu;
lucy.wicks@stanford.edu; Lawrence M Gibbs; Robert L. Carpenter;
lowell.price@stanford.edu; Norman W Robinson; bbond@stanforfdhealthcare.org;
lharwood@stanfordhealthcare.org; kaharris@stanfordhealthcare.org;
lancel@slac.stanford.edu; kmchan@slac.stanford.edu; afreeberg@slac.stanford.edu;
mjhorton@slac.stanford.edu; ytang@slac.stanford.edu
Subject:FW: 2018 AlertSU Spring Test Announcement
Stanford AlertSU Test Announcement ‐ Please Distribute Widely
Dear Stanford Faculty & Staff,
On Thursday, May 3rd, between noon‐12:30 pm, Stanford University will conduct a test of the campus AlertSU system.
Alert messages will be sent via text message and email to the Stanford community.
The test will also include activation of the outdoor warning system, which will sound an audible tone for approximately
60 seconds followed by a verbal message from each of the 7 sirens at various campus locations.
The sirens will be audible throughout the campus and may also be heard in parts of the surrounding communities
including Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Los Altos.
Also being tested is Cisco VoIP speaker phones. VoIP speaker phones are found in many of the academic and office
buildings throughout campus. If you have a Cisco phone in your area, the alertsu message will broadcast from the
speaker phone and a banner message will appear in the display.
In the test message, you will be asked to click a link to acknowledge or confirm that you have received the message. This
is an important step which will help us monitor the success of this test. If you receive both a text and email, you only
need to acknowledge one of the messages you receive.
Prior to the test, it is important you verify that your contact information is correct in StanfordYou. Make sure there is an
entry in the mobile phone field as this is the most rapid and direct way of communication with you during an
emergency.
Additionally, in order to know you are receiving an official AlertSU message, please program the following information
into your mobile phone and email contacts.
. Text phone number/SMS Short Code: 89361 (enter as regular phone number in mobile phone field)
. Email Address: alertsudps@lists.stanford.edu
. Phone Number: 650‐725‐5555
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:46 AM
2
For frequently asked AlertSU questions, please visit https://police.stanford.edu/alertsu‐faq.html or contact us at
alertsudps@stanford.edu
Thank you for your cooperation.
Stanford Department of Public Safety
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Carl Darling <cdarling@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 7:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: Concerned with Ross Road Traffic Calming Measures? Write to Palo Alto City
Council
If the City Council does not look at NextDoor, it should. This is a very good city wide comminication web site. The great majority of people who travel through the Palo Verde Neighborhood do not approve of this project, Noification on Palo Alto weekly a few years ago? The only thing accomplished is a major funded project for granite construction. People will act at the right time
Regards,
Carl Darling
650-804-6263 Cell
http://cdarling@sbcglobal.net
On Monday, April 30, 2018 9:54 AM, Nextdoor South of Midtown <reply@rs.email.nextdoor.com> wrote:
Eva Dobrov, Ventura
Interesting by-product of the new traffic circle at Meadow/Ross is that you no longer have to stop at the
intersection before entering it. I'm not sure this is safer that the 4-way stop there previously. I've found that If I'm
going the 25 mph speed limit, I do slow to maybe 15mph to enter the circle safely. I carefully look each
direction, but if a bike or runner quickly enters the traffic circle I may not see them. If anything I find that I get
where I'm going quicker. I guess good for me, but not sure it's slowing traffic at that intersection since I'm not
starting my left turn going 15mph instead of 0.
Original post by Suman Gupta from Midtown (26 replies):
Hello Neighbors,
I'm posting in response to the fact that the concerns so many of us have about the traffic calming measures on
Ross Road are not reaching the City Council.
A NextDoor post with...
Mar 25 in General to 33 neighborhoods
View or reply
Thank · Private message
Not interested in following this discussion?
You received this update because you thanked or replied to this post. Stop receiving immediate updates on this post
This message is intended for cdarling@sbcglobal.net. Unsubscribe or adjust your email settings
Nextdoor, 875 Stevenson Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94103
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Flaherty, Michelle
Sent:Friday, April 27, 2018 4:25 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly
Subject:FW: Follow-up re: FAA final bill
Council Members,
On behalf of City Manager James Keene, I am forwarding the information below from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s
office to supplement the information provided earlier today regarding today’s vote in the U.S. House of Representatives
on the FAA Reauthorization bill.
Michelle Poché Flaherty
Deputy City Manager
250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2533 | C: 650.509.0726
E: Michelle.Flaherty@cityofpaloalto.org
Quality|Courtesy|Efficiency|Integrity|Innovation
From: Chapman, Karen [mailto:Karen.Chapman@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 12:36 PM
To: Flaherty, Michelle <Michelle.Flaherty@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Follow‐up re: FAA final bill
FYI
The strongest amendments did not make it into the final FAA bill. Congresswoman Eshoo voted NO and below
is
her statement--
From Congresswoman Eshoo, “This week, the House passed legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the first long-term update to the law that governs this important agency since 2012. This
bill includes provisions to improve airline safety, strengthen the rights of passengers, and promote controlled
testing of commercial unmanned aerial vehicles.
While the underlying bill includes a pilot program to find innovative ways to reduce noise in our communities and a study of the health effects of aircraft noise on communities near large airports, including the Northern
California Metroplex, my constituents do not need new studies to tell them that aircraft noise diminishes their
quality of life because they experience it every day. What they need is for the FAA to take action to reduce the
noise, this bill unfortunately fails to do that, and I voted against it.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:50 AM
2
I’m committed to continuing to work with the FAA and the hundreds of engaged constituents in my District
until this issue is resolved, but I could not vote for hollow legislation that does nothing to address airplane noise
due to the NextGen Program launched by the FAA.”
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Clerk, City
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 5:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:FW: Stanford University Comments to AOL Item #12
Attachments:2018-04-30__Comments to AOL Ordinance - Stanford University.pdf
Importance:High
Thanks,
B‐
Beth D. Minor | City Clerk | City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue| Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650‐ 329‐2379 E: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org
City Clerks Rock and Rule
From: Tiffany Griego [mailto:tgriego@stanford.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 3:15 PM
To: DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine,
Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Holman, Karen <Karen.Holman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kniss, Liz (internal)
<Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Scharff, Gregory (internal)
<Greg.Scharff@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Wolbach, Cory
<Cory.Wolbach@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Gitelman, Hillary
<Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Jean McCown <jmccown@stanford.edu>; Lucy W. Wicks
<lwicks@stanford.edu>; Shweta Bhatnagar <shwetab@stanford.edu>; Lisa T. Lu <lisalu@stanford.edu>
Subject: Stanford University Comments to AOL Item #12
Importance: High
Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth and Council members Kou, Dubois, Wolbach, Fine, Tanaka, Holman and Scharff,
Stanford University has no comments on the ordinance itself, which implements Council’s longstanding instructions that
the Stanford Research Park not be subject to an AOL.
Instead, we are writing to address an error in Attachment E to the AOL Staff Report (“Summary of Office/R&D
Development FY 2001‐FY2017”) that overstates past growth in the Stanford Research Park and reflects continuing
confusion over the effects of the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:46 AM
2
Correcting the public record is important to Stanford because the reported numbers can shape public opinion about the
Stanford Research Park.
Please find enclosed an accounting of GFA growth from Stanford, including an attachment that shows every project
approved in Stanford Research Park by Palo Alto since 2001. Specifically, the City data set does not reflect the demolition
of 330,000 SF (gross floor area) in Stanford Research Park in 2014, nor does it reflect the transfer of “Replacement Square
Footage” (261,238 of gross floor area to date), in accordance with the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement between
Stanford and the City of Palo Alto. In sum, Stanford’s records and the City’s staff report differ by 47% (a 190,818 square
feet discrepancy).
As you are aware, in 2005, the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University entered into the agreement called the “Mayfield
Development Agreement” (MDA). The MDA required that Stanford produce 250 units of much‐needed housing, all of
which has been counted in the City’s RHNA reports. Stanford also agreed to build a soccer facility on its 6‐acre “Mayfield”
property. The construction of 250 units of housing on identified sites in the Stanford Research Park displaced more than
330,000 square feet of existing office/R&D space. Therefore, Stanford was entitled under the MDA to replace 300,000
square feet of the displaced office/R&D space elsewhere in the Stanford Research Park. This unique policy framework
should be reflected properly in the public recordkeeping, including in this staff report, and should not be counted against
the City‐wide cap under the Comprehensive Plan, as it enables transferable development rights, not outright GFA growth.
To meet its housing commitment under the MDA, Stanford and its housing partner, Related California, built a 100% below
market rate (BMR) units on El Camino Real. These 70 units are rented to households with 50% and 60% AMI. We now
refer to this project as “Mayfield Place,” and it opened to the public in summer 2017. Stanford also was required to build
180 market rate units on California Avenue, and this project is in the final stages of securing occupancy permits for the
last phase of homes. We would happily give you a tour of these beautiful and successful projects!
Please do not hesitate to reply with any questions.
Thank you,
Tiffany
Tiffany Griego
Managing Director, Stanford Research Park
Stanford Real Estate
Direct: (650) 724‐4787
tgriego@stanford.edu
www.StanfordResearchPark.com
Take advantage of our transportation programs:
www.SRPgo.com, a service of Stanford Research Park
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 11:05 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Schulte <robbschulte@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 29, 2018 11:44 PM
To:assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; caltrans_director@dot.ca.gov
Cc:City Mgr; Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Palo Alto's El Camino Real (South Part) Street Photos (1 of 2 sets)
Attachments:IMG_2394.jpg; IMG_2397.jpg; IMG_2399.jpg; IMG_2400.jpg; IMG_2401.jpg; IMG_
2402.jpg; IMG_2406.jpg; IMG_2408.jpg; IMG_2409.jpg; IMG_2412.jpg; IMG_2413.jpg;
IMG_2415.jpg; IMG_2416.jpg; IMG_2418.jpg; IMG_2419.jpg; IMG_2420.jpg; IMG_
2421.jpg; IMG_2422.jpg; IMG_2425.jpg; IMG_2429.jpg; IMG_2437.jpg; IMG_2439.jpg;
IMG_2441.jpg; IMG_2445.jpg; IMG_2437.jpg; IMG_2439.jpg; IMG_2441.jpg; IMG_
2445.jpg; IMG_2447.jpg; IMG_2451.jpg; IMG_2452.jpg; IMG_2453.jpg; IMG_2455.jpg;
IMG_2456.jpg; IMG_2457.jpg; IMG_2458.jpg; IMG_2460.jpg; IMG_2461.jpg; IMG_
2462.jpg; IMG_2463.jpg; IMG_2464.jpg; IMG_2468.jpg; IMG_2469.jpg; IMG_2470.jpg;
IMG_2471.jpg; IMG_2473.jpg; IMG_2474.jpg; IMG_2475.jpg
Here are photos of El Camino Real in south Palo Alto that is not being maintained. Road, Road Signs Badly Faded or Bent, Road Light Assemblies (paint).
Thank you for taking care of this.
Robert Schulte 553 Driscoll Place
Palo Alto, CA 94306
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert Schulte <rbschulte@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 10:56 PM
Subject: Palo Alto's El Camino Real (South Part) Street Photos (1 of 2 sets)
To: Robert Schulte <robbschulte@gmail.com>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 11:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Schulte <robbschulte@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 29, 2018 11:46 PM
To:assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; caltrans_director@dot.ca.gov
Cc:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Fwd: Palo Alto's El Camino Real (South Part) Street Photos (2 of 2 sets)
Attachments:IMG_2476.jpg; IMG_2478.jpg; IMG_2480.jpg; IMG_2482.jpg; IMG_2483.jpg; IMG_
2485.jpg; IMG_2487.jpg; IMG_2488.jpg; IMG_2491.jpg; IMG_2493.jpg; IMG_2495.jpg;
IMG_2497.jpg; IMG_2509.jpg; IMG_2513.jpg; IMG_2514.jpg; IMG_2515.jpg; IMG_
2518.jpg; IMG_2520.jpg; IMG_2524.jpg; IMG_2528.jpg; IMG_2529.jpg; IMG_2532.jpg;
IMG_2533.jpg; IMG_2534.jpg; IMG_2535.jpg; IMG_2536.jpg; IMG_2538.jpg; IMG_
2542.jpg; IMG_2543.jpg
Here are photos of El Camino Real in south Palo Alto that is not being maintained. Road, Road Signs Badly
Faded or Bent, Road Light Assemblies (paint). Los Robles Avenue has a missing sign with the holders just hanging there by themselves. See photo. If this is a State sign, please order one.
Thank you for taking care of this.
Robert Schulte 553 Driscoll Place Palo Alto, CA 94306
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert Schulte <rbschulte@sbcglobal.net> Date: Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 11:02 PM
Subject: Palo Alto's El Camino Real (South Part) Street Photos (2 of 2 sets)
To: Robert Schulte <robbschulte@gmail.com>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Kacher <amyewardwell@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, April 27, 2018 8:49 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Gondola
City Council,
Years ago I read about an Ariel team in Bolivia that takes commuters over congested traffic areas. At the time I thought it could be great to have an Ariel tram from San Jose to San Francisco.
Now I see this is being installed in LA.
Love to creative thinking. I hope Palo Alto can come up with its own creative solution for our traffic problems.
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 12:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tino Mori <tinomori@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 9:47 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Multi-family housing and desegragation
Hello Mayor and City Council,
I’ve been a lifelong resident of Palo Alto (other than my four years at college), and I really want Palo Alto do better. I
don’t want my hometown to be an enclave of the super wealthy, which staffs its Whole Foods with workers from the
east bay because local residents can’t afford rent if they’re working for minimum wage. I feel we really need to address
our zoning to better assist both low income people as well as minorities. I’ve been following Matt Yglesias from Vox and
found his arguments very persuasive. I realize wealthy residents don’t want to have apartments built around here, and
while I’m not a big city person myself, I think it’s necessary as a means to fight inequality and racism. People can say
what they want, but if they oppose progressive zoning laws and if they oppose school desegregation, that is a concrete
form of racism. If we want to do more than pay lip service to racial and economic justice, please, consider how we might
go about accomplishing this.
I realize this was a bit rambling, I’m really not an expert, but podcasts like Codeswitch and The Weeds really changed my
mind on this.
Thanks for your time,
Tino Mori
841 Sycamore Drive
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 10:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Christy Moision <cmoision@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 26, 2018 10:10 AM
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Council, City; Mesterhazy, Rosie; Star-Lack, Sylvia; Gaines, Chantal
Subject:Nextdoor Misinformation
Yesterday on Nextdoor, a Palo Verde neighbor, George Jaquette, posted a copy of the email he sent to you
regarding the current bicycle projects the City is undertaking. I wanted to follow up with you directly and share
the reply I added to his post. It is very concerning to me that there is a lot of misconception and misinformation
spread on social media sites, and these untruths are feeding the complaints about the infrastructure. My reply follows:
There is a lot of information in your post, and I can’t address it all. However, as the Safe Routes to School
volunteer for Fairmeadow (and next year for JLS) I would like to address this statement: “The roundabout at East Meadow Road and Ross Road is a major commuter route for bike traffic, with 400+
kids heading to Fairmeadow Elementary every day, 1100 students riding to JLS Middle School every day, and
many kids from south Palo Alto headed to Gunn High School every day.”
While your numbers for Fairmeadow and JLS are correct as far as TOTAL enrollment, it could be inferred that you mean ALL of those kids ride through the intersection. Believe me, I would be overjoyed if all of the kids in
the district were able to ride to school! Alas, that is not the case. We do have great numbers though. According
to the City’s Safe Routes to School data, 41% of Gunn students and 51% of JLS students rode their bikes to
school in 2017. About 43% of Fairmeadow students use some type of active transportation to get to school, but the number is not broken down specifically by bike.
More importantly, if you look at the District boundary map (which can be found here
http://starriverinc.com/content/school/boundaryMaps/Palo_Alto_School_Boundary_Map.pdf) JLS pulls from a
large area, at least half of which would not lead the students through the roundabout intersection. Gunn’s district is even larger and it looks to me like a fairly small group coming through the roundabout. Fairmeadow’s boundary is Meadow and since I ride that route many days with my son I can tell you there are only a handful of
Fairmeadow students riding through the intersection on any given day. It’s just not their route.
I have observed the roundabout many times during the school commute and I believe the students are safer now than they were at the four-way stop.
--
Christy Moision 626-390-0343 (cell)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 11:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amrutha Kattamuri <vkattamuri@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 10:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:No Gap in Verizon coverage for Clusters One (17PLN-00169) and Two (17PLN-00170)
Hello All,
I would like to share the following videos that were taken to prove that there is "No Significant gap in
Verizon coverage" in Cluster one and Cluster 2 areas for the proposed Verizon small cell tower
sites. Cluster One (17PLN-00169) and Cluster Two (17PLN-00170) projects.
2018-0422 No Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage in Palo Alto, CA: Cluster One 2018-0422 No Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage in Palo Alto, CA: Cluster One
2018-0422 No Significant Gap in Verizon
Coverage in Palo Alto, CA: Clust...
This video is substantial evidence that there is NO
SIGNIFICANT GAP in AT&T coverage in Palo Alto's
mid-town Nei...
2018-0422 No Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage in Palo Alto, CA: Cluster Two
2018-0422 No Significant Gap in Verizon Coverage in Palo Alto, CA: Cluster Two
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 11:03 AM
2
2018-0422 No Significant Gap in Verizon
Coverage in Palo Alto, CA: Clust...
This video is substantial evidence that there is NO
SIGNIFICANT GAP in AT&T coverage in Palo Alto
(Cluster Two) ...
Thanks, Amrutha
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 26, 2018 1:40 AM
To:dcbertini@menlopark.org; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Jonsen, Robert; Council, City;
gkirby@redwoodcity.org; council@redwoodcity.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com;
stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; Keene, James; Binder, Andrew;
michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Cullen, Charles; Kilpatrick, Brad;
swagstaffe@smcgov.org; bos@smcgov.org; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Constantino, Mary;
essenceoftruth@gmail.com; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Perron, Zachary;
donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; dprice@padailypost.com;
wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; allison@padailypost.com;
molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; myraw@smcba.org; joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org;
cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:NYTimes: A Memorial Unlike Anything the U.S. Has Ever Seen
Here's a story from The New York Times that I thought you'd find interesting:
• The National Memorial for Peace and Justice, opening Thursday in Montgomery, Ala., is dedicated to victims
of white supremacy. • It demands a reckoning with one of the nation’s least recognized atrocities: the lynching
of thousands of black people.
Read More...
Get The New York Times on your mobile device
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 25, 2018 11:34 PM
To:stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; Jonsen, Robert; dcbertini@menlopark.org;
swagstaffe@smcgov.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com;
Council, City; Binder, Andrew; Lee, Craig; Kan, Michael;
michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Cullen, Charles;
bos@smcgov.org; Kilpatrick, Brad; essenceoftruth@gmail.com; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
Perron, Zachary; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; myraw@smcba.org
Subject:NYTimes: When Toronto Suspect Said ‘Kill Me,’ an Officer Put Away His Gun
Here's a story from The New York Times that I thought you'd find interesting:
Constable Ken Lam turned off his siren, calmly ordered the man to get down and placed him under arrest. It
was “a great outcome in a horrible situation,” an expert said. Read More...
Get The New York Times on your mobile device
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 11:52 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Office Expansion Cap
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Office Expansion Cap
Elected Officials:
Was pleased that the Council voted to extend the Office Expansion Cap, although was not pleased with the roll-over
amendment. The "revisit" amendment is not a bad idea, since all City ordinances should include a “sunset” in order
to require the Council to revisit all ordinances to ensure that the goals of each ordinance were achieved.
Will be interesting to see how long it takes for this ordinance to return to the Council, and what the decision of that Council will be on this controversial issue.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto, Ca
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 29, 2018 10:12 PM
To:dcbertini@menlopark.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com;
stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Council, City; HRC; Lee,
Craig; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; Kan, Michael; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Cullen,
Charles; Constantino, Mary; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; council@redwoodcity.org; Keene,
James; Kilpatrick, Brad; essenceoftruth@gmail.com; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
swagstaffe@smcgov.org; Perron, Zachary; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov;
molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org
Subject:Old Racial Divides Exposed in Savannah After a Police Shooting
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/28/us/polices‐shifting‐account‐of‐black‐mans‐death‐raises‐questions‐in‐
savannah.amp.html
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:39 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Schulte <robbschulte@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 26, 2018 5:57 PM
To:assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; caltrans_director@dot.ca.gov
Cc:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Palo Alto’s El Camino Real Deteriorating Road & Signs, On Street Trailer Parks, etc.
Dear Mr. Berman and CalTrans Director,
I complained to Palo Alto City Leaders over a year ago about the condition of El Camino Real. Their response
was basically this is a State issue as CalTrans maintains the road, signs, etc. I showed them photos of the road crumbling from heavy rain. It is worse now. Loose gravel and pot holes are still all over the road where street sweepers cannot reach due to parked cars. On top of not maintaining the road, street signs are bent and barely
readable, road light assemblies look like someone scratched the paint off them, and apparently anyone with a
trailer can have a space on Palo Alto’s El Camino Real as it is the “State’s road”. I am sympathetic to those
living in trailers plight but I think an actual place for their trailers should be found but not on the main thoroughfare through a city.
All I ask is that you start maintaining your road as the City has apparently done nothing to motivate you to do so
despite the extraordinary amount of property taxes we residents pay.
Sincerely,
Robert Schulte
553 Driscoll Place
Palo Alto, CA. 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kirsten Flynn <kir@declan.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 5:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please continue your support of Complete Streets
Honorable Council Members,
I am writing to respectfully request that you reaffirm the Council’s commitment to building all of the bicycle and
pedestrian improvements in that 2014 plan.
They work together to make a safer infrastructure for all modalities of transportation, thus making ordinary trips
possible on a bicycle. One of the significant barriers to reaching our 80/30 GHG reduction goals, is the commute portion
of our transportation system. Replacing even a few commute, last mile from transit, or errand running trips with a
carbon free option is an important part of our plan. But the ordinary citizen has to feel safe in our bike infrastructure.
I realize you are facing a lot of vocal complaints over the Ross road improvements, but I trust that the right street design
is being done, and will continue to be done. We must show leadership on global climate change, communicate our goals
clearly to our citizens, do work based on research and facts, and not falter when there are differing opinions.
The infrastructure plans in the 2014 plan: Charleson/Arastradero, Neighborhood bike safety, and the Adobe Creek
bike/ped. bridge, are well though out, and work together to create a safer, lower carbon Palo Alto.
Thank you for your time in reading this.
Kirsten Flynn
Matadero Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Omar Kinaan <omar@kinaan.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 4:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please do not pass an increase transfer tax
Dear City Council Members,
I am a realtor who used to live in Palo Alto and currently work for a firm which does business
in the city. I am opposed to the increased transfer tax for the following reasons:
1) It is already a unique tax which burdens our clients, both buyers and sellers—only three
cities in Santa Clara County collect this tax.
2) One of the biggest issues in the local market is limited available homes for sale. Many of
our sellers do not want to sell because they have large capital gains tax liabilities. What
we will all agree this is a “good problem” to have, adding another large tax burden may
persuade even more would be sellers to opt out of selling. This measure may further
exasperate the lack of available housing.
3) Don’t forget that when a house transfers, there is an opportunity to increase the property
taxes through reassessment. If adding a tax which burdens sellers persuades sellers not to
sell, the city/county/state may not benefit from increased property taxes.
I urge you not to change the Palo Alto City Transfer Tax.
Thanks for your time.
Omar Kinaan
Realtor, GRI, CDPE, CLHMS
Certified International Property Specialist
Golden Gate Sotheby's International Realty
650.776.2828
CalBRE #01723115
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Christy Moision <cmoision@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 27, 2018 9:05 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gaines, Chantal; Mesterhazy, Rosie; Star-Lack, Sylvia
Subject:Please Stay the Course on our Bike Projects
I am writing in support of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard Projects, the Charleston-
Arastradero plan, and Palo Alto’s bike infrastructure projects in general. I have been anxiously awaiting these
upgrades to our roads, and I am very concerned that they will be derailed because of the complaints by residents
who have been given a lot of misinformation. Social media threads, especially when the City’s experts cannot respond, are a hotbed of rumors and misconceptions. While I think most of the commenters have good intentions — namely, safety — it is clear that many are not aware of either engineering or cycling best
practices.
I can’t speak to engineering best practices, however, I do want to share my experience of learning how to bike safely around town. When my family moved here in early 2014, I was immediately struck by the number of kids riding to school. I’d never seen anything like it. While my husband has been a bike commuter his whole
adult life, my kids had only ridden bikes in parks and I didn’t even own a bike. I didn’t have great knowledge of
the rules and best practices for cycling, so I enrolled them in Wheel Kids camp in the summer where they
learned the rules of the road. Since I was also choosing to ride more, I tried to educate myself on the rules and safety issues — there are a lot of great educational resources out there. We all learned about the “door zone” and that riding all the way to the right is not, in fact, the safest place. Of course, this was a shift from what I’d
been taught as a kid.
It is absolutely clear from the numerous complaints with the phrase “bikes and cars being forced together” on Ross that people have not made this mind shift. Ross is safer with the bikes out in the lane. The alternative, because of the high number of parked cars, is swerving in and out of the lane which is extremely dangerous. I
would love to see a city-wide education campaign for drivers and cyclists to help people understand how we can
all peacefully share our streets.
Palo Alto has long been a leader in bicycle infrastructure; the Ellen Fletcher Bike Boulevard is a gem, loved by all and used by tons of people everyday. I have heard it was quite controversial when it was built, which gives
me hope that if the City can stay the course on the proposed bike projects, those too will eventually be seen in a
positive light.
With the new infrastructure, you’re asking drivers to slow down a bit, pay close attention to the road, and
maybe even adjust their regular route. It’s bound to cause some complaints, but our congestion problem is not
going solve itself. And, I believe that if the bike network is built out as planned, it will eventually encourage a
lot more people to get on their bikes because they have a safe and pleasant route to get anywhere in the City.
I implore you to continue with the bike projects and give the infrastructure time to work.
Christy Moision
Resident of Louis Road
Fairmeadow Safe Routes to School Champion --
Christy Moision
626-390-0343 (cell)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:linda.bickham@gmail.com
Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 4:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Question and concerns about the traffic circles
I’m writing to express my concerns about the necessity and safety of the many traffic circles and other road
changes in the midtown area.
Could you please share what studies and data you have showing the necessity for these changes? And what other options, if there indeed was a real problem to solve, were considered?
There is a big poster on Louis now explaining what is being done, but not why. My experience is that
traffic isn’t that bad at many of the circle intersections.
I’m feeling much less safe now on East Meadow and Ross. While occasionally someone didn’t stop at
the East Meadow 4 way when it was all stop signs, I’ve almost been hit twice by people who did not
yield even when I was entering the circle ahead of them. I felt safer with 4 stop signs rather than yield
signs.
I’m also concerned about kids and cars sharing the road. While adult bikers may pay more attention,
it is my experience that kids don’t, and it is also my experience that a lot of drivers are on cell phones. What was the rationale for moving to a share the road approach, especially given how many schools
are in the area? Given the level of outrage about all this, what was done to include the neighborhood
in the decision making? There may have been efforts — Maybe I just didn’t see them.
Thanks for responding to my concerns.
Linda Bickham
3130 Louis Road
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:38 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rod Lehman <rod.lehman@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 26, 2018 4:52 PM
To:De Geus, Robert; Council, City
Cc:Gaines, Chantal
Subject:Re: Bicycle Boulevard Update
Rob,
While I'll take the survey, I have to say that it feels like the City is just trying to placate us. Most of the
message below is a sales pitch for the Bicycle Boulevard project, and you're not stopping any of the construction taking place on Louis Road right now, while you gather the feedback and try to address the community's concerns. The team from Granite construction continues to make the situation worse every day.
Kids have been hurt already on the stretch of Ross Road with new concrete bulb outs and
roundabouts. It's only a matter of time before one of them sues the City, and that will result in more
taxpayer dollar waste. How will you and the City Council feel when the first child loses a limb, or even worse, dies? You are not listening to the thousands of people who have signed online petitions about
this issue and want the head of the transportation department to be fired over how he has handled
this project.
This Bicycle Boulevard project is a waste of millions of taxpayer dollars. Thousands of us are so upset by this waste that we are committed to vote down whatever bond initiative that you and the City
put on the ballot next - regardless of the projects involved. In fact, we will donate hundreds of
thousands of dollars to the "No" campaign to defeat it. And, you can see this impact in the recent
survey that the City did on the proposed ballot measures. Rod Lehman
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:57 PM, De Geus, Robert <Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Dear Resident,
Thank you for expressing feedback to the City about the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard
project. The project has generated a great deal of interest and comments, both supporting as well as raising
concerns with the project. As we evaluate and adjust our actions based on this feedback, we would like to
ensure that all residents are aware of a few facts about the project:
This project is one element of the City’s overall Comprehensive Plan to ensure mobility and
maintain Palo Alto’s neighborhood quality of life well into the future. It was the product of extensive
community engagement and city council approval (link to related City Staff reports 5/9/2016 and
6/27/2017) . That said, we clearly underestimated the negative reaction from residents that were not involved during the planning phase. In recognition of this, the recent community update announced a
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:38 AM
2
review of how the project will proceed. Now that most of the work on Ross Road has been completed,
we are taking the opportunity to gain further feedback and evaluate how best to proceed with future
steps.
A useful guide to the project’s principles and design elements is provided by the National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). NACTO provides design guides to a number
of city street elements used across the nation, including this overview of bicycle boulevards.
A key function of Palo Alto’s bicycle boulevards is to reduce speeds to 20 mph or lower. Per
NACTO, speed management is a strategy to “bring motor vehicle speeds closer to those of bicyclists.
Reducing speeds along the bicycle boulevard improves the bicycling environment by reducing
overtaking events, enhancing drivers’ ability to see and react, and diminishing the severity of crashes if they occur. Speed management is critical to creating a comfortable and effective bicycle
boulevard.” Achieving the desired reduction in vehicle speeds will clearly require more driver
awareness, and we will continue to focus on this in the weeks ahead.
You can link to the frequently asked questions online at Phase 1 - Project Page. The FAQs include information about other project elements, including a video of a fire truck efficiently traversing
the traffic circle.
Finally, we invite you to contribute your voice to the community questionnaire on the project. Feel free to forward this link to others that may wish to share their perspectives. We will keep the survey active until at least May 4th, so that it may inform our next steps. We will conduct similar questionnaires in the future to
evaluate our progress toward addressing the issues raised.
Once again, thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your willingness to help ensure that our next steps reflect the importance of maintaining neighborhood quality of life and our responsibility to the prudent use of resources.
Sincerely,
Rob
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:38 AM
3
Rob de Geus
Deputy City Manager 250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.463.4951 | F: 650.321.5612 | E: Robert.deGeus@cityofpaloalto.org
“Engaging Individuals and Families to Create a Strong and Healthy Community”
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 12:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 10:31 PM
To:Eric Rosenblum; Council, City
Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Sneha Saroja Ayyagari; Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group;
WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Paul George @ PPJC
Subject:Re: BMR
Attachments:4-30 Letter to Eric re. BMR housing.docx
I am also a member of the WILPF Housing/Homeless Committee and agree whole heartedly with my
colleague, Roberta Ahlquist. (see attached BMR letter)
I would go even further. If Palo Alto were to really want to turn around the current train wreck, a
good place to start with a total ban on all commercial, business, or municipal development,
remodeling, or overhaul until and unless all the middle income, low income, and homeless disposed,
evicted, or made homeless in the last five years for the further enrichment of the already rich.
Please re-read my colleague's letter and know that there are many Palo Altans who are embarrassed at
the naked greed and inhumanity that seems to be running and ruining the fine place Palo Alto used to
be.
Make Palo Alto great again! Halt the over development!
Chuck Jagoda
Sunnyvale, CA
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:
Eric,
I hope you would support a freeze on office development until BMR housing is a reality in Palo Alto.
Roberta Ahlquist
--
Chuck
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 27, 2018 11:57 AM
To:Flaherty, Michelle
Cc:Marie-Jo Fremont; Darlene E.Yaplee; Keene, James; Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Re: FAA Reauthorization
Hi Michelle,
Thank you for the update, and chart. I understand Rep Eshoo spoke on the house floor as well, and will look for
the replay. When I reached out to her office yesterday I relayed thanks for her leadership and for supporting her constituents and advocacy on this issue. Hopefully there will be some more items from the Senate version as well.
Jennifer
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Flaherty, Michelle <Michelle.Flaherty@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Jennifer, Darlene and Marie‐Jo,
I understand the U.S. House of Representatives passed the FAA Reauthorization bill this morning by a vote of 393‐13.
Attached is an updated chart on the noise amendments, including the amendment on metrics successfully sponsored
by our own Representative Anna G. Eshoo.
In terms of next steps, the bill will need to be scheduled for a vote on the Senate floor. Assuming it is further amended
in the Senate, the House would then have to take up and pass the Senate‐approved bill. Both houses will have some
time to schedule such actions before current FAA authority runs out on September 30, 2018.
I hope this is helpful,
Michelle
Michelle Poché Flaherty
Deputy City Manager
250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2533 | C: 650.509.0726
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:48 AM
2
E: Michelle.Flaherty@cityofpaloalto.org
Quality|Courtesy|Efficiency|Integrity|Innovation
From: Jennifer Landesmann [mailto:jlandesmann@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 7:09 AM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Flaherty, Michelle <Michelle.Flaherty@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Time sensitive re FAA Reauthorization: TODAY! Call Your Congressional Representatives
Dear City Council and City Manager Keene,
Please reach out this morning to Rep Eshoo, and the City's lobbyists in D.C. to show and enlist support for the
following amendments to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, summarized in the following call to action by one of our
partner communities Montgomery Quiet Skies Coalition.
The ongoing and multi-year advocacy to represent affected people are reflected in the noise provisions being considered now by the full
house. Your voice makes a difference, and your support today would be much appreciated,
Best,
Jennifer
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anne Hollander <annekhollander@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:56 AM
Subject: [Quiet Skies] Time sensitive re FAA Reauthorization: TODAY! Call Your Congressional Representatives
To: Anne Hollander <annekhollander@gmail.com>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:48 AM
3
ACTION REQUIRED TODAY!
The House of Representative is scheduled to begin voting LATER TODAY on amendments to the FAA Reauthorization (H.R. 4). Of the 254 that were originally offered, 116 made it through the Rules Committees and will be voted on. Of those that made it through, about 45 are related to aircraft
noise and pollution issues.
The amendments with bipartisan support have by far the best chance of making it into the final bill. There are only a handful, and we recommend you mention them specifically when you call your Representative.
You may also want to ask your Representative to reach out to Mr. Hoyer, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. DeFazio
and anyone else they think could help to to support these amendments.
Also ask your friends and colleagues to call. Forward this email if you wish.
Again, the following amendments are the best ones to mention specifically when you call your reps
either because they have bipartisan support and therefore have some chance of passing, or because in our opinion they are particularly important. Of course you should mention any and all that particularly affect your communities.
BIPARTISAN:
43
Roskam (R-IL) / Speier (D-CA): requires a study of the relationship between jet aircraft approach
and takeoff speeds and corresponding noise impacts on communities
55 Rohrabacher (R-CA)/Raskin (D-MD): requires installation of vortex generators to reduce noise
* 81 also requires retrofitting aircraft with vortex generators and other devices
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:48 AM
4
58 Rohrabacher (R-CA)/Raskin (D-MD): establishes FAA priorities as safety, impacts to
communities and efficiency in that order
59 Rohrabacher (R-CA)/Raskin (D-MD): aircraft operating within 20 miles of airport must fly no lower than necessary
153 Raskin (D-MD)/Rohrabacher (R-CA): require
s
FAA to conduct open comment periods every 180 days for communities
155 Raskin (D-MD) / Cook (R-CA): calculate noise on cumulative rather than per-flight basis
172 Comstock (R-VA)/Raskin (D-MD): prohibits expansion of perimeter rule at DCA
OTHERS WE ARE SUPPORTING:
154 Raskin: establishes rules limiting frequency of flights that create high impact noise over the
same location.
32 Meng (D-NY) requires alternative metrics within 1 year (7 Democrats on board but no
Republicans)
253 Rohrabacher (R-CA): requires aircraft to fly as high, quiet, and pollutant free as safely
possible
68 Smith (D-WA): requires study of ultrafine particles around the 20 largest airports
* we typically don't think more studies are needed on noise, but ultrafine particles are a huge
concern for our members and we would welcome this research!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:48 AM
5
129
Bass (D-CA)/Lieu (D-CA): requires the FAA to report to Congress if more than 25% of flights on a
single procedure deviate lower than minimum published altitudes in a single month
123
Speier (D-CA): requires GAO report studying 1) whether air traffic controllers are trained on noise
and health impact mitigation and 2) alternatives to
the prevalence of vectoring flights due to over-crowded flight paths
39
Meng (D-NY): requires the FAA to address community concerns when proposing changes to arrival
procedures - the current bill only requires this for departure procedures
83 Lynch (D-MA)/Raskin (D-MD): establishes regional aircraft noise ombudsman
30 Meng (D-NY)/Raskin (D-MD):
calls for a
5 year noise mitigation study
Thanks for everyone's efforts. We are very hopeful that some of these amendments will make it into
the final House bill. And then.... we will need to turn our full attention to the Senate!
Anne Hollander on behalf of
Montgomery County Quiet Skies Coalition
--
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:48 AM
6
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
Sections 154-160 of the Bill are noise provisions introduced in 2017 by the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus and supported by community groups.
Sec. 154. Updating airport noise exposure maps. (Page 33)
Sec. 155. Stage 3 aircraft study.
Sec. 156. Addressing community noise concerns.
Sec. 157. Study on potential health impacts of overflight noise.
Sec. 158. Environmental mitigation pilot program.
Sec. 159. Aircraft noise exposure.
Sec. 160. Community involvement in FAA NextGen projects located in
metroplexes.
Amendment Sponsor Description Status
7
Krishnamoorthi (D‐IL)
Torres (D‐CA)
Roskam (R‐IL)
Bass (D‐CA)
Adds “economic impacts” to the study on the
effects of airport noise on communities near
busy airports.”Accepted, En Bloc
13
Roskam (R‐IL)
Speier (D‐CA)
Directs the FAA Administrator to study the
relationship between jet aircraft approach
and takeoff speeds and corresponding noise
impacts on communities surrounding
airports. Requires the FAA Administrator to
submit the results of the study in a report to
Congress. Accepted
16
Speier (D‐CA)
Bass (D‐CA)
Beyer (D‐VA)
Meng (D‐NY)
Norton (D‐DC)
Requires a GAO report studying: (1) while
maintaining safety as the top priority,
whether air traffic controllers and airspace
designers are trained on noise and health
impact mitigation in addition to efficiency;
and (2) the prevalence of vectoring flights
due to over‐crowded departure and arrival
paths, and alternatives to this practice.Accepted, En Bloc
60
Rohrabacher (R‐CA)
Bass (D‐CA)
Ensures that aircraft transitioning from flight
over ocean to flight over land fly at no lower
altitude than necessary to provide for safe
flight operations. Failed, 37‐375
62
Panetta (D‐CA)
Crowley (D‐NY)
Meng (D‐NY)
Norton (D‐DC)
Quigley (D‐IL)
Schakowsky (D‐IL)
Smith (D‐WA)
Suozzi (D‐NY)
Bass (D‐CA)
Peters (D‐CA)
Raskin (D‐MD)
Eshoo (D‐CA)
Chu (D‐CA)
Rice (D‐NY)
Khanna (D‐CA)
Speier (D‐CA)
Directs the FAA to evaluate alternative
metrics, including actual noise sampling, to
determine a Day Night Level average sound
level standard and provide a report to
Congress.Accepted, En Bloc
87
Lynch (D‐MA)
Meng (D‐NY)
Norton (D‐DC)
Bass (D‐CA)
Chu (D‐CA)
Quigley (D‐IL)
Khanna (D‐CA)
Directs the FAA Administrator to engage and
cooperate with air carriers to identify and
facilitate opportunities for air carriers to
retrofit aircraft with devices that mitigate
noise, including vortex generators. Failed, 187‐227
89
Meng (D‐NY)
Khanna (D‐CA)
Bass (D‐CA)
Raskin (D‐MD)
Suozzi (D‐NY)
Requires the FAA to develop a 5‐year aircraft
noise research and mitigation strategy.Accepted, En Bloc
90
Meng (D‐NY)
Norton (D‐DC)
Khanna (D‐CA)
Bass (D‐CA)
Raskin (D‐MD)
Suozzi (D‐NY)
Speier (D‐CA)
Requires the FAA within 1 year of enactment
of the bill to complete the ongoing
evaluation of alternative metrics to the
current Day Night Level (DNL) 65 standard.Accepted, En Bloc
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Clerk, City
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 7:32 AM
To:Francesca; Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:RE: Message from the City Council Home Page
Hi Francesca,
The agenda for that meeting has not been set yet. It is tentatively set to begin at 5:00 PM, however, the Verizon item
may not begin until approximately 7:15 PM, due to other items on the agenda that need to be heard first. The decision
on how that item will be taken up has not been decided as of yet, those discussions are still ongoing. That agenda will
not go out until next week, so please keep an eye out on the council's agenda page, or if you are subscribed to
GovDelivery, the info will come in an email next Thursday.
Thanks,
B‐
Beth D. Minor | City Clerk | City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue| Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650‐ 329‐2379 E: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org
City Clerks Rock and Rule
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Francesca [mailto:dfkautz@pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2018 7:47 PM
To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Message from the City Council Home Page
Dear City Council and City Clerk,
Could you please explain the procedure for the public hearing on Monday, May 21st to hear the appeals of the Planning
and Community Environment Directors decisions to approve eleven wireless facility nodes of the Cluster 1
Vinculums/Verizon Tier 3 application (file 17PLN‐00169).
What time does the meeting start?
What is the format for hearing the appellants and in what order are they heard?
Thank you,
Francesca Kautz
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:40 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 26, 2018 6:28 PM
To:Gaines, Chantal; De Geus, Robert; Raj Shetty; Maximilian Goetz; Council, City
Cc:ross-road@googlegroups.com
Subject:Re: ross road and amarillo avenue.
I have been redirected a couple of times on ross road work, and upcoming work on amarillo avenue right next to
ohlone. I have not seen any concrete action plan yet. Please see the last response I received from Robert. I read
thru most of it, and I feel like mostly this is an attempt to throw thousands of words of text at people without
actually telling people what the next steps are. That is unfortunate. More to the point, I am hoping I can learn 4 things from the city council as a citizen living in Palo Alto:
1. Is there ANY proof that having young kids on bicycles merge onto incoming traffic (like it is now at Ross
road & Meadow) safer than say, having stop signs every 150 feet? Any proof whatsoever?
2. If not, what are you guys going to do about this and when? ("Community outreach" and "education" will not stop accidents. Doing something will).
3. Which council members support this, which council members oppose this, and which members are
indifferent to what's going on? This will most definitely inform what I do next election. 4. While this is being resolved, are you going to pause the upcoming construction at amarillo?
--Thanks
Ganesh -------
De Geus, Robert
to Chantal
Dear Resident,
Thank you for expressing feedback to the City about the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard project. The project has generated a great deal of interest and comments, both supporting as well as raising
concerns with the project. As we evaluate and adjust our actions based on this feedback, we would like to
ensure that all residents are aware of a few facts about the project:
This project is one element of the City’s overall Comprehensive Plan to ensure mobility and maintain
Palo Alto’s neighborhood quality of life well into the future. It was the product of extensive community
engagement and city council approval (link to related City Staff reports 5/9/2016 and 6/27/2017) . That said,
we clearly underestimated the negative reaction from residents that were not involved during the planning
phase. In recognition of this, the recent community update announced a review of how the project will
proceed. Now that most of the work on Ross Road has been completed, we are taking the opportunity to
gain further feedback and evaluate how best to proceed with future steps.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:40 AM
2
A useful guide to the project’s principles and design elements is provided by the National Association of
City Transportation Officials (NACTO). NACTO provides design guides to a number of city street elements
used across the nation, including this overview of bicycle boulevards.
A key function of Palo Alto’s bicycle boulevards is to reduce speeds to 20 mph or lower. Per
NACTO, speed management is a strategy to “bring motor vehicle speeds closer to those of bicyclists.
Reducing speeds along the bicycle boulevard improves the bicycling environment by reducing overtaking
events, enhancing drivers’ ability to see and react, and diminishing the severity of crashes if they occur.
Speed management is critical to creating a comfortable and effective bicycle boulevard.” Achieving the
desired reduction in vehicle speeds will clearly require more driver awareness, and we will continue to focus
on this in the weeks ahead.
You can link to the frequently asked questions online at Phase 1 ‐ Project Page. The FAQs include
information about other project elements, including a video of a fire truck efficiently traversing the traffic
circle.
Finally, we invite you to contribute your voice to the community questionnaire on the project. Feel free to forward this link to others that may wish to share their perspectives. We will keep the survey active until at
least May 4th, so that it may inform our next steps. We will conduct similar questionnaires in the future to
evaluate our progress toward addressing the issues raised.
Once again, thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your willingness to help ensure that our next steps reflect the importance of maintaining neighborhood quality of life and our responsibility to the prudent use of
resources.
Sincerely,
Rob
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 10:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Shalini Kamala <shalini.pk@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 26, 2018 10:06 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Ross Road/Meadow Dr intersection
Now that the ross rd construction is over, with no signs from the city to correct their blunder, here are my
thoughts:
Now that the ross rd/meadow dr construction is over, as someone who commutes by car several times a day
through that intersection - i don't see much safety issues for myself or my family - until my child starts biking to
school. After all, I am inside a car - if something hits me at this speed, worst thing that can happen is a small
dent on the car. However, the roundabout seems to be difficult for cyclists to go through - they now have to
merge slowly from the bike lane to the center, slows down bike traffic a lot. On the whole, the project has been a huge traffic improvement for car drivers - since you don't have to deal with kids making random turns in the
middle of the road. The roundabout forces kids to slow down, however it does not keep them safe from
aggressive car drivers. Previously, there was a separate bike lane. Now bikers are forced to merge to the center
as they enter the roundabout - which means car drivers have to be on the lookout for any merging bikers - if that
doesn't happen, the child is at risk. This is an intersection that is very close to a middle school and elementary school - which means a lot of bike traffic. Why did the city pick this intersection to start with ?
I received an e-mail from a council member saying an outside engineering firm will evaluate the situation, and
then appropriate measures will be taken. Was all of this really necessary ? Is this how our tax dollars are
at work ? Have any of you bothered to drive down here and take a look ?
--Shalini
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shalini Kamala <shalini.pk@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 8:41 AM Subject: Ross Road/Meadow Dr intersection To: "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Dear council members,
I live on Evergreen Dr, very close to Ross Rd/Meadow Dr intersection where a roundabout is being constructed right now. I understand that there is nothing
wrong about a roundabout, it increases safety for everyone - cars, bikes and
pedestrians. However the size of the roundabout in this intersection is huge! It is
very difficult to maneuver through in this intersection - especially for bikers. If you are driving in a car, and want to take a left at this intersection, it is very
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 10:55 AM
2
difficult to keep track of bikers/pedestrians while you are trying to drive
through without hitting the roundabout and other cars.
There is a lot of bike traffic in this part - kids biking to JLS. There is quite a lot
of pedestrian traffic too. There is a preschool right at this intersection. The
changes introduced do not seem safe to anyone.
I request you to kindly look into this matter urgently. Obviously the whole thing was done with good intentions - to increase our safety, however the execution
went wrong.
--Shalini
--
Maximilian Goetz | Legislative Aide
Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka’s Office
W: www.GregTanaka.org | D: 650.665.9734 | E: max.goetz@gregtanaka.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you.
This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addres
may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you receivemessage in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. Views I state are my own and may nrepresent those of this Office or the full Council.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:27 PM
To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack;
nick yovino; robert.andersen; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; bballpod; bearwithme1016
@att.net; Cathy Lewis; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; Chris Field;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Raymond Rivas;
huidentalsanmateo; steve.hogg; hennessy; info@superide1.com; Joel Stiner; jerry
ruopoli; Jason Tarvin; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; kclark; leager; Tom Lang; Mark Standriff;
midge@thebarretts.com; mmt4@pge.com; Mayor; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com;
pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; terry
Subject:Re: Stanford: Do aquifer recharge, not big new dams that can overflow
l
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:35 AM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:26 PM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Tues. April 23, 2018
To all- The fight continues to get money for the ill-conceived and dangerous Temperance Flat
Reservoir Project on the San Joaquin River above Millerton Lake, both above Fresno, Ca:
http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/temperance-flat-project-persisting/article_d682b897-
df48-556c-bd60-414bcbb31dfd.html?utm_source=Morning+Roundup&utm_campaign=b67b6bab77-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_04_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_165ffe36b2-b67b6bab77-
78450701&mc_cid=b67b6bab77&mc_eid=7afa3a94f3#tracking-source=home-top-story
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:51 AM
2
This turkey of a project should die a natural death. It already is.
I re-send here a mail I sent in May, 2017. See there the link re Stanford's "cost effective plan
to drought resiliency". That plan looks very good to me. It is far safer than the dangerous Temp. Flat
Reservoir plan.
Important: In 1700, there was a huge 9.0 quake and a resulting tsunami in the NW United States, in the Cascadia subduction zone off of Washington and Oregon. This event is estimated to have a
400 year recurrence interval, meaning the next one could happen ~2100. The NW of the U.S. will be
devastated when it happens. Earthquake experts say that the shaking in Fresno will be as great as what
occurred in San Francisco in the 1906 quake. But Temperance Flat Reservoir, up the San Joaquin R.
from Millerton Lake which is behind Friant Dam, will put an additional 1.3 million acre feet of water above Fresno, which, by 2100, will have 1.5 million people if the rich Republicans who own Fresno get
their way. Millerton Lake can already hold one half million acre feet of water. So figure 1.8 million acre
feet of water, at maximum, located up river from 1.5 million Fresnans. If those dams failed, it would be a
human catastrophe of historic proportions.
There are several big reservoirs from Fresno north to Seattle. Some of them may fail in the
above quake. I do not know if civil engineers can build Temperance Flat Dam to withstand the shaking that
happened in SF on April 18,1906. Nor do I know, if they can, what it would cost to do. For all I know, the
rich Republicans in Fresno don't believe in earthquakes either, so would they even explore making TF Dam
proof against a 1906 type quake? Until we have iron-clad assurances that TF Dam can and will be built to withstand such a calamity, the dam should not be built. To build TF Dam to withstand the quakes that occur
at the proposed site now should result in criminal charges against the people who build it.
In the attached, also click on the Valley PBS link. There, see "Shows" at the top of their website.
Click on that and see in the drop-down "Tapped Out". Click in the drop-down on "Tapped Out". You see the title and beneath it, the words "Click here to watch full episodes" That does not work. So scroll
on down a little and see "Episodes" and beneath that "Tapped out Part One", "Tapped Out Part Two",
etc. Clicking on those does work.
This was an excellent four-part series run a year ago about water in the Central Valley of
California. It is currently being run again by Valley PBS. One can view all four episodes in the valleypbs
link I provide in the email below. I strongly recommend them.
Also, see the link there for the excellent BBC program "The Earth Under Water". It is now several years old, but a real eye-opener if you are a climate change denier, as many Fresno public
officials seem to be.
The other night, PBS ran a new "Nova" called "Decoding the Weather Machine". It is sort of an
update to "The Earth Under Water". Two hours, and it exposes the climate change deniers for the lying, dangerous frauds that they are.
Here is Nova "Decoding the Weather Machine":
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/decoding-weather-machine.html
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:51 AM
3
If you watch all of that and are still advocating for Temperance Flat Reservoir, you are either a
little bit brain dead, and/or a little bit corrupt.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:23 PM
Subject: Fwd: Stanford: Do aquifer recharge, not big new dams that can overflow
To: mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:07 AM
Subject: Fwd: Stanford: Do aquifer recharge, not big new dams that can overflow
To: Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, "city.council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Joel Stiner
<jastiner@gmail.com>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian
<dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, dwalters
<dwalters@sacbee.com>, Paul Dictos <paul@dictos.com>, bretthedrick
<bretthedrick@hedrickschevy.com>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, bmcewen <bmcewen@fresnobee.com>, jboren <jboren@fresnobee.com>,
kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com, Mayor
<mayor@fresno.gov>, CityManager <citymanager@fresno.gov>, "paul.caprioglio"
<paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, midge@thebarretts.com, Mark Standriff
<mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, mmt4@pge.com, "robert.andersen" <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, fmerlo@wildelectric.net, firstvp@fresnopoa.org, Raymond
Rivas <financialadvisor007@gmail.com>, Gary Turgeon <garyt@michaelautomotive.com>,
"Greg.Gatzka" <Greg.Gatzka@co.kings.ca.us>, "steve.hogg" <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>,
info@superide1.com, "igorstrav ." <mwaldrep@aixrecords.com>, jerry ruopoli
<jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, johnhutson580 <johnhutson580@msn.com>, kclark <kclark@westlandswater.org>, lxcastro93@yahoo.com, leager <leager@fresnoedc.com>,
"scott.mozier" <scott.mozier@fresno.gov>, President <President@whitehouse.gov>, popoff
<popoff@pbworld.com>, russ@topperjewelers.com, "richard.wenzel" <richard.wenzel@aecom.com>,
Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, Tranil Thomas <soulja92y@hotmail.com>,
thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:40 PM
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:51 AM
4
Subject: Fwd: Stanford: Do aquifer recharge, not big new dams that can overflow
To: Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>,
CityManager <citymanager@fresno.gov>, "paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:36 PM
Subject: Stanford: Do aquifer recharge, not big new dams that can overflow
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Tues., May 16, 2017
http://news.stanford.edu/2016/07/21/cost-effective-path-drought-resiliency/
In a four hour series entitled "Tapped Out" re water in the Central Valley, one farmer suggests we build berms around multi-thousand acre plots, put water on there, and let it perc., the idea proposed by
Stanford in the report above. We just let 10 trillion gallons of precious, Sierra run-off flow to the
ocean in winter, 2017. Then the cry continues from water officials that "The aquifer is over-
pumped! and has dropped 80 feet under Fresno over the past 100 years due to over-pumping!! OMG
what will we do?. Better quadruple water rates for the residential suckers in Fresno", which they have done. Doing that will pay for a huge new surface water treatment plant in SE Fresno and enable
scum-bag Republican developers to build thousands of more homes out there, but the suckers in all of
Fresno will pay for it.
The severe Groundwater Sustainability Management Act that was passed in ~2014 will dictate what crops farmers can grow and seriously control their groundwater pumping. I supported it, but if we
stopped sending 10 trillion gallons down the San Joaquin River in wet years, and put that water on the
land in the Central Valley and used it to recharge the aquifer, most of that would not be necessary!
We HAVE to let huge amounts of water flow to the Delta or it will salt up from intrusion of water from SF Bay (from San Pablo Bay at its west end), is the cry. Remember, sea level rise is already
underway, and that with an ice-free planet, it will rise 250 feet. Ultimately, we may have to do
this: build a huge dam across the Golden Gate, just to the east of the GG bridge. One could stand on
the bridge, look over the east-side railing, and look down on the dam. That would save the Bay
Area and the Delta from sea level rise. It would turn SF Bay into a fresh-water marsh. The Delta would be saved from salt water intrusion and we could halt the huge flows of Sierra run-off to the sea,
using that water for ag, cities, and environment. That idea is proposed and shown graphically in a
film "The Earth Under Water", which I strongly recommend.
We should abandon the idea of Temperance Flat Dam and get going right away on the Golden Gate Dam to be built just to the east of the Golden Gate Bridge. That would do far more good for the
people of California's Central Valley, and of the Bay Area. It would save the Delta from salt water intrusion,
and the Delta is the fresh water source for 25 million people, mainly in Southern California. Putting our
money into the Golden Gate Dam would be a far smarter allocation of resources than would be the building
of Temperance Flat Dam.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:51 AM
5
I recommend "Tapped Out", being run on ch. 18.1, PBS, in Fresno. Well worth watching if you
have any interest in California water. It is four one-hour programs. The episodes, after they are broadcast, can be viewed at www.valleypbs.org.
If our elected officials at the City, State and Federal levels just knew, really knew all that was being
presented in "Tapped Out" and in "The Earth Under Water", and in Nova's "Decoding the Weather
Machine", we would be way ahead. But they don't know 5% of it. Too busy out shopping, I guess. The bums. Scott Pruitt and Trump want to sharply increase coal production and burning.
Here is BBC's "The Earth Under Water":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmcxFmJnNK8
L. William Harding,
B.A., Biological Sciences, Stanford University, 1964
MBA Finance, University of Oregon, 1968 Passed CPA Exam, 1987
MS Taxation, California State University, East Bay, 1991
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sara woodham-johnsson <sawoodham@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 28, 2018 8:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Recommending Fred Yamamoto Park
City Council Members,
I was a member of the Committee charged with recommending names for our School Board to consider in renaming 2
schools. As you are surely aware, Fred Yamamoto is deserving of our city’s highest recognition and honor. In general,
our parks are named after notable residents of our city. I have been a resident for 12 years and have learned and
appreciated much about our city and the role of individuals through names ‐ Zschokke, Johnson, Wallis, Greer, Peers, ….
Please consider renaming Heritage Park for Fred Yamamoto. Let us remember his life, cut short though it was, for his
spirit of optimism, sense of right and wrong, and dedication in service of our country. He deserves it.
Thank you,
Sara Woodham
130 Bryant, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, April 27, 2018 1:58 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:DeMarzo, Elise
Subject:Reminded of Go Mama as I watched classic film
Go Mama w. Night of the Hunter
Posted on April 27, 2018by markweiss86
Go Mama is a recently deassessioned public art work by Marta Thoma.
In Night of the Hunter, Pearl carries a beloved rag doll.
Here Terry and I pose with Go Mama, on California and Ash, in December, 2017.
Last night I watched most of “Night of The Hunter” at Stanford Theatre on University Avenue. Here is
a screen capture, from YouTube, as Pearl and Billy try to escape Robert Mitchum as fake-preacher
Harry Powell.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:49 AM
2
Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here You can hide these ads completely by upgrading to one of our paid plans.
UPGRADE NOW DISMISS MESSAGE
Related
Charlie Hunter new duo cd and interview in LA TimesIn "ethniceities"
Interview with Scott AmendolaWith 2 comments
Mark Weiss, in Palo Alto. Excuse the typos. The nature of a wordpress blog is that you can go public with a "rough
draft" then easily amend or expand.
Go Down, RosemanIn "ethniceities"
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 25, 2018 4:53 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Bill Johnson; DuBois, Tom; greg@gregtanaka.org; Keene, James; Kou, Lydia; Kniss, Liz
(external); Shikada, Ed
Subject:Review the Middlefield & Embaracdero striping that puts a bus stop 3 car lengths
beyond the intersection
The new striping at Middkefied and Embarcadero is absolutely dangerous, even more dangerous than at
Middlefield and Oregon. This is issue was raised more than 2 years ago during the Jordan Bike lane fiasco to which we never got any substantive responses.
See the comments made on Next Door about this in the last hour about how dangerous traffic was last
night. We should have risk life and limb to go out to dinner because of these poorly thought-out traffic
"calming" "improvements".
On most nights, you can see cars creating their own lanes to get into the new turn lanes barreling right into the
path of oncoming traffic. often 10 cars per light cycle. But with intentionally bottlenecking cars behind a bus
stop RIGHT where
the road now narrows to a single southbound lane is lunacy. Last night was particularly dangerous, more so than just the problems posed by all posts and bollards at every Middlefield intersection that makes it perilous to
get out of our drivewaus
and that prevents cars from easily getting out of the bottlenecks.
Jo Ann Mandinach , Leland Manor·20m ago I urge the PTC to review the new striping at Middleield and Embarcadero that puts a bus stop 3 car
lengths south of the intersection right where they've made it one singe lane.. Yesterday at 6:45pm, the bus
was stopped for such a long time, the intersection was blocked and impatient drivers stuck behind the bus tried to get around the bus by driving into oncoming traffic -- ie US. Eliminating the dedicated right turn lane exacerbated the problem of cars backed up into the intersection and behind the buses.
Amy Keohane
, Downtown North·2m ago
yes crazy I just wrote to the city council. The bus was stopped for 10 mins, cars backed up passed
Walter Hayes and nobody can go around because there is a left turn lane going northbound. I am not
sure who these yahoos are but really they need more training. It was 6:40 last night also, I can only
imagine when it is prime time. I couldn't figure out why they needed to change the lanes around. If
anything they should have left and straight and right lane right turn only. ---------------------------
Since it's claimed that the city can't / won't read Next Door Comments, let me share this with you since we're still waiting for response to whether the new con$sultant has figured out whether it's "feasible and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:52 AM
2
appropriate" to list to 918+ resodents' complaints about problems we experience daily! (And you wonder
why there's little support for more government spending on "traffic calming"!!)
From George Jaquette, creator of the Ross Road petition,
Ed, Susan, Michael, Przemek, William, Doria and Asher- It is surprising to me that the Planning and
Transportation Committee is not reviewing the current $9.2 million project that is opposed by 918
residents of the community that is supposed to be benefiting from this project. https://www.change.org/p/city-council-cityofpaloalto-org-stop-the-traffic-calming-implementation-on-ross-road-in-palo-alto The city has been unable to provide the traffic analysis required under contract by
Alta Design; the design does not adhere to or conform with design guidelines from the Federal Highway
Administration or the California Department of Transportation; and research has proven that
roundabouts help in certain situations but actually increase the likelihood of bicycle accidents with cars by 1000% in intersections where traffic speeds are 25 mph. The roundabout at East Meadow Road and Ross Road is a major commuter route for bike traffic, with 400+ kids heading to Fairmeadow
Elementary every day, 1100 students riding to JLS Middle School every day, and many kids from south
Palo Alto headed to Gunn High School every day. Add to this the fact that a fire station is one block away
from the intersection, so that this raised island is going to delay response times for nearly a quarter of the homes and citizens they are asked to protect. The decision to prioritize adult bike commuters on Ross Road over every user who has to pass through this traffic experiment going through on East Meadow is
puzzling, and now that we know that Alta Design did NOT do the traffic analysis required under
contract it is clear that they did not even attempt to follow design guidelines -- data learned in traffic analysis is directly relevant in determining whether a roundabout is a benefit or an impediment, and this intersection has (according to an expert at the Federal Highway Administration) very high bicycle traffic for a roundabout. Here are a few facts to consider: 1. In response to my request for the contracted traffic
analysis: I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the California Public Records
Act (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.) received by the City on 4/16/2018. Your request mentioned I am writing to follow up on the data that was provided to an earlier request (Reference # W001192-040518), as that response was incomplete. Under contract, Alta Design was to deliver to the City of Palo Alto the following: Traffic data collection will be conducted by the CONSULT ANT upon approval by CITY, and
is anticipated to include: • Seven days of vehicle speed and classification hose counts along each project
route (up to 15 locations) • Seven days of bicyclist and pedestrian counts using video including information on directionality, for each project, one count will include approximate information regarding bicyclist type (age, gender, helmet use)- (up to 15 locations) · • Where appropriate, intersection peak hour turning movement counts (up to 16 total) The intersection at East Meadow and Ross Road is referred to
as Site 00000031 for reference. The data provided covers only two days (Thursday May 15 2014 and
Saturday May 17 2014) rather than the seven promised, and only covers two hours rather than the entire day (necessary to know AADT). The data does not include speed information at all -- just a count of cars and an indication of the direction they were headed. There is no analysis whatsoever of bicyclist type (age, gender, helmet use) that I can find. Please do provide the complete list of requested information, as
this is necessary for the independent expert analysis promised by the City in an announcement on March
30th. All the records possessed by the City were previously provided. There are no additional records responsive records to this request. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me by responding to this message. Sincerely, Yolanda Cervantes Administrative Assistant Planning and Community Environment 2. The most recent research articles on bike safety in
roundabouts (and yes, ours are not roundabouts -- they are mini-roundabouts that violate the rule that
all islands should be traversable). There is a study of 255 intersections in Denmark that were converted to roundabouts, and surprisingly ... there is a 122% increase in bike accidents in 25-mph roundabouts. The danger is even higher for small roundabouts (with islands smaller than 60-feet), and worse when the island is short (under 6-feet). "converting intersections to roundabouts reduce the number of accidents
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:52 AM
3
and reduce accident severity. But the safety effects for cyclists are not so good. The overall picture is that
studies indicate that bicycle safety is worsened when intersections are converted to roundabouts.
However, intersection design, roundabout design and other characteristics of converted sites influence safety effects for cyclists and other road users. This influence is considerable and safety effects in Table 1 should not be generalised due to excessive heterogeneity (Jensen, 2013)." Table 1 shows a 22% increase in
bicycle accidents. The increase in bicycle accidents is especially high in lower-speed intersections. Table 2
shows a 109% increase in bicycle accidents for intersections with a speed limit of 25 mph (40 kmh). Last
but not least, the report calls out small roundabouts as dangerous: "Brude and Larsson 1999a find that the accident rate for cyclists is twice as high at small roundabouts, where the central island including truck aprons is less than 20m, compared to larger roundabouts". The article is titled: Accident Analysis
and Prevention Safe Roundabouts for Cyclists by Soren Underlien Jensen published September 13, 2016
3. Attached is a memo published by the city on March 30th. This afternoon Granite Construction
continued to tear out the sidewalks at the intersection of Louis and Moreno, continuing the implementation of a flawed plan that is being implemented without the required and contracted analysis of traffic patterns in the city of Palo Alto. You CANNOT go back in time to measure how much traffic is
going through these intersections today, to compare it to the newly implemented bottlenecks and
constrictions. It borders on malfeasance that this commission is not investigating and reporting on this major project implementation that is not being properly managed or overseen. Sincerely- George Jaquette parent of two kids who have to bike to JLS through the intersection at East Meadow and Ross Road every day,
who report many more dangerous interactions since this construction began in January
Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road @ Lowell Palo Alto, CA 94301
Jo Ann Mandinach
Need To Know Info Solutions http:.// www.needtoknow.com
650 329-8655 or cell 650 269-0650
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eric Balin-Watkins <ewatkins@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 29, 2018 4:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Rd is looking good. Thanks!
Hi all,
I wanted to say thanks for the improvements made in the past months to make Ross into a real bike boulevard. I
live at 3814 Ross, halfway between Meadow and Louis -- one of the first sections to be completed. I bike to caltrain every day as part of my commute, and on the way I drop my 3 year old son at his daycare on
Middlefield. He rides in a bike trailer, and he loves it.
Before the work was complete, I initially felt less safe near the choke points where the new medians were put
in; the cars would whiz past us and there was less room to get out of their way. Since then, the cars have either decreased in number, or they are just being more respectful of the bikes. I'm not sure which. Maybe
both. Either way, I like the results.
As my kids grow up, I'm very excited about Palo Alto being a very bike-friendly place to live. Our family of
four only has one car, and I would not have imagined that was possible before living here.
Thanks, and keep it up!
-Eric
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Howard Hoffman <hh@hiosilver.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 29, 2018 8:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Rd
Dear Members of the Council:
I am sure that the naysayers are speaking quite loudly, but I wanted to let you know that I, for one, think the Ross Rd
Bike Boulevard is very well done. I frequently drive and bike in that area, especially the roundabout on East Meadow.
There are a lot of people who find change of any kind difficult. I love the Bryant Bike Boulevard and use it all the time.
The Ross Rd BB seems very well planned and a welcome way of accommodating cars and bikes.
Regards,
Howard Hoffman
Waverley St
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 12:04 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lynn Ware <drware@itsinc.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 10:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road and East Meadow Roundabout Concerns
Dear City Council,
In your heart felt mission to create a bicycle friendly city, unfortunately, the designs of some of the new bulb
outs and roundabouts on our streets have created hazardous conditions.
I am a resident near Ross Road and East Meadow Drive and have been a witness to vehicles trying to clear the
roundabout. It takes them a while to maneuver it.
In addition, all four corners of the roundabout intersection now have tire marks and black tire treads on them.
To me this indicates that the road structure is hazardous to vehicles and bicycles that have to merge into the
vehicle traffic.
I am requesting that you set up observers from the traffic department to watch the intersection Monday
through Friday during school commute hours (before and after school) to determine if children are safe at the
intersection. This MUST be done before “more of the same” are built on many other intersections in
town. Slow down the “project plan” to make sure the right decisions have been made.
These are our children’s lives at stake. If a mistake has been made in the design, better to admit it now than
to have a fatality that is unfixable and everyone will have to live with for the rest of their lives.
Leadership means being authentic and saying you are sorry when it is warranted.
Bambi Lynn Ware
3596 Louis Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
H: (650) 493‐7209
C: (650) 207‐2713
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kathleen Bobick <kathleenbobick@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 12:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road "bike boulevard."
To those of you who have destroyed our quiet peaceful Ross Road:
We have lived here on the corner of Ross and Moreno for 44 years. We always walked or biked, pushed a stroller or pulled a wagon, or took VTA bus everywhere with our three sons. We only had one car for a number
of years.
Now we are retired. We still do not need our street "calmed."
We have been very upset with the planning and implementation of this disastrous mess you call a bike boulevard. There is not one single thing we like. The curbouts are ridiculous and very dangerous. The
intersections with stones and some plants/trees are unattractive and not safe. The roundabouts are unsafe,
dangerous, and sure to cause many accidents. And the SIGNS!!! Too many signs everywhere. Who is the
genius you thought we needed so many?
There is a huge problem with the roundabout on Ross and Moreno intersection. Very large vehicles have to go
slow and I am sure the drivers are praying they make it. But the smaller cars are flying through like it is a race
track. So are the adult bicyclists coming around the corners. We have 3-4 times as many cars coming through
there. No stop signs mean don't slow down for any reason and dont look. So much for traffic calming. You get
an "F".
I sympathize with the parents whose children have to use the E. Meadow/ Ross Rd. roundabout. Previously that
was my route to shopping and errands. I refuse to drive there now. I go several miles out of my way, I like
stopping at stop signs. (Wasting gas? More pollution?, Your fault!)
Stop listening to special interests groups. Start undoing this mess. We don't want it. We don't like it. We don't
need it.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Bobick
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 12:05 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Unmesh Vartak <unmeshv@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2018 8:32 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross road has become too dangerous to bike
Council members
Please listen to resident complaints on Nextdoor. We all are worried about our children’s safety with bike improvements on Ross rd.
Here is a sample response from Nextdoor:
928 residents would like to see these changes ripped out. The same four voices keep speaking in support of them (Christy and Howard, notably). Each time a new bulbout is built (as just happened on Louis), another group of residents signs the petition. Those of us who HAVE to send our children
through the roundabout at East Meadow and Ross Road want our bike lanes back, which deserve
stop signs on Ross Road.
https://www.change.org/p/city-council-cityofpaloalto-org-stop-the-traffic-calming-implementation-on-ross-road-in-palo-alto
https://stoprossroadchanges.wordpress.com/
This mini-roundabout as built is dangerous, and research shows that small roundabouts in low-speed
intersections *increase* the likelihood of a bike / car accident. "converting intersections to roundabouts reduce the number of accidents and reduce accident
severity. But the safety effects for cyclists are not so good. The overall picture is that studies indicate
that bicycle safety is worsened when intersections are converted to roundabouts."
Accident Analysis and Prevention
Safe Roundabouts for Cyclists by Soren Underlien Jensen
published September 13, 2016
These changes are not proven, they are experimental -- there is no mini-roundabout with raised
islands anywhere in the countries that have been using them for hundreds of years (like the UK and
Canada, where no roundabout is smaller than 90 feet). There isn't a mini-roundabout like this one
anywhere in the US. It is a dangerous concrete structure unlike anything similar. The fact that the city
is spending $9.2 million (with guaranteed cost over-runs over the $8.7 million price tag) to do this to us is galling.
Here is one more piece of news that I haven't seen anywhere on NextDoor ... the traffic control company which is sporadically at these construction sites (Granite Construction outsources to a
company called Bay Area Traffic Solutions, or B. A. T. S.) recently cost the city of Walnut Creek a
large settlement because they failed to provide traffic safety in a construction zone:
http://www.cc-courts.org/civil/TR/Department%2017%20-%20Judge%20Goode/17_091417.pdf September 14, 2017
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 12:05 PM
2
BATS Involved in $6M Injury Settlement
Note that Granite Construction, the company building our concrete wonderland, bid one-third as much
for traffic control and traffic safety as the only other bidder. It shows when they are working.
The only public comment from the fire department stated that they were able to crawl through the
intersection, and they are looking at other routes to reach this service area. That note added what I assume was a sarcastic "assume good intentions" as a footnote; I don't think any fire department
anywhere in the country has asked to have a raised island placed one block away, on the route to
25% of its service area.
The contractor for this design (Alta Design) did not even perform the contracted traffic analysis before
creating this concrete experiment (so we have no idea if this expense is increasing ridership, and
many of us believe it is actually decreasing bike ridership because it is dangerous). If you are not
outraged, you are not paying attention.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:40 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 26, 2018 7:56 PM
To:supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org;
supervisor.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.cortese@bos.sccgov.org;
supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:SCC Homicide and Violent Crime Data For Years 1985-2016
Elected SCC Supervisors:
The attached MS-WORD file contains crime data obtained from the CA
DoJ focusing on homicides and violent crime in Santa Clara County for the years 1985-2016.
Please review and consider the implications of this data.
Following the data, some suggestions about what to do are offered to the Supervisors.
Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:dbmoos1 <dbmoos1@earthlink.net>
Sent:Sunday, April 29, 2018 5:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:So called “traffic calming”
I live off Louis Rd and cycle on Bryant Colorado and other local streets every week... I have never seen an accident nor
risky behavior till traffic calming started on Ross. This is a huge waste of money as it is a solution looking for a problem.
The city should have better uses for the millions it is spending to tear up our streets.
Now its starting on Louis and it already is causing problems.
It needs to stop immediately and the rationale needs to be proven before proceeding.
Thanks for listening;
Dan Moos
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:38 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Terri Shifrin <tshif74@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 26, 2018 4:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:STOP CHARLESTON CORRIDOR PLANS
PLEASE, PLEASE STOP MAKING OUR ROADWAYS UNSAFE!
For those of you who don't ride a bike or drive on the new Ross Road bike blvd., it is a disaster waiting to happen.
The old adage, if it's not broken, don't fix it!!!
Making another disastrous decision, another extremely expensive and NOT NECESSARY change, WITHOUT A
CITY WIDE VOTE is unthinkable to the general public who will be using these roads.
Many years ago the Charleston Corridor was changed by taking away one lane in each direction. Instead of
continuing making this corridor-a MAIN CORRIDOR- into an accident waiting to happen, bring the corridor back to
two lanes in each direction.
Arastradero/Charleston is already very impacted with traffic during peak hours - in the morning when children are
trying to get to school is one of them. The road is two lanes on Charleston, which becomes one lane at Arastradero
and El Camino and then branches out again later on near Terman. The reverse is true going the other way. During
commute hours, it is a s.l.o.w journey. I routinely see cars passing other cars in the bike lane. To further narrow this
road, I believe, is dangerous to bicyclists. Questions I have concerning this project since it was approved many
years ago: How has traffic changed on Arastradero? Our population has grown and so the number of cars traveling
this road has increased. Gunn High School has increased their enrollment - has there been any recent studies done
in regards to the traffic around (and into and out of) Gunn. The same question applies to Terman Middle School -
what does enrollment look like now as compared to the enrollment when the Arastradero/Charleston plan was
approved. Our town has changed quite a bit since this proposal was put in place. In my opinion, it would not be wise
to continue until we have updated information to make sure these changes will actually accomplish what they are
set out to accomplish. Our community is not shrinking - it continues to grow. We need infrastructure that can handle
our growth. Making roads narrower, adding obstacles in the middle of the roads (planters, etc), making corners
larger and harder to navigate - all these things do not support the growth that our town is seeing. Going ahead with
these changes on Arastradero/Charleston Road is a disservice to anyone who has to use it and makes navigation
harder and more dangerous.
I would like a response from each of you.
thank you,
Terri Shifrin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Steve Chapel <schapel2@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 26, 2018 9:31 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Chapel Stephen
Subject:Stop the "traffic calming" implementation on Ross Road in Palo Alto
You have made Ross Road a much more dangerous place for bicycles and local residents. A few decent speed bumps
would have served the purpose. The road is much too narrow for roundabouts. If my kids were riding to school on Ross
Road I would be furious!
I ride to the Y 2 to 3 times a week and my wife drives almost every day. What has been implemented is not traffic
calming and certainly has increased the level of risk associated with using Ross Road.
I am certainly not going to vote for anyone who advocated for this project.
Stephen Chapel
325 El Carmelo Ave
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:George Jaquette <jaquette@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 25, 2018 4:05 PM
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Surprising omission on your proposed agenda for this evening
Attachments:Bike ped construction update.pdf
Ed, Susan, Michael, Przemek, William, Doria and Asher- It is surprising to me that the Planning and Transportation Committee is not reviewing the current $9.2 million
project that is opposed by 918 residents of the community that is supposed to be benefiting from this project.
https://www.change.org/p/city-council-cityofpaloalto-org-stop-the-traffic-calming-implementation-on-ross-
road-in-palo-alto
The city has been unable to provide the traffic analysis required under contract by Alta Design; the design does
not adhere to or conform with design guidelines from the Federal Highway Administration or the California
Department of Transportation; and research has proven that roundabouts help in certain situations but actually
increase the likelihood of bicycle accidents with cars by 1000% in intersections where traffic speeds are 25
mph. The roundabout at East Meadow Road and Ross Road is a major commuter route for bike traffic, with 400+ kids heading to Fairmeadow Elementary every day, 1100 students riding to JLS Middle School every day,
and many kids from south Palo Alto headed to Gunn High School every day.
Add to this the fact that a fire station is one block away from the intersection, so that this raised island is going
to delay response times for nearly a quarter of the homes and citizens they are asked to protect.
The decision to prioritize adult bike commuters on Ross Road over every user who has to pass through this
traffic experiment going through on East Meadow is puzzling, and now that we know that Alta Design did NOT
do the traffic analysis required under contract it is clear that they did not even attempt to follow design guidelines -- data learned in traffic analysis is directly relevant in determining whether a roundabout is a benefit or an impediment, and this intersection has (according to an expert at the Federal Highway Administration) very
high bicycle traffic for a roundabout.
Here are a few facts to consider: 1. In response to my request for the contracted traffic analysis:
I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.)
received by the City on 4/16/2018.
Your request mentioned I am writing to follow up on the data that was provided to an earlier request (Reference # W001192‐
040518), as that response was incomplete. Under contract, Alta Design was to deliver to the City of Palo Alto the following:
Traffic data collection will be conducted by the CONSULT ANT upon approval by CITY, and is anticipated to include:
• Seven days of vehicle speed and classification hose counts along each project route (up to 15 locations)
• Seven days of bicyclist and pedestrian counts using video including information on directionality, for each project, one count
will include approximate information regarding bicyclist type (age, gender, helmet use)‐ (up to 15 locations) ∙
• Where appropriate, intersection peak hour turning movement counts (up to 16 total)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:51 AM
2
The intersection at East Meadow and Ross Road is referred to as Site 00000031 for reference.
The data provided covers only two days (Thursday May 15 2014 and Saturday May 17 2014) rather than the seven promised,
and only covers two hours rather than the entire day (necessary to know AADT).
The data does not include speed information at all ‐‐ just a count of cars and an indication of the direction they were headed.
There is no analysis whatsoever of bicyclist type (age, gender, helmet use) that I can find.
Please do provide the complete list of requested information, as this is necessary for the independent expert analysis promised
by the City in an announcement on March 30th.
All the records possessed by the City were previously provided. There are no additional records responsive records to this
request.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me by responding to this message.
Sincerely,
Yolanda Cervantes
Administrative Assistant
Planning and Community Environment
2. The most recent research articles on bike safety in roundabouts (and yes, ours are not roundabouts -- they are mini-
roundabouts that violate the rule that all islands should be traversable). There is a study of 255 intersections in Denmark that were converted to roundabouts, and surprisingly ... there is a 122% increase in bike accidents in 25-mph roundabouts. The danger is even higher for small roundabouts (with islands smaller than 60-feet), and worse when the island is short (under 6-feet). "converting intersections to roundabouts reduce the number of accidents and reduce accident severity. But the
safety effects for cyclists are not so good. The overall picture is that studies indicate that bicycle safety is
worsened when intersections are converted to roundabouts. However, intersection design, roundabout
design and other characteristics of converted sites influence safety effects for cyclists and other road users. This
influence is considerable and safety effects in Table 1 should not be generalised due to excessive heterogeneity
(Jensen, 2013)." Table 1 shows a 22% increase in bicycle accidents. The increase in bicycle accidents is
especially high in lower-speed intersections. Table 2 shows a 109% increase in bicycle accidents for
intersections with a speed limit of 25 mph (40 kmh). Last but not least, the report calls out small roundabouts
as dangerous: "Brude and Larsson 1999a find that the accident rate for cyclists is twice as high at small roundabouts, where the central island including truck aprons is less than 20m, compared to larger roundabouts".
The article is titled: Accident Analysis and Prevention Safe Roundabouts for Cyclists by Soren Underlien
Jensen published September 13, 2016
3. Attached is a memo published by the city on March 30th. This afternoon Granite Construction continued to
tear out the sidewalks at the intersection of Louis and Moreno, continuing the implementation of a flawed plan
that is being implemented without the required and contracted analysis of traffic patterns in the city of Palo
Alto. You CANNOT go back in time to measure how much traffic is going through these intersections today, to compare it to the newly implemented bottlenecks and constrictions.
It borders on malfeasance that this commission is not investigating and reporting on this major project
implementation that is not being properly managed or overseen.
Sincerely- George Jaquette
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:51 AM
3
parent of two kids who have to bike to JLS through the intersection at East Meadow and Ross Road every day,
who report many more dangerous interactions since this construction began in January
-- George Jaquette
email: jaquette@gmail.com
Community Update
March 30, 2018
City Adjusts Plan for Construction of Roundabouts and Traffic Calming Elements
on Next Section of Bike Boulevard Network
Responding to community concerns about some of the traffic calming elements installed as part
of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bike Boulevard Project, including a roundabout at Ross
and Meadow, the City is revising its approach to construction of elements planned for Amarillo
Avenue, the next segment in the project. Construction started last September on Ross Road as
the first segment of a 7.1 mile project to make it easier for Palo Altans to get around without a
car by slowing down traffic and making it safer for bike riders and pedestrians. Bike boulevards
were identified in the Council-adopted 2012 Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan as part of
the City’s strategy to increase bike ridership.
“We knew that expanding the bike network would be an ambitious and challenging
undertaking, “said City Manager James Keene, “but both our community and the City’s
Comprehensive Plan have expressed a commitment to encouraging alternatives to car travel. ”
City staff anticipates the roundabout currently under construction at Ross Road and Meadow
Avenue will be completed in the next week. Roundabouts are used as a way to reduce vehicle
speeds, making it safer for bicyclists, pedestrians, as well as drivers.
Once construction is complete, the City will also be verifying adequacy of the Ross Road and
Meadow roundabout for large vehicles, as well as asking independent engineering experts to
review the design of all of the roundabouts planned along the route.
“We have heard the community loud and clear,” said Chief Transportation Official Josh Mello,
“and while traffic calming elements such as roundabouts are shown to achieve that goal, we
recognize the community has concerns and questions. We’re going to take the opportunity to
modify the construction plan and ensure residents feel comfortable and informed about
planned future elements. We will also make adjustments to the roundabout design at Ross and
Meadow if appropriate and feasible following the review by the outside engineering experts.”
Construction is under way on one additional roundabout at Ross and Moreno. Other traffic
calming elements along Moreno Avenue and Louis Road are also under way, and will take
roughly two months to complete.
On Amarillo Avenue, construction will be phased to ensure community awareness and
functionality of the planned elements. First, temporary striping and plastic markers will be
installed to outline a roundabout planned at Greer, as well as curb extensions planned between
Louis and West Bayshore. This will allow the community to acclimate to the changes and
provide feedback to staff prior to concrete construction.
City staff also plan to step up outreach and informational efforts by meeting with groups of
residents, ensuring updated information and visual maps are available on the project website
(www.cityofpaloalto.org/bikepedsafety), and doing more “knock and talk” to affected
neighborhood streets. In addition, a bike safety event is planned for April 7 at the YMCA, and
Safe Routes to School will be organizing an onsite roundabout education effort for the week of
April 9. Details on both events will be posted on the website when available.
Palo Alto enjoys the third highest rate of commuter bike ridership in the United States with 44
percent of high school commuters traveling by bicycle and 8.5 percent of workers biking to
work. One of the goals of creating additional bike boulevards, such as along Ross Road, is to
provide better connections for bike commuters, both increasing ridership levels, as well as
reducing traffic congestion. For example, more than 216,000 bikers currently ride annually on
the shared lane along Bryant Street, which has incorporated similar traffic calming elements to
reduce motor speeds and make biking safer.
For more information on the project, go to www.cityofpaloalto.org/bikepedsafety.
Contact: City of Palo Alto Communications
(650) 329-2607
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 6:17 PM
Cc:Council, City; Dave Price; Kleinberg, Judy
Subject:To The Revolution ! -- Vote June 5
Attachments:D. Martell 1973.png
"Congressman John Karl Fredrich" District 18
Hey there John,
I love what you are doing. Of course I am promoting your cause to the community. You are a great American for speaking up (against all odds) for what is right and decent. You are the Palo Alto that I remember from my youth, and I'm proud and honored to watch you take action. You are a true Palo Alto residentialist, and I
believe in you. Thank you for carrying the torch for our generation and the Stanford community. All change
begins in the community; "think globally and act locally".
Forward an address and I will make a contribution to your mission.
Your old friend,
-Daniella Martell
Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) member & Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016 & 2005
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Fredrich <jkfredrich@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 30, 2018
Subject: To The Revolution !
To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Thank you, Danielle,
I'm hoping to have things more settled down by the end of the week
at which time it will be one month exactly until the vote.
One thing that you can do is just to get the word of mouth moving more in Palo Alto.
We never have gotten the full impact out of ours, and others, opposition to
'busyness as usual' here in Palo Alto politics because of the lack of a united front, and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:50 AM
2
I am certainly no wonder at organizing. But there are people that think our way who
are not aware that we don't have until November. Unless Eshoo is challenged now,
her Republican opponent in November will bring a big Nothing to the contest and those of us on the Bernie side of the divide will remain unrepresented.
Let the people you know know that there is an alternative; an anti-war and anti-big bank and
cartels candidate in the June 5th primary willing to advance health care, housing, education
and the entire legacy of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson values that the DNC and Clinton/Obama partisans have left behind.
John Karl Fredrich doesn't take funny money.
Give them my website www.JohnKarlFredrich4Congress.org and ask them to pass the word about the fight in District 18.
Vote NPP this June 5 !
Vote NO to War and YES to Medicare for All !
I appreciate the help, John
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:16 PM, D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> wrote:
"Democracy dies behind closed doors"
Good luck "Congressman Fredrich"!
Let me know what I can do to support The Cause: stuff envelopes,
circulate flyers, answer phones ...
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kathy Durham <kfdurham@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 4:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Tonight's Infrastructure Budget Priorities Action Item
Mayor Kniss and members of the City Council,
Just a few months ago, you approved the 2018-2030 Sustainability Implementation Plan to kickstart the effort to
reduce our community's 2030 Greenhouse gas (GHG) contributions by 80% compared to a 1990 baseline. This is vital not only for our planet, but for each of our families. Thank you for this bold step!
Let me remind you of two key components proposed to make it possible to meet the short term goal
of 40-54% reduction in GHG emissions from baseline by 2020:
* reducing the proportion of trips made by single occupancy vehicles (SOV) in our local transportation mix, and
* increasing the bicycle boulevard mileage by 13.1 miles and redesigning streets to support active and non-SOV modes of travel.
Given these important commitments, I urge you to give high priority to the implementation of infrastructure
projects already in the pipeline for funding in your actions tonight and for the next fiscal year that can help you
meet the 2020 goal:
Neighborhood Traffic Safety/Bicycle Boulevard Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Projects
Final hardscape implementation of the approved Charleston/Arastradero Plan
Adobe/Hwy101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge
Astonishingly, the Finance Committee discussion did not include any consideration of the Sustainability
Implementation Plan commitments in its discussion. Kindly correct this oversight in your actions tonight.
Thank you.
Kathy Durham
College Terrace resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2018 9:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Randi Brenowitz <rsbrenowitz@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 26, 2018 6:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Traffic “Calming” on Ross Road
If it wasn’t so sad, I’d find your name for this project quite amusing. But since I travel that road multiple times a day, it is
not funny at all.
I was originally in favor of traffic calming ‐ I agree that sometimes we drive too fast. But now, making it impossible to
drive in my neighborhood without fear of hitting a cyclist has not calmed anything in my book. The other really funny
item is that you have now painted “bike boulevard” all over Ross Road. What you did,however, made the road less safe
for cyclists. There is no way to safely share the road since those concrete blobs that jut out into the road make it
impossible for a car and a bike to ride side by side. So until we pass that structure, I ride behind a cyclist at speeds that
are difficult to maintain and make the cyclist nervous that he or she will be hit from behind.
If it was your intent to created a safe shared road, you have failed. If it was your intent to give cyclists a true bike
boulevard, make the street a pedestrian and cyclist road only and close it to motorists. Of course, I’m not sure how I’d
get home, but at least I could do it safely and without the stress of worrying if I’m going to hit a cyclist.
Please undo this foolish project
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Randi S. Brenowitz
650.856.3161 (office)
650.464.4090 (mobile)
rsbrenowitz@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Yara Sellin <yarasellin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 6:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Transit spending
Hi, as a Palo Alto resident, parent of school aged children and cyclist, I strongly support the immediate funding of the
Comprehensive Plan to implement the bike and pedestrian goals that have already been approved. A healthy bike and
pedestrian infrastructure make Palo Alto a wonderful place to live.
Sorry to get this email in so late.
Thank you for your consideration,
Yara
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2018 4:33 PM
To:UAC
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City
Subject:05-02-18 UAC meeting -- smart grid item
Commissioners, Your 05-02-18 agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64810 has an item (Item IX.1) about smart grid. Here's the staff report (103 pages): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64784 General comments: * I agree with the 11-01-17 staff report, which said AMI's costs would exceed its benefits by about $7.3 million over 18 years, rather than with the 05-02-18 staff report, which says AMI's benefits would exceed its costs by $0.01 million over 18 years. Staff seems to be saying, look, the City is going to raise rates to pay for AMI, but the silver lining is that customers who are diligent about using AMI information to conserve as much as staff thinks they can conserve will not see an increase in their monthly bills.
* If the City had had any sense, it would have deployed a citywide municipal FTTP network by now, and that network would have been the best foundation for deploying smart grid things such as smart meters. The staff report seems to say AMI can't wait for FTTP, can't even wait for FTTN. I think good things would happen if the City changed its outlook and decided that FTTP had to be implemented before AMI. * There's no quantitative discussion about how fast various portions of the AMI network have to be.
* There's no discussion about how AMI could make it possible to postpone or avoid beefing up the electric infrastructure toserve EVs. * There's no discussion about whether smart meters should be talking to appliances -- or whether it's possible to opt out of that possibility.
* The report says there should be a way for people to opt out of AMI, but says we don't have to come up with the details until later. It would be better to come with details sooner rather than later. * The report includes a schedule that does nothing about AMI in FY 2020 (page 15). What about changing the schedule to do nothing in the first year instead?
Please see more comments (below the "######" line). Paragraphs beginning with "###" are my comments. Other
paragraphs are from the staff report. Page numbers are the staff report's PDF page numbers. Thanks.
Jeff
------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:58 AM
2
-------------------
#########################################################################
--------- page 1 ---------
AMI is a foundational technology.
### FTTP would be a foundational technology, too, if we had it. Chattanooga has pointed out that their FTTP network is
a foundational technology not only for smart meters but reconnecting their electric grid in real time to minimize electric outages, thereby increasing reliability.
http://www.sandc.com/globalassets/sac-electric/content-callouts/intellirupter/edoc_081784.pdf
--------- page 2 ---------
... customer energy/water conservation that could be spurred by the AMI investments.
### I've heard that smart meters are not that effective a persuading customers to use less energy and/or water, but might be more effective at persuading customers to shift their energy use to times when it's less expensive. In Palo Alto, where
the cost of electricity doesn't vary that much by time of day, that's not so important.
... hourly ...
### On PDF page 4, the report predicts that electric will be reported at 15-minute intervals and water and gas will be reported hourly. There's no real discussion of why that's the best choice.
--------- page 3 ---------
A CPAU staff team, with cross divisional participation, has also closely collaborated with industry experts and
stakeholders to learn about the smart grid technologies and their applications in Palo Alto.[3]
### Did this team collaborate with anyone who has experience with using an FTTP network to support smart grid in general or smart meters in particular? According to this interactive database, 19 municipal FTTP networks are using them
to provide smart grid services. http://www.bbpmag.com/search.php?s0=1&cols=-co-me-st-ve-gr-te-se-ty-in&st=&ve=&gr=&te=&se=-uti&ty=-
mun&qco=&qme=&qan=&qus=0&qmu=&qsu=&qpa=&qin=0
--------- page 4 ---------
... make consumption information available to customers the next day.
### Why would it have to take so long?
[4] Real time reads could be made available to customers via the meter's ZigBee wireless radio, if customer owns a compatible in-home-display (IHD).
### Couldn't real time (or nearly real time) reads also be made available to a customer who asked an automated service
at the central office via an Internet connection? If you allow an IHD to read the meter directly via wireless (ZigBee), that complicates security requirements.
### I assume footnote 4 applies equally to water and gas.
MDMS ... estimates missing interval reads ...
### The report should say a lot more about this. When MDMS notices that information is missing, what should be done
to find it, before just substituting an estimate? Does the MDMS keep track of which numbers are only estimates? How long can meters retain information that MDMS thinks is missing? Is there a plan for replacing estimates with real data
whenever possible? When PG&E first deployed smart meters in the Bay Area, the press savaged them for making up data like this. For example, PG&E was billing customers for electricity they allegedly consumed while in reality the power
was out.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:58 AM
3
--------- page 5 ---------
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $18M to $19M
### Why round? Arithmetically, it's $18.2M to $18.9M.
Figure 1 ... Gateways (mounted on utility poles) ...
### What about in the City's undergrounded utility districts?
Backhaul Network (e.g., Verizon, city fiber)
### What Verizon service? What kind of City fiber? How can you estimate total cost if you don't know what the backhaul network is?
Electric distribution systems are transitioning away from their original purpose of delivering energy from the utility to the
customer.
### Nonsense. They're just adding more purposes.
--------- page 6 ---------
AMI sensors will enable faster detection and repair of water leaks ...
### Isn't this an option? Shouldn't it have its own cost/benefit analysis?
If customers opt to participate in these initiatives, the commensurate reduction in consumption will lower CPAU's costs to purchase electricity, natural gas and water supplies.
### Commensurate? I don't think so.
### Anyhow, I think it's not legitimate to count these savings in the overall cost-versus-benefit analysis for smart
meters. If a customer uses less electricity, water, or gas, he/she wants to save money, rather than passing essentially all of the savings on to CPAU to pay for the smart meters that helped to motivate the customer to conserve.
--------- page 7 ---------
Solar Meter Installation Cost Avoidance $0.02 (M$)
### I guess this is saying that a smart meter can do the same job and has to be there for other reasons. Maybe the
report should explain further. Well, it's only $20,000.
--------- page 8 ---------
Table 3 ... AMI Network Infrastructure, Software, and Professional Services ... Subtotal $0.34 ($ Million)
### Arithmetically, it's $0.35M.
GRAND Total $1.9 ($ Million)
### Arithmetically, it's $1.81M.
--------- page 9 ---------
Table 4
### Line items [B] and [C] are confusing because they don't participate in the arithmetic sum [F] = [A] + [D] + [E].
--------- page 10 ---------
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:58 AM
4
... meter reading staffing reduction (5 to 6 FTE), AMI related staffing increase (3 to 4 FTE).
On page 77, it says we currently have six regular meter readers and three temporary meter readers, and after smart meters are deployed, we'll need only one. How many FTEs is a temporary meter reader?
--------- page 11 ---------
... under the current Rules and Regulations ...
### Is this the right Rules and Regulations document?
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/about/rules.asp If not, what is?
... (RR 09): Need to include policy and procedure to remotely disconnect for electric meters.
### I misunderstood what the staff report was trying to say. For "RR09," the document cited above points to:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8197 This document talks about "DISCONTINUANCE, TERMINATION, AND RESTORATION OF SERVICE." It doesn't talk
about remote disconnects. But I guess the staff report is saying it should. Meanwhile, what document talks about why this is "needed"?
CPAU must also consider whether the "Customer Reads Own Meter" Program will continue under AMI.
### Here's the Rules and Regulations document for Meter Reading ("RR10").
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8198 "Customer Reads Own Meter" is item C (page 2). There's not a lot of detail. Could this program be a way for folks who
opt out of AMI to avoid being charged for having CPAU read the meters manually?
--------- page 12 ---------
--------- page 13 ---------
[6] CPAU's consultant UWC has served as a project manager on behalf of numerous utilities which have successfully implemented AMI.
### Have any used FTTP to connect any of the meters?
--------- page 14 ---------
... November 1, 2017 ... the UAC Commissioners voted 5-1 to proceed with planning an AMI investment.
### With Trumbull voting no, and Ballantine absent. Actually, the item (Item IX.4) was a "discussion" item, so the vote
shouldn't have been taken, and it should be reported here as if it were a "real" vote.
AMI systems are well proven technologies.
### When AMI systems communicate using wireless, that impacts their reliability. A serious staff report would consider this issue seriously.
As of this assessment, 36 risks have been identified ...
### See Section J of the consultant's report, PDF pages 66-76 for details.
[9] The preliminary analysis in November 2017 showed a NPV of negative $7 million. The updated analysis outlined here
included additional efficiency/conservation benefits and synergies ...
### I'm not sure it's legitimate to include the conservation benefits. Please see my comment re page 6 (above).
--------- page 15 ---------
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:58 AM
5
AMI Budgets & Spending Timelines: ...
### This table is unnumbered. Should it be Table 7?
FY 2020 $0 Smart grid implementation on hold pending completion of CIS implementation ...
### By any chance, does this mean that the start of the AMI stuff could be delayed a year without slipping the overall end date?
[10] The schedule in Table 1 ...
### Did this mean Table 7?
--------- page 19 ---------
Capital Budget Projections for the AMI Project
### This table is unnumbered. Should it be Table 8?
### Why are gas meters a lot less expensive than water meters?
### This table doesn't show how networking costs are accounted for.
An alternate arrangement of funding the cost could be through an inter-fund loan from the ESP to the water and natural
gas fund, with a loan repayment including interest over time. This alternate funding mechanism will be further investigated by staff and brought forward for UAC and Council consideration if feasible.
### While staff is at it, would they consider the feasibility of doing this for FTTP? I'd like to see staff return to UAC and
Council with the answer, whether it's feasible or not.
### Including interest at what rate?
[11] Half of the common fixed costs of the project were allocated based on meter count, and the other half of the fixed costs were allocated to the electric utility, in recognition of the electric utility being the main driver for this investment.
### Interesting. In the case of the Upgrade Downtown Project on University Avenue, water and gas were the main
drivers, but water, gas, and fiber were asked to share common costs equally (01-22-18). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62851
Later, fiber got to share its one-third cost with electric, which wanted one of the two conduits (04-09-18). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64344
Based on the above allocation methodology, it is recommended that the $4.4 million in common cost related to project
management, network installation and MDM/CIS integration be allocated to electricity, water and gas funds on a 70%, 14%, 16% basis respectively.
### Also interesting.
--------- page 17 ---------
A number of policies to implement and operate an AMI system must be considered and approved at a later time.
### Why "must" it be "later"?
Such policies and procedures include fees that CPAU may need to charge customers that opt not to allow the installation
of advanced meters at their homes, a backup customer billing process in the event AMI meters are [sic] cannot be read remotely due to a cyber-attack or a communication network interruption, as well as ways of managing other potential AMI
operating issues.
### Obviously, customers who'd like to opt out would be interested in what the opt-out fees would be.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:58 AM
6
### The staff report doesn't make it obvious how smart meters could be read when AMI isn't working.
--------- page 18 ---------
January 23, 2018
### The consultant's report is dated 01-23-18. It seems a shame that the public (and the commissioners) couldn't start to read it until the staff report was published on 04-26-18. Staff reports for Council are published 11 days prior to the
meeting where Council acts on them.
--------- page 19 ---------
--------- page 20 ---------
--------- page 21 ---------
--------- page 22 ---------
AMI is a foundational technology ...
### So is FTTP.
... the state of the utility industry in 2017.
### Apparently the consultant's report was originally supposed to published in 2017.
--------- page 23 ---------
--------- page 24 ---------
... with over 30,000 electric connections, over 20,000 water connections, and over 24,000 gas connections ...
### On PDF page 43, it gives more precise numbers.
--------- page 25 ---------
Figure 1
### It's not PDF-searchable.
--------- page 26 ---------
The Palo Alto City Council, Utility Advisory Council [sic] (UAC) and CPAU have been assessing smart grid technologies since 2009.
### Even earlier. 07-16-07:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8437
--------- page 27 ---------
--------- page 28 ---------
Table 2: CPAU Divisional Objectives ... 3 ... with option for remote shut-off for irrigation meters ...
### The rest of the staff report says we'll keep existing water meters and just add the capability of reading them remotely. Adding a shut-off function is not discussed.
... 10 ... Increased meter/billing accuracy
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:58 AM
7
### I have a feeling that this isn't talking about the accuracy of what the meter measures, but of how that measurement
gets to the central office.
... 11 ... Instituting remote turn on/off
### The report doesn't discuss how to do this for water and gas. Also it doesn't really explain the cost/benefit ratio for just this feature. It would increase the stakes of cyber-attacks.
--------- page 29 ---------
... live billing system ...
### Defined how?
... risk register ...
### PDF pages 66-76.
--------- page 30 ---------
--------- page 31 ---------
--------- page 32 ---------
... conversion of GIS to an ESRI format ...
### Why?
--------- page 33 ---------
Table 5: External Factors --- Educated customer-base ...
### What kind of education is staff expecting its customer base to have?
--------- page 34 ---------
CPAU is considering deplying a municipally-owned fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) network.
### At this point, there are few specifics. But at a 04-26-18 meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee on FTTP &
Wireless, staff presented a schedule that said FTTN wouldn't be completed until 2025. To say the least, I was disappointed.
Since the owner has total control ...
### Why not just say "the City would have total control"?
It should be noted that the data volume related to AMI systems is relatively small and does not require such high
bandwidth channels.
### The staff report doesn't say anything quantitative about how much bandwidth AMI needs. That's a deficiency.
Private fiber networks ...
### Why is the staff report talking about "private fiber networks"? Is it thinking about using one? What would make such a network "private"?
--------- page 35 ---------
If fiber is in place for the AMI backhaul, it can be used. If not, the existing city network and/or a private, cellular network
can be utilized for backhaul communications of AMI data.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:58 AM
8
### What "existing city network"?
A cellular network is managed by a public access carrier, such as Verizon or AT&T ...
### I would be unhappy if the City ended up relying on AT&T or Verizon (or Comcast) for AMI backhaul.
Utiliworks recommends that CPAU explore all backhaul options that will be available prior to 2020 deployment and update the AMI implementation Plan accordingly.
### Does Utiliworks intend to include wireless backhaul options, such as 5G? (Not that 5G will really be available by
2020.)
An Enterprise Service Bus ...
### If it's not recommended, why mention it? https://www.it.ucla.edu/news/what-esb
--------- page 36 ---------
--------- page 37 ---------
--------- page 38 ---------
Roughly 300 meters each of electric, water and gas are included in the pilot, with a mix of both opt-in customers and
regular customers.
### In this case, I guess staff is talking about customers who opt in to TOU and customers who don't.
During the pilot, CPAU assessed the impact of TOU rates on Electric Vehicle (EV) charging, ...
### What was the result? According to this, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2466
the City's TOU program offers discounts on electricity consumed at night (11 pm to 6 am). Many feel that as solar power becomes a more dominant source of electricity, TOU should offer discounts when the sun is shining, rather than when it
isn't. It's not clear to me that the experiment with nighttime TOU discounts shows how daytime TOU discounts will turn out. EV owners who wanted to charge their EVs at discounted rates would have to charge them during the day. Etc.
... as well as the use of HAN device using ZigBee protocol.
### HAN means home area network.
As a result of the pilot, CPAU has decided not to proceed with deployment of HAN devices at this time.
### Good choice, I think.
--------- page 39 ---------
--------- page 40 ---------
... the city will need to replace all electric meters and some natural gas and water meters, ...
### Why will the City need to replace some gas and water meters? Because they're not compatible with the gadget that
will read them?
--------- page 41 ---------
Table 7:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:58 AM
9
### Same comment as on PDF page 9. The second and third line items are misleading in that the don't participate in the
total.
... the cost is estimated to be $224.26 per meter ...
### What's the estimated cost per electric meter? Per water meter? Per gas meter?
Figure 5:
### There's a bad font issue. 11 instances of a box with a question mark in it.
--------- page 42 ---------
Figure 6
### Same bad font issue. 7 instances of a box with a question mark in it.
--------- page 43 ---------
... we can consider the replacement of all meters 20-years or older ...
### What's the recommendation?
... a small number of 3S, 5S, and 9S electric meters.
### On PDF page 79, Table 15 lists quantities of meters by type.
### Apparently, the "3S," "5S," etc. refer to meter "forms." http://www.learnmetering.com/pages/meter-forms/
All residential electric meters will be equipped with remote disconnect capability.
### Why? At what cost? Table 15 (PDF page 79) seems to say otherwise -- that only some types will have remote
disconnect capability.
Table 9 ... Total Electric Meters 30,076
Total Water Meters 20,581 Total Gas Meters 24,002
### Right.
--------- page 44 ---------
Table 10:
### Why does the AMI add-on for gas meters cost less than the AMI add-on for water meters?
--------- page 45 ---------
Figure 7:
### Same bad font issue as on PDF pages 41 and 42. 20 instances of box with question mark in it.
... were AMI/MDMS Network Deployment and PM costs can be allocated by one of two methods: ...
### I'm not understanding the rationales for each.
--------- page 46 ---------
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/2/2018 11:58 AM
10
--------- page 47 ---------
--------- page 48 ---------
Figure 9 ... As evidenced by this graph, a major factor is increased conservation by customers, which alone accounts for
over one-third of the total annual benefits.
### Again, is it legitimate to count this?
--------- page 49 ---------
--------- page 50 ---------
Electric Improved Meter Accuracy ...
### This discussion is about how analog electric meters can become more inaccurate with age. But I've heard that smart electric meters can have accuracy problems, too.
http://www.theenergycollective.com/david-k-thorpe/2404817/certified-smart-meters-still-give-wildly-inaccurate-readings Will our smart meters use Rogowski coils (which apparently sometimes read high) or Hall-effect sensors (which
apparently sometimes read low) or something else?
### I'm not an expert.
... acoustic leak detection ...
### What's the cost/benefit ratio of just this by itself?
--------- page 51 ---------
... wastewater system performance ...
### Is the point that water meters predict what's happening with wastewater?
Meter Right-Sizing -- Data and alarms produced by an AMI system will provide the Utility with the ability to detect if a water meter is over or undersized.
### I don't understand why. But I'm not an expert.
--------- page 52 ---------
--------- page 53 ---------
--------- page 54 ---------
--------- page 55 ---------
--------- page 56 ---------
... unreliability for e-series meters, ...
### I don't understand the consequences.
Communications From experience with past projects, Palo Alto expects some push-back from the public on AMI RF,
due to security, privacy, and health-related concerns, and will require outreach and education assistance.
### Two-way educational?
--------- page 57 ---------
--------- page 58 ---------
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 10:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Angela Brillhart <angelabrillhart@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, April 29, 2018 7:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Waste of resources and not at all what I expected
I've moved from Palo Alto, yet visit my neighbor friends time to time.
Ross Rd. and the rest of the 'improvements' to city streets are disappointing to witness. Beyond finding a more
economical and safer solution to slowing cars, I believe the money would have been better spent on city pensions or
improvements in traffic patterns for people living and working in Palo Alto, facilitating movement in and out of the city
at critical times.
Wasteful and unproductive. Poor stewardship of resources all around.
Angela Brillhart
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:44 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:jjh <jjh2000@gmail.com> on behalf of Jim Holmlund <jjhstuff@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 30, 2018 12:02 PM
To:Representative Anna G. Eshoo; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org;
mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; awengert@portolavalley.net;
elewis@ci.atherton.ca.us; mlbernald@saratoga.ca.us; jmordo@losaltosca.gov;
gcwaldeck@losaltoshills.ca.gov; Scharff, Gregory (internal);
bruce.mcpherson@co.santa-cruz.ca.us; dlindslind@earthlink.net;
john.leopold@co.santa-cruz.ca.us; gip32003@yahoo.com; dlane@cityofsantacruz.com;
cmathews@cityofsantacruz.com; ebottorff167@yahoo.com;
dnortondesigns@msn.com; dpine@smcgov.org; jgee@redwoodcity.org;
mark.addiego@ssf.net; bgrassilli@cityofsancarlos.org; shindi@fostercity.org;
piohtaki@menlopark.org; lmoody@cityofepa.org; drutherford@cityofepa.org; Council,
City
Subject:Well, it has been over a year since the Select Committee finished its job
Not only have things not gotten better, they have actually gotten worse for us ‐ SERFR3 is 1/2 the distance from our
home than SERFR2 was.
Below are about 81 flights that I reported on flightradar24 in about 10 hours over are home new Newell and Channing in
Palo Alto.
An empty slot does not mean there wasn't a plane ‐ in fact, sometimes it means there are two or more planes and
flightradar24 cannot pick one. And, I did not record all the planes. Not a pleasant way to spend a Sunday afternoon and
evening, eh?
I have not heard just why SERFR3 was invented ‐ I just heard something about 'safety concerns' . What safety
concerns? Was SERFR2 in effect for 3 or so years but was unsafe?? And I don't recall the FAA holding hearings, doing
noise studies etc etc.
Anyway, I know you all put a lot of time into this and I guess did as best you could, so thanks. I imagine you are all as
disappointed as we are about the outcome. I think the move to 'DAVYJ', if it ever actually happens, will help people in
our neighborhood but the people under that track will have more noise than they did with BSUR because of the
concentration of planes on the 'superhighway'. And as traffic increases, as it surely will, the noise will get worse and
worse. It is too bad that the Select Committee could not agree on some sort of plan to disperse traffic, although I doubt
the FAA would have deemed it 'feasible'
Jim Holmlund
=======================
Sun, Apr 29, 11:51 PM Flight: WN6274 [BUR‐SFO] (B737; speed: 248 knots, altitude: 4987.24757896 ft, distance: 4 KM)
Sun, Apr 29, 11:40 PM Flight: CM 382 [PTY‐SFO] (B738; speed: 203 knots, altitude: 4301.866265668266 ft, distance: 2
KM) Sun, Apr 29, 11:38 PM Flight: AS1947 [LAX‐SFO] (A320; speed: 221 knots, altitude: 3893.236346976 ft, distance: 1
KM) Sun, Apr 29, 11:31 PM Sun, Apr 29, 11:04 PM Flight: AS1818 [PDX‐SFO] (A320; speed: 189 knots, altitude: 3875 ft,
distance: 2 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 10:57 PM Flight: UA 650 [HNL‐SFO] (B739; speed: 224 knots, altitude:
3890.791281125333 ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 10:54 PM Flight: UA 214 [SEA‐SFO] (B739; speed: 191 knots,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:44 PM
2
altitude: 3851.7052187797335 ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 10:42 PM Flight: DL 806 [MSP‐SFO] (B739; speed: 189
knots, altitude: 3770.309400680533 ft, distance: 1 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 10:41 PM Sun, Apr 29, 10:39 PM Flight: AA 452
[PHX‐SFO] (A321; speed: 201 knots, altitude: 3840.4432915328 ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 10:37 PM Flight:
AS1945 [LAX‐SFO] (A320; speed: 217 knots, altitude: 4731.9071046016 ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 10:35 PM Sun,
Apr 29, 10:26 PM Flight: UA1799 [EUG‐SFO] (A319; speed: 181 knots, altitude: 3152.9545103466667 ft, distance: 5
KM) Sun, Apr 29, 10:20 PM Flight: AS1969 [SAN‐SFO] (A320; speed: 211 knots, altitude: 3758.9497458719998 ft,
distance: 2 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 08:49 PM Sun, Apr 29, 08:47 PM Flight: AA 177 [JFK‐SFO] (A321; speed: 185 knots,
altitude: 3875 ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 08:44 PM Flight: UA 743 [ORD‐SFO] (B739; speed: 200 knots, altitude:
4875 ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 07:59 PM Flight: BR 28 [TPE‐SFO] (B77W; speed: 189 knots, altitude:
3875.0619719904 ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 07:46 PM Flight: TA 564 [SAL‐SFO] (A320; speed: 577 knots, altitude:
4538.786506128 ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 07:15 PM Sun, Apr 29, 07:06 PM Flight: UA 481 [LAX‐SFO] (B738;
speed: 182 knots, altitude: 5726.000193569067 ft, distance: 6 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 07:01 PM Flight: AS 360 [PDX‐SFO]
(B739; speed: 219 knots, altitude: 4220.133230254934 ft, distance: 7 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 06:56 PM Sun, Apr 29, 06:54
PM Flight: UA 736 [SAN‐SFO] (A320; speed: 227 knots, altitude: 5591.708946624 ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 06:11
PM Flight: DL2444 [LAX‐SFO] (B712; speed: 259 knots, altitude: 6151.9584168576 ft, distance: 9 KM) Sun, Apr 29,
06:00 PM Flight: UA1965 [SNA‐SFO] (A320; speed: 254 knots, altitude: 5644.687244714667 ft, distance: 4 KM) Sun,
Apr 29, 05:55 PM Flight: UA5286 [ONT‐SFO] (E75L; speed: 216 knots, altitude: 4171.7519807424 ft, distance: 3 KM)
Sun, Apr 29, 05:53 PM Flight: CM 384 [PTY‐SFO] (B738; speed: 190 knots, altitude: 5010.851186432 ft, distance: 2 KM)
Sun, Apr 29, 05:51 PM Flight: UA1240 [SJD‐SFO] (B738; speed: 220 knots, altitude: 3869.9554516650664 ft, distance: 2
KM) Sun, Apr 29, 05:49 PM Flight: UA 460 [LAX‐SFO] (B738; speed: 220 knots, altitude: 4875 ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun,
Apr 29, 05:47 PM Flight: AS2898 [SNA‐SFO] (E75L; speed: 223 knots, altitude: 3868.3459345664 ft, distance: 1 KM)
Sun, Apr 29, 05:33 PM Flight: AS 241 [MEX‐SFO] (B738; speed: 226 knots, altitude: 5575.6444713301335 ft, distance: 6
KM) Sun, Apr 29, 05:30 PM Flight: AS1959 [SAN‐SFO] (A320; speed: 246 knots, altitude: 4394.379653698134 ft,
distance: 1 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 05:27 PM Flight: UA5812 [ABQ‐SFO] (E75L; speed: 219 knots, altitude:
3872.0540058250667 ft, distance: 10 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 05:25 PM Flight: WN3273 [OAK‐PHX] (B737; speed: 424 knots,
altitude: 19087.019896917333 ft, distance: 5 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 05:24 PM Flight: UA1243 [PVR‐SFO] (A320; speed: 238
knots, altitude: 3781.5601153568 ft, distance: 6 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 05:18 PM Sun, Apr 29, 04:58 PM Sun, Apr 29, 04:53
PM Flight: BA 287 [LHR‐SFO] (A388; speed: 199 knots, altitude: 5524.770237808 ft, distance: 1 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 04:52
PM Flight: UA2395 [LAX‐SFO] (B738; speed: 229 knots, altitude: 5029.3167027456 ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun, Apr 29,
04:45 PM Flight: AS1816 [PDX‐SFO] (A320; speed: 229 knots, altitude: 5406.238475799467 ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun, Apr
29, 04:43 PM Flight: B62136 [LGB‐SFO] (A320; speed: 250 knots, altitude: 4605.004435733334 ft, distance: 1 KM) Sun,
Apr 29, 04:36 PM Flight: DL2469 [LAX‐SFO] (B738; speed: 237 knots, altitude: 5489.8632997088 ft, distance: 6 KM)
Sun, Apr 29, 04:34 PM Flight: AA6011 [LAX‐SFO] (E75L; speed: 215 knots, altitude: 4935.88834304 ft, distance: 1 KM)
Sun, Apr 29, 04:30 PM Sun, Apr 29, 04:28 PM Flight: UA2054 [PDX‐SFO] (A319; speed: 401 knots, altitude:
3861.8096663072 ft, distance: 4 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 04:25 PM Flight: UA 370 [SAN‐SFO] (B738; speed: 219 knots,
altitude: 5037.4328802112 ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 04:24 PM Flight: AS1923 [LAX‐SFO] (A320; speed: 231
knots, altitude: 3872.4290686912 ft, distance: 1 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 04:09 PM Flight: AS1273 [PVR‐SFO] (A320; speed:
223 knots, altitude: 3856.699148368 ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 04:07 PM Flight: UA5984 [MRY‐SFO] (CRJ2;
speed: 280 knots, altitude: 5174.926004394667 ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 04:05 PM Sun, Apr 29, 04:01
PM Flight: UA 59 [FRA‐SFO] (B772; speed: 221 knots, altitude: 4397.6459115936 ft, distance: 5 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 03:38
PM Flight: AS1929 [LAX‐SFO] (A320; speed: 181 knots, altitude: 4431.628850672 ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 03:35
PM Sun, Apr 29, 03:32 PM Flight: UA 420 [LAX‐SFO] (B738; speed: 242 knots, altitude: 5029.0734479104 ft, distance: 5
KM) Sun, Apr 29, 03:28 PM Flight: UA1687 [SJD‐SFO] (B738; speed: 187 knots, altitude: 4134.01861728 ft, distance: 2
KM) Sun, Apr 29, 03:27 PM Flight: LX 38 [ZRH‐SFO] (B77W; speed: 218 knots, altitude: 4239.431037589334 ft,
distance: 3 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 03:24 PM Flight: UA5606 [GEG‐SFO] (E75L; speed: 210 knots, altitude: 7136.2311914752
ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 03:22 PM Flight: EI 147 [DUB‐SFO] (A333; speed: 244 knots, altitude:
4592.177688853333 ft, distance: 4 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 03:19 PM Sun, Apr 29, 03:17 PM Sun, Apr 29, 03:14 PM Flight:
UA5617 [TUS‐SFO] (E75L; speed: 250 knots, altitude: 4550.4446264256 ft, distance: 1 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 03:12
PM Flight: WN2801 [BUR‐SFO] (B737; speed: 218 knots, altitude: 5042.4755504437335 ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun, Apr 29,
03:09 PM Flight: KZ 109 [LAX‐SFO] (B744; speed: 211 knots, altitude: 4245.3618931872 ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun, Apr 29,
03:06 PM Flight: DL2519 [LAX‐SFO] (B738; speed: 194 knots, altitude: 4482.074680584534 ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun, Apr
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/30/2018 3:44 PM
3
29, 03:03 PM Flight: UA1278 [LAX‐SFO] (B738; speed: 216 knots, altitude: 5796.535455154133 ft, distance: 2 KM) Sun,
Apr 29, 02:58 PM Flight: AS1591 [PSP‐SFO] (A320; speed: 240 knots, altitude: 3879.9503539797333 ft, distance: 1 KM)
Sun, Apr 29, 02:56 PM Flight: AS1275 [SJD‐SFO] (A320; speed: 185 knots, altitude: 4861.085891605333 ft, distance: 1
KM) Sun, Apr 29, 02:53 PM Sun, Apr 29, 02:52 PM Sun, Apr 29, 02:50 PM Flight: UA 372 [HNL‐SFO] (B772; speed: 215
knots, altitude: 4129.807873856 ft, distance: 1 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 02:47 PM Sun, Apr 29, 02:43 PM Sun, Apr 29, 02:42
PM Flight: UA5724 [SNA‐SFO] (E75L; speed: 217 knots, altitude: 4217.3215194624 ft, distance: 1 KM) Sun, Apr 29,
02:39 PM Flight: KE 25 [ICN‐SFO] (B789; speed: 183 knots, altitude: 3406.168472 ft, distance: 8 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 02:37
PM Sun, Apr 29, 02:32 PM Flight: AS1748 [SEA‐SFO] (A320; speed: 224 knots, altitude: 4188.7717994752 ft, distance: 2
KM) Sun, Apr 29, 02:28 PM Flight: AA 349 [DFW‐SFO] (A321; speed: 215 knots, altitude: 4458.767763549867 ft,
distance: 7 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 02:25 PM Flight: UA5359 [BOI‐SFO] (E75L; speed: 221 knots, altitude: 3885.173875264 ft,
distance: 3 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 02:18 PM Flight: OZ 286 [LAX‐SFO] (B744; speed: 259 knots, altitude: 5820.3762117696
ft, distance: 3 KM) Sun, Apr 29, 02:15 PM Flight: CI5107 [LAX‐SFO] (B744; speed: 201 knots, altitude:
3696.517442085333 ft, distance: 2 KM)
1
Response to proposed TOT
increase from Palo Alto Hotels
April 30, 2018
We, a group of Palo Alto Hotel Owners and GMs, have used surveys, email communication and
group meetings to formulate our opinion about the proposed increase in TOT.
Please see the attached survey with participants and results shown. (Exhibit A )
We think that there was not enough outreach done by the City of Palo Alto to either Palo Alto
hotels or major hotel clients that book hotel rooms in Palo Alto to assess their informed opinion
about the potential effects and responses to a potential increase in the TOT. Of the 11 hotels
that responded to the survey, no hotels had any knowledge of a potential TOT increase prior to
the April 16 article in the PA Weekly. (Exhibit A)
We would like to propose going forward that we find a way for the hoteliers of Palo Alto to
collaborate with the City of Palo Alto on a regular, ongoing basis to share information about the
hotel market and work together on strategies that will benefit both the hotels in Palo Alto and the
City of Palo Alto. We would be in favor of a Hotel Advisory Group. Hotels want to run successful
businesses in Palo Alto and participate in placemaking and citizen engagement. The hotel
community would prefer to be engaged by the City and involved early in discussions on issues
such as a proposed TOT increase versus reacting to the issue as we are now when the hotel
community feels uniformed or not involved when we could be a valuable source of information
on these topics.
We believe that there was not enough examination of current available hotel data to determine
the current strength of the PA hotel market or of neighboring city data to determine what share
. of hotel business has already been lost to Mt View and Menlo Park with lower TOT rates.
We believe more information needs to be gathered and assessed to effectively determine the
long term effects of TOT increase on the PA hotel industry.
We suggest examining the following (6) areas with research further and formalized studies and
data before making a final decision to include a TOT increase on the November 2018 ballot.
2
1) Perception/opinion of residents to TOT increase as it becomes part of a
larger fiscal management issue / concern
What is the long term solution to pay for infrastructure and repair? What
prevents the City from coming back to TOT in 3 years looking for more? How
high is the City willing to raise the TOT?
What happened to the money that was collected between Jan 2015 and Jan 2018
(the 2% increase from 12-14%) that was collected to fund these same
infrastructure projects that you are currently seeking funding for now?
Is this proposed increase simply a short term solution / stop gap?
.~ . .. .. ~ .. t
3
Everyone knows that if a measure to increase the TOT goes on the ballot, it will
be approved. Just because it is "easy" to increase the TOT it doesn't mean it is a
sound fiscal decisions and that the City will ultimately generate the fund sit is
projecting. More study is required to determine that.
2) Perception and potential reaction of larger Palo Alto Hotel Clients to
TOT increase?
Conduct outreach to and survey Stanford University travel managers /
conference organizers.
Outreach to Jean Mccown Associate Vice President, Office of Government and
Community Relations (650) 725-3329 jmccown@stanford.edu
Corporate clients
Will decision makers for large corporate and Stanford related travel think the City
of Palo Alto and the hotels (because they do not understand the process if raising
the TOT and do not realize that in general the hotel oppose these increases) are
out of line, and perhaps arrogant, for assuming we can move to the highest TOT
in CA with no push back from clients
3) Formal survey of Palo Alto Hotels owners and GMs regarding potential
results to the industry from a TOT increase. Use "Transient Occupancy
Tax Return" form that every hotel fills out on a monthly basis to
accompany their TOT remittance to the City (Exhibit B)
Study the current hotel data (though a 3rd party firm) and GM analysis
of current hotel market to determine if we are moving off the peak boom
period and trending into a softer market?
Current data suggests some hotels are experiencing flat occupancy rates and the
increase in TOT is coming from a combination of more rooms in the market from
new hotel openings and an increased room rate. The City has the necessary
data, in documentation prepared by the hotels to accompany the TOT remittance
to the City, to assess how robust the PA hotel industry is at this time. If compiled
and analyzed by a Third party these is no potential violation of antitrust laws for
the hotels involved.
If there are any indicators that the PA hotel market is flattening, which may be
the case, then the City Council must be more sensitive to the potential impacts
of being in between 2 cities with much lower TOT rates and more cautious about
proposing any increases.
For maximizing revenue generated to the City through TOT, there must be an
analysis to look at whether the City might be better off in terms of final TOT
numbers getting more occupancy and higher rate at 14% versus lower
occupancy and potentially lower rate at 16%
-There are hotels that believe that the peak is over as off mid 2017. It is a fact
that hotels have to work harder now to get those sold out nights. Example: hotel
owner with a property in PA and a similar property in Mt view can describe how
people will already choose a cheaper rate, and and TOT is part of the overall
4
rate, and stay outside of Palo Alto. The Mt View property is doing better than the
PA property for Stanford graduation this year. This shows that people are willing
to drive and stay farther away for a less expensive room. This is an important
fact to consider when considering raising the TOT. Palo Alto is not an invincible
market, immune to price increases. People are already reacting to our high
proces by staying in neighboring cities.
-Another upscale PA property can describe a company that would pay for its
Executives to stay in Palo Alto but will put the rest of the supporting staff,
including engineers, across the bay and prefer to have these employees drive in
and pay a bridge toll to save money.
-An Expedia study exists that shows business lost from PA to Mt View. (attached -
Exhibit C)
Professional Travel planners who book corporate meetings will take note: a 6%
TOT delta for a 40 room group for a typical 5 night pattern could see a savings of
$3,600 booking in Mountain View .vs. Palo Alto.
- A downturn will come. Some hoteliers consider 2016 and parts of 2017 to have
been the peak.
Unlike in the US, most international travelers that use Online Travel Agencies
(Expedia, Booking.com, etc) to shop for hotels on the Internet see prices
displayed inclusive of taxes at the beginning of their search. This provides
an instant comparison of the overall costs between a hotel in PA and neighboring
cities. Additionally, Google Maps allows users to search for hotels nearby a
desired location. For PA hotels located near the cities of MV and MP, the cost of
renting a room will automatically display as less competitive to an international
traveller even if they have the exact same base rate. Both OTAs and Google are
important sources of business for hotels.
Gather data and information to understand Hotel Business operation -a
full picture of the hotel operation will inform understanding of the effect
of a TOT increase and what the current market can potentially bear. We
do not want to "kill the goose that lays the golden egg"
Hotels are working harder now (beginning mid 2017) to compete through
aggressive revenue management and possible loss of rate in the process.
F&B / Spa Depts of generate on top of room rates. If we lose clients to
neighboring cities and Airbnb more is affected than just room rate.
Business climate very competitive currently for labor. Need to keep clients/
business to pay and compete for employees as minimum wage goes up
Corp negotiations -we could end up decreasing our rates which would lower the
ultimate TOT
Hotelier involvement and opinion
Would hoteliers, hotel clients and possibly residents, feel differently about any
TOT increase if even a small % of the TOT was designated for areas that hotels
considered important?
Is there a possibility to increase hotel participation in the process by having
hotels involved much earlier in these discussions and by having a representative
or representatives who could be involved in the decision making about the
spending of a small % of the TOT? Could this make the process and results less
adversarial and ultimately more successful for all parties?
Hotel Advisory Committee to work with the City as partners in problem solving.
It is in everyone's best interest to make sure the Palo Alto hotel business is
viable, healthy and continue to want to do business in Palo Alto.
It is a concern of the hotels that the City continues to look to the hotels to
shoulder such a big share of the City's financial needs for infrastructure and
repairs.
4) Identifying new revenue streams could be a healthy solution to further
grow revenues: Collecting TOT from Short Term Residential Rentals: Airbnb,
VRBO etc. issue -
5
Study how much money the City is leaving on the table by not enforcing
the collection and only receiving TOT from a percentage of the total
online Airbnb listings
2016 Stats show Mt View Airbnb revenue at 9.8 million so Mt View left 1 million
in TOT on the table by not collecting. What are the numbers for Palo Alto? They
can not be less than Mt View.
If the City actively regulates and collects TOT, this is additional revenue for City.
If the City does not enforce collection, it makes Airbnb more competitive versus
traditional hotels by not requiring the TOT payments. This action hurts the City
by not collecting TOT that is is owed and hurts traditional hotels by making
Airbnb more attractive. If hotel guests switch from traditional hotels to Airbnb,
this means much less money ity from (2) avenues -the City is losing the money
it is not collecting from Airbnb AND losing the money that is is no longer getting
from traditional hotel TOT as people choose Airbnb for the lower total cost of
stay.
If the Airbnb option is even more appealing than now because people do not
need to pay TOT at 14% or 16%, the impact on overall TOT to the City will be
more than it currently is. All hotels have stories of how Airbnb is already
affecting business
If Airbnb continues to become an increasingly appealing option for various
reasons, including not have TOT collection enforced, this could eventually lead to
two things -1) less traditional hotel occupancy as people go to AirBnb and 2)
traditional hotels may have do decrease rates to compete. Both of those things
would lower the TOT from hotels and still not address the TOT that is not
collected from Airbnb customers staying the night in PA.
Palo Alto should join the neighboring municipalities of Unincorporated San Mateo
County and Redwood City where TOT collection is now being enforced.
6
http://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/community-development-department/
policy-initiatives/short-term-rentals
https://www.hmbreview.com/news/commission-approves-county-rental-amend
ment/article_6df885e6-e51d-11e7-9c68-8f9b675268bf.html
Once mandated, the responsibility to collect and remit TOT becomes the
responsibility of the Agency managing the booking (AirBnb, VRBO etc).
Homeowners shouldn't object to this since it's the renter, not the resident who
would pay the TOT; it's the Agency, not the Homeowner that would remit the
TOT.
Compared to some of our Peninsula counterparts, Palo Alto has a significant
higher number of units listed on AirBnB:
Menlo Park -338 units
Redwood City -423 units
Palo Alto -601 units
Source: airdna.co
5) Analyze the potential influencers on TOT revenues (where the TOT
comes from) to understand if the increase from 14-16°/o will actually
generate the net $ increase the City has calculated and is planning on?
Break apart the total increase in TOT to understand the reality of the current
hotel economic market?
Understand that the 33% annual increase in TOT revenues does NOT represent
strength in the hotel market. We are suggesting the 33% increase is a
combination of multiple factors
Past year increases -what part is because hotels are doing better and what part
is simply from having more rooms online.
What part of TOT increase from hotel is from rate versus from occupancy
If occupancy has been flat and increase is coming from rate alone, that is not a
sign of strength
-There are more hotel rooms online in PA and there will be more. There will be
more competition which will affect occupancy and maybe everyone will have to
compete harder through rate. As things get more competitive we will have
occupancy and potentially rate decreasing leading to less TOT revenues.
Consider trickle down effect of having PA customers potentially staying in hotels
in other cities would have on restaurants and other retail businesses such as
Apple or PACE gallery.
8
When did you find out that the City of Palo Alto Finance Committee was
evaluating increasing the TOT by 2% to help address the funding gap {76
million) for the 2014 Infrastructure Plan projects.
10 responses
Apr2018 I 14 ~ 16 18 ~ 20 26
How did you find out about the proposed 2% increase
1 0 responses
Palo Alto On llne
Stephanie Wensel<, General Manager of the Cardinal Hotel
via General Manager of Cardinal Hotel
Email blast to Palo Alto hotels from Stephanie Wansek
Article In the Dally Post
Heard from General Manager of Dlnah:s
Fellow General Manager
From Stephanie at the Cardinal Hotel. She emailed me regarding the increase.
A phone call from a General maneger
Director of Sales
9
Did anyone from the City Council, Chamber of Commerce or other
organization reach out to you formally ... his possible November ballot measure
10 responses
e ves
e No
Do you feel like you have had the opportunity to voice your opinion about
this proposed TOT increase?
1 O responses
e ves
e No
10
Have you have been notified when the potential TOT increase is being
discussed a1 the Finance Committee an ... d a meeting and voice your opinion?
1 o responses
e ves
e No
If such an increase should be proposed by City Council, put on the
November ballo1 and be approved by the ... voters, would it affect the following?
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0.0
-Yes -No -Maybe
Gi oo:P9'l>('\
'IS)o···
•--:\~ ~,,
~--· "''-"~ ~eJ.u
~--· ~e>-'l>'-"~ ~~--·
~e}.'l>~
•
To: Palo Alto City Council and City Staff
From: David Shen, Walter Hays Parent
Date: April 29, 2018
. C?_f !~L/J'E-TING
[ l/i51aced Before Meeting ,.., . , [ -1' Received at Meeting
RE: Analysis of Recent Changes at the Embarcadero/Churchill Intersection for Cyclists
and Pedestrians
Distinguished City Councilmembers and City Staff,
I am a parent of two kids who attend Walter Hays Elementary School. Since the changes in the
timing of the lights, I have been riding my children to school and crossing that intersection from
Coleridge to Walter Hays twice daily and have experienced the changes firsthand. I can say
without a doubt that this intersection is a LOT LESS SAFE than before.
Here are my observations and analysis:
1. We need to bring back the diagonal crossing as soon as possible. Forcing children walking and
riding on bicycles to traverse this crossing in two steps and onto the extremely small comers of
the intersection is a serious accident waiting to happen.
2. Regarding the SW corner (nearest to end of Coleridge):
a. The curb feature at the comer is too large. Raised features on the ground prevent bikes from
occupying that area and discourage pedestrians from stepping on them, especially that one
since cars get close to it as they round the corner. We have already seen trucks drive over that
small curb. This curb feature could be reduced to only 15 feet wide and still accomplish the
same goal AND give more space for cyclists and pedestrians to wait. An even better solution
would be the use of concrete bollards with reflectors and to get rid of the curb feature (see b.
below).
Analysis: Embarcadero/Middlefield Intersection 4/29/18 David Shen 1of4
b. Those plastic pylons and fold up boards are ugly. My prediction is that these will stay up for
all eternity because drivers have no way of knowing what is below them, and the City will
want to keep them there to alert drivers that they cannot come into these areas. A much more
elegant and better solution would be to build 2-3 cylindrical concrete bollards up to about
waste high with reflectors on them. These will look better, be more visible to drivers AND be
a better deterrent to driving over or intruding on areas they're not supposed to be in. You can
look at concrete bollards in front of office buildings for inspiration. Also, if bollards were
used, you could get rid of the curb like feature on the ground and MAXIMIZE the area in
which cyclists and pedestrians could wait as well as let them slip through between the
concrete bollards to cross, and especially if we bring back the diagonal crossing which we all
want back.
c. There is yet another curb like feature on the other side of this waiting area on the Coleridge
side. It is meant to prevent cars coming up Coleridge from driving into the Embarcadero/
Middlefield intersection. This curb feature should be removed and replaced by a single
concrete bollard. It would maximize the number of cyclists and pedestrians who could get up
that very steep/short ramp, be more visible to cars, and prevent cars from going up there.
d. Note that I ride a cargo bike with 3 wheels. Its width is about 2.5 times that of a normal bike.
The curb feature on the ground is so wide that it narrows the width of each side's path to
make it difficult for me to get up onto the curb waiting area because of other cyclists who are
typically waiting there.
3. Regarding the NW corner, across Middlefield from Hays.
a. This corner is TINY. The size of this corner would prove that we need diagonal crossings. It
cannot hold any reasonable amount of cyclists and pedestrians safely during heavy bike/foot
Analysis: Embarcadero/Middlefield Intersection 4/29/18 David Shen 2of4
..
..
traffic times and they spill onto the street waiting for the light to change. There should never
be a pile up of cyclists/pedestrians on this comer, and this pile up situation should be avoided
at all costs. It is unsafe.
4. Regarding the SE comer, across Embarcadero from Hays.
a. This comer is also small but not as small as the NW comer. However, there is a curb feature
which further squashes all the cyclists and pedestrians together, causing some spillover onto
the roads. If you really wanted to do this right, you'd use a concrete bollard to replace the
curb feature, which would maximize space for waiting cyclists and pedestrians. We would
also be getting rid of the ugly pylons and fold up boards there.
Analysis: Embarcadero/Middlefield Intersection 4/29/18 David Shen 3 of4
5. Regarding the NE corner, at Hays:
a. This corner is wide. However, there are curb details that funnel foot/cyclist traffic into
narrow areas that get harder to enter into or exit out of. This corner could be substantially
improved by removing the curb detail and installing concrete bollards that maximize waiting
area, are more visible to vehicle traffic, AND a better deterrent to entering those areas via car
or truck. Concrete bollards would also enable a diagonal crossing light sequence. Again,
bollards would remove the need for ugly pylons and fold up boards.
Please give my suggestions and comments serious consideration as the safety of all the children
who attend Walter Hays is at stake. If some time is required for contemplation, then I ask that the
diagonal crossing light sequence be re-instituted immediately for the safety of the children.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration,
David Shen
128 Churchill Ave
Walter Hays Parent
dshenster@gmail.com
Analysis: Embarcadero/Middlefield Intersection 4/29/18 David Shen 4of4
Distinguished Councilmembers and Staff,
; C~~~C~Ltr~ETING
[ ] Jlaced Before Meeting
:. [,,.(Received at Meeting
I am here tonight to talk to you about recent changes to the intersection at Embarcadero and
Middlefield. Every day, this intersection is highly trafficked by the young students of Walter
Hays Elementary School. Every day, I ride my 2 kids to Walter Hays on a cargo 3 wheeled cycle
and traverse this intersection. Previously the intersection had a diagonal crossing enabled. This
allowed cyclists and pedestrians to quickly cross over to Walter Hays from the end of
Coleridge, which is a popular method for residents of Old Palo Alto to use to get their kids to
school.
However, recent changes at the intersection have added physical features and removed the
diagonal crossing light sequence. These changes have substantially decreased the safety of
cyclists and pedestrians using that intersection every day, and twice a day, when school starts
and when school lets out.
Curb features now exist which further crowd those waiting to cross into ever smaller spaces.
The edges of these features discourage bikes from coming onto those structures, and their
proximity to the edge of the road discourage pedestrians from standing on them.
These same curb features also funnel cyclists and pedestrians into even smaller areas to exit
out of and enter into those corners. This. causes jam ups when there are a lot of people waiting
as they now struggle to get through these smaller chokepoints.
Given that the corners in the NW and SE are smaller in size than the Coleridge and Hays
corners, it is very bad that the lights now force large groups of cyclists and pedestrians onto
those tiny spaces. When there are many, we often see them spilling onto the road when they
wait for the lights to change. This is EXTREMELY dangerous for those waiting on those corners
for the crossing lights to change.
Because those corners are so small, this intersection is not physically optimized for a 2 step
crossing. As long as Walter Hays is sitting on one of those corners, the safest crossing is to
enable the diagonal crossing light sequence and allow everyone to cross directly from
Coleridge to Walter Hays and back again.
Curb features should be built to enhance the diagonal crossing experience, not detract from it,
nor decrease the safety of the cyclists and pedestrians. I leave with you a quick write up of my
observations and analysis, and some potential solutions using bollards (a term I learned over
the weekend which is the name for these cylindrical towers used to prevent drivers from
entering these areas}.
In the meantime, for the sake of the children crossing that intersection every day RIGHT NOW,
PLEASE PLEASE re-institute the diagonal crossing at Embarcadero and Middlefield as soon as
possible. Every day we force children onto the tiny corners of that intersection is one more day
of risk that someone is going to get hit by a car.
Thank you for your time.
David Shen dshenster@gmail.com 4-30-18
Diana Darcy, Community Center·4d ago
Yes, agreed. And I also think there should be separate green lights for traffic on
Newell going each direction. Visibility is very poor when trying to turn left from
Newell onto Embarcadero east.
Thanked!3 Thanks
v
Tim Roper, Old Palo Alto·3d ago
~~ COUNCl~:1f,EJPIG -:J _ ~JU" r . ,. ~i [ ] Place.cl Before Me.eung ill [~ved at Meeung
Amy, thanks for raising this important issue. I walked my daughter to school
today and saw this change for the first time. It is a really terrible move on the
part of the city. While I understand that commuters are rushing to get to work
and don't like waiting at those traffic lights, they can possibly leave 5 minutes
earlier and slow down a little, and allow the elementary-age kids to cross safely.
I watched the crossing today for a while, and here are a couple of things that I
noticed:
The crossing guard walks the kids across Embarcadero but has to leave them
on the other side of Embarcadero and Middlefield while he returns to his
origination point to wait for the next bunch of kids. Those kids now standing on
the other side need to wait (in a crammed area half spilling into the street) for the
next pedestrian crossing signal before they cross to the school -without a
crossing guard, and kids being kids simply start walking when the signal
changes without looking, there is no guard to ensure that cars are not
desperately plowing through the yellow and red lights to get to where they are
going in such a hurry -so any kids not paying attention will be in the street while
that car is rushing through the red light...
The next thing I saw were cars on Embarcadero trying to turn right onto
Middlefield the moment that the kids received their crossing signal to cross
Middlefield, some cars tried to "beat the kids" through the intersection turning
before the kids blocked them, other cars tried to push their way through any gap
they could find. When I walked my daughter, I literally had to stand in front of
the cars turning right to stop them from trying to edge through the group of kids.
The cars do have a green light so they are legally able to turn, but we all know
people are driving too fast and texting on their phones -this is absolutely an
"accident waiting to happen" (to be cliche). At the very minimum there should
be a crossing guard to help kids safely cross Middlefield as well as the existing
guard helping them across Embarcadero -and that should be only long enough
to reverse this terrible decision by the city and get us back to the all-ways
crossing we have had for years.
I saw Principal Mary at the intersection with a concerned expression but she is
likely limited in what she can do without the support of the residents of Palo
Alto. There was also a guy from the city, plus two workers dressed as traffic
cones holding signs that read "no turn on red when kids are present" -but I
imagine they will be gone in a matter of days... And turning on red is not the
issue, at least from what I saw today.
Sorry for the rant -but this is really an important issue. Not all kids have their
parents to walk them to school and this is an age where kids want to break
away and walk those few blocks by themselves or with friends, I'm not going to
let mine do that until this situation is fixed! And the real negative result of that is
that I may at times have to drive her to school now on my way to work, adding
one more car to the mess!
I hope everyone reading this will sign the petition!
Thanked!13 Thanks
Merrill Wolfe, Professorville·3d ago
This is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Where was the common sense in this
foolish traffic change??? Change it back and protect the children at Walter
Hays!
Thanked!9 Thanks
v
Casper Vroemen, Evergreen Park·3d ago
Another infrastructure change that doesn't make sense at all. Why was this
supposed to be an improvement? There is no space for this many kids at drop
off and pickup in the 'staging areas'. Also, parents already having dropped off
their kids go in the opposite direction as those coming to school and their is no
way to manage all this safely.
Thanked!8 Thanks
v
David Shen, Old Palo Alto·3d ago
Just signed-I walk or ride through the intersection twice a day. With the new
changes I'm surprised no one has gotten hit by a car already. Total backwards
move in terms of safety and throughput
Thanked!8 Thanks
v
Jo Ann Mandinach, Leland Manor·3d ago
Just signed also suggesting they bring back the dedicated right turn lane on M
South @ Emb. instead of combining it with the through traffic lane because the
new configuration causes more backups.
Thanked!5 Thanks
Chuck Karish, Leland Manor·3d ago
The intersection isn't finished. It's going to have lanes in which the kids will be
allowed to ride their bikes across the street, separate from walkers.
Thank
Deborah Bennett, Old Palo Alto·3d ago
Since the remodel of the intersection, there are now dedicated left turn lanes on
Middlefield. The signal sequence is being changed to split the left turns from the
straight-thru traffic. The all-stop cycle is being removed so that the total signal
cycle time does not cause unacceptable traffic backup times on Middlefield or
Embarcadero. The intersection remodel has also added additional space for
pedestrians and bikes to stand while waiting for the signal to change. I received
this information from Josh Mello.
Thank2 Thanks
David Shen, Old Palo Alto·3d ago
@Deborah that may have been the intent but it's not what resulted. With all the
little concrete features they actually cram the kids and cyclists together into
smaller spaces.
Thanked!8 Thanks
v
Jo Ann Mandinach, Leland Manor·3d ago
@Deborah, does the mean that Josh Mello will be resurrecting the dedicated
right turn lane for Middlefield S rather than combining it with the through lanes?
And why has he yet again failed to communicate any of this to residents who
live nearby and who recently wrote to him and the City Council?
Thank2 Thanks
v
Christina Passariello, Old Palo Alto·3d ago
We're encouraged to bike and walk to school. Please protect our kids by
restoring the safe four-way crossing so we don't have to drive to school!
Thanked!6 Than ks
Deborah Bennett, Old Palo Alto·3d ago
@Jo Ann: I attend a monthly committee meeting (the City School Traffic Safety
Committee) with other PTA Traffic Safety Champions from Palo Alto schools. At
our last meeting, Mr Mello gave an update on the status of the complete streets
and bike boulevards projects. We receive these updates so that we can
communicate any impacts on bike commutes to our school community. I
thought this discussion would appreciate knowing why the light cycles at
Middlefield and Embarcadero were adjusted.
If you have questions for Mr Mello that you feel are not being answered, please
direct them to him. I would prefer to be thanked for supplying additional
information, not scolded.
Thank4 Thanks
v
Evan Reade, Crescent Park·3d ago
What is the estimated date of completion for this project, anyway? It has been
going on for months, during which time the crosswalks have all but faded away
while traffic cones, barricades and stanchions have decorated the new concrete
curbs that jut into the roadway. No doubt these new additions are meant to
"calm" traffic but, in fact, they make it more difficult and dangerous for vehicles,
especially large ones, to safely turn right without running their rear wheels up on
the sidewalk areas. This intersection is without a doubt the most dangerous
school crossing in town. You would think that any well-planned effort to
improve it would assure that the work take place quickly and efficiently. And
while we're discussing school zones and dangerous crossings, why is it that the
crosswalks at Castilleja (Bryant and Embarcadero) aren't painted yellow like
other school crosswalks, and there are no "school" markings in the lanes
approaching the school? In other places, there are yellow school crosswalks
blocks away from the nearest school house, so why isn 't the one directly
adjacent to Castilleja correctly marked? Mr. Mello?
v
Tim Roper, Old Palo Alto·2d ago
@chuck -the bike lanes will surely help, but mainly for adult bikers and older
kids that ride those two streets. The problem with this intersection is that most
of the kids riding to Walter Hays ride to the dead-end of Coleridge which leaves
them "catty corner" to the school, so they are being asked to dismount and walk
their bikes with the pedestrians, and as Dave points out above, there just isn't
room for them on the new sidewalks, and they then still have to cross without a
crossing guard.
Thanked!3 Thanks
v
Chuck Karish, Leland Manor·2d ago
The design of the new intersection provides dedicated lanes in which kids will
ride their bikes across the street rather than walk them.
Thank1 Thank
v
David Shen, Old Palo Alto·2d ago
@chuck the issue is not the lanes painted in the road. the issues are in the
reduced spaces on the curb corners of that intersection where cyclists and
pedestrians are forced to wait. with the new details on the curbs, they further
reduce the space in which you can hold cyclists and pedestrians. the raised
curb details seem to prevent some cars from cutting the corners, but we've
already seen big trucks drive over them still. obviously big trucks are much more
resistant to damage if they drive over these details so they don't care if they do.
but one of these days they will run over someone as they make their turns, and
especially now that kids and cyclists are forced into the road off the sidewalk
when they wait for the lights to change.
Thank
v
Chuck Karish, Leland Manor·2d ago
I've repeated what the city says about how the corners are meant to work. If you
don't agree, take this up with Public Works.
Thank
v
Jo Ann Mandinach, Leland Manor·Edited 2d ago
@Deborah Bennett, I didn't scold you. I was shocked to learn that a decades-old
bus stop is going to be moved to the foot of my driveway due to the city's
mistake in narrowing the road to 1 lane right behind a bus stop. So thanks for
the info. You'd be shocked, too, if it happened to you. I merely asked how you
knew so much more about what's happening at the foot of my driveway than I
do. I'd contact Mr. Mello but after doing so many times I --and lots of others --
know we won't get any answers.
Thank1 Thank
v
Tim Roper, Old Palo Alto·23h ago
@Chuck can you please help me find what the city has stated or what the final
pan is for the intersection, or does anyone else know where I can find it? I've
been searching the Palo Alto City site but can't seem to locate the plan. A link
would be greatly appreciated. I'm trying to understand how bike lanes will help
kids cross an intersection when they are catty-corner to their destination, I just
can't picture it so really want to look at a diagram or image. Thanks!
v
Tim Roper, Old Palo Alto·23h ago
Sorry typo above meant 11 plan11 not 11 pan "
Thank
v
Chuck Karish, Leland Manor·23h ago
I don't remember where I read this.
The intersection was repaved yesterday. We should see the final stripes soon.
Thank
Amy Keohane, Downtown North·23h ago
Palo Alto making our streets not safe again
Thank2 Thanks
v
Jo Ann Mandinach, Leland Manor·22h ago
@Tim, ask Deborah Bennett here. She seems to have more knowledge than the
rest of us.
Thank
v
Tim Roper, Old Palo Alto·22h ago
OK, thanks to Amy I found the image in the school take home folder. I can now
see what @Chuck is referring to with the dedicated bike lanes (see attached
image). Based on this I think they should revert back to the old signal setting
There are far too many kids and bicycles waiting on a tiny corner of sidewalk. It is an unsafe
situation. Please bring back the all-ways cross.
Agreed, and I also think that it's not safe for cars to allow drivers turning left from Newell
(Rinconada side) onto Embarcadero east to have a green light at the same time as drivers going
straight across Embarcadero on Newell toward Rinconada. There should be a separate light cycle
for each of these directions.
j Today I witnessed the street signal showing "walk" and the sidewalks were too full of young kids
I on bikes and on foot to actually be able to cross and wait on the side walk. I held my daughter
back, but she would have crossed had I not been there. Three children were stuck in the road
with no where to go. A mom had to frantically grab them and their bikes to get them out to the
street. This is clearly unsafe and must be changed back.
See my reply on Next Door
Make the streets safe for residents again!
Please act quickly to correct this situation!
Please do not wait for a horrible accident to happen. Change back to the four way cross now!
Bring back the dedicated right turn lane at Middlefield S @ Embarcadero instead of combining it
with the through lane. Also if you're going to put a bus stop at the foot of my driveway at
Middlefield and Lowell it would have been nice to have been informed. Your previous sign said
the bus stop was moving to Seale.
~I accompany my kids each day to cross Embarcadero I Middlefield. Standing on the Southeast
\
and Northwest corners requires kids to bunch up near the edge -literally a slight bump from
stepping off the curb and getting hit but a 40-50MPH car. I've witnessed numerous cars
accelerate to make left hand turns and kids running to make walk signals while cars are trying to
turn right in the crosswalk. Visibility is low at all angles. It's not a matter of if a kid is going to get
hit -it's going to happen and probably soon. Put our kids safety ahead of traffic congestion -there
has to be ways to allow longer lights for throughput (keep kids longer on corner).
We need to keep our kids safe as they go and from school. It's for a limited time of day. And it's
huge for the safety of the kids.
I noticed today while going from Middlefield (South) to Embarcadero (North), that now the left turn
green comes on before the regular green. Well, after the lane split, cars which are going straight
are blocking the left lane to take a left turn from. The signal worked much better when the left turn
and go straight signals turned green and all traffic moved together at each of the 4 sides of the
intersection. I have been commuting on his road for the last 14 years and didn't have a problem,
but now I am blocked from making a left by the long line of cars waiting to turn right or go straight.
Safety first for our children.
I live very next to this traffic light and drive across it every day during school hour. the previous 4-
way setting is much better and safer because there is no confusion for drivers to stop fully and
wait for people to cross the street.
Please reinstate one signal for four-way crosswalk.
I have a third grader who rides his bike to school on his own because I work. I only feel
comfortable with this because I know the crossing guard can protect him at Middlefield &
~ Embarcadero -if the lights do not all turn red at once, the crossing guard will not be able to be
" fT' with all children when they cross.
In a city that prides itself on being a bike-friendly city, the altering of the traffic lights to
accommodate the flow of mostly single-occupant vehicles over earnest children learning the value
of commuting by bicycle is ridiculous and a complete contradiction of the pro-bike stance Palo
Alto has taken over the years.
Please keep kids safe, especially at this intersection ... the all way was the best solution!
This is not acceptable at all. To have children amassing on the corners and spilling out on to the
road just at the peak times of school start and finish. It makes no sense at all
I saw firsthand this morning a child almost get run over by a SUV trying to turn right on
~mbarcadero -I presume the driver had grown impatient (2 light changes had gone by before the
t )
driver could turn) as the lights do not stay green for long and the children take a while to cross. A
t male pedestrian raced back out into the street and whacked several times the SUV -the 'traffic
~ lights' (Palo Alto employees) just stood there .. I hope they informed the city about this near
incident.. please bring back the 'diagonal' crossing .. this is TOO dangerous ..
The new crosswalk is unsafe for our children and removes precautions that will increase the
likelihood of an accident for already distracted, time-pressured drivers near our campus.
Strongly recommend the city to go back to the 4-way crossing directly. It's very dangerous! There ll s not enough space at each corner. At one time, my daughter barely fit in with her bike and one .. ?f I boy after her still was standing on the outside road because the area was too small and crowded.
We have a child who is a student at Walter Hays and we cross the Middlefield I Embarcadero
intersection at a minimum twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon.
Kids need four way crossing!!!!
I am extremely disappointed in the City of Palo Alto for the mess it has created at this intersection
and, more importantly, for putting our elementary aged children in harm's way. Just yesterday, a
car on Middlefield in the right-turn, southbound lane was pulled so far out that children were
diverted out of the crowded crosswalk -into what is a narrow, fast-moving westbound lane! I am
shocked. I hold the City morally and legally culpable for any injury that comes out of this idiotic
move. Please return the four-way stop immediately!!!
I support this petition.
The new stop light is absolutely not safe for kids. Yesterday morning there was not enough space
for all of the kids and their bikes on the corner. A car turned right on red and almost hit the back of
my sons bike. I am afraid of what may have happened if I had not been with him to push his bike
out of the way. I do not feel comfortable sending my kids to this unsafe situation.
Please return this intersection to a safe crossing zone.
For children's Safety, please return to the previous setting
If the city doesn't take immediate action it will be a matter of time before a child is injured. This
intersection has always been dangerous for children. Why the city would make it more dangerous
is a puzzle. I have to wonder if anyone from the city did any focus groups or came to observe the
intersection during the school commute before doing away with the all-cross. Do we want "Safe
Routes to School" or do we want to move cars through stop lights faster? In this situation, it looks
like we can't have both. If the car traffic in Palo Alto is so bad, drivers can learn to carpool to
work. Or how about an SOV tax?
This is very dangerous crossing and the change in signal has made things extremely bad. I'm
unsure why the changes were done, needless to say they are not favoring the Palo Alto residents,
parents, and children attending Walter hays. Very disappointed with the City on these changes.
Please revert ASAP.
Am very concerned about the new traffic situation where the young children are extra exposed to
the traffic. Really hope that this will be reversed soonest, and we don't need a serious accident for
bureaucrats to reverse this decision.
Please restore the 4 way pedestrian crossing.
While the traffic flow is already bad at that intersection, the safety of our children is far more
important. Please help keep our kids alive and turn the four way pedestrian lights back on during
drop off and pick up times
Please keep the safety of our kids in mind!
We all need to protect the children first, then consider traffic efficiency second. The school is right
there!
Some of the city staff have theories from their schooling that don't fit into practical circumstances.
It's similar to Ross Rd "improvements."
I know someone whose child was struck by a car, and a whose daughter was killed while biking
to school, going to a Palo Alto elementary and middle school. This is not a theoretical problem -
kids will be safer when the streets are made safer for them. I commute as well and have to wait
longer to cross town, but the wait is well worth it. Please act now.
%{p I witness near misses everyday, please do not wait to take action
·/
Timestamp Name Email Address Phone number
2018/04/26 : Laura Lindstrom laura_lindstrom@yahoo.com 6507399552
2018/04/26 • Lisa Goldman lgrosas@gmail.com 6505759519
2018/04/26 •Andrea Levesque andrea@andrealevesque.com 6504600957
2018/04/26 •Laura Prentiss tcllp@sbcglobal.net 6507992914
2018/04/26 • Meredith Donahue meredithadonahue@gmail.com 6503809208
2018/04/26 • Michelle Lepori michelle.lepori@mac.com 408-838-5704
2018/04/26 ! Diana Darcy ddarcy@stanfordalumni.org 650-325-6252
2018/04/26 ! Jill Johnson jillj727@gmail.com 650-714-8562
2018/04/26!TimRoper tim.roper@gmail.com
2018/04/26 ! Monica Brandt monica.brandt@gmail.com
2018/04/26 ! Merrill Wolfe jmerrillwolfe@gmail.com 480 510-0110
2018/04/26 ! Casper Vroemen cwvroemen@gmail.com
2018/04/26 ! David Shen dshenster@gmail.com
2018/04/26 ! Carolyn Davidson carolyn.davidson@gmail.com
2018/04/26 ! Rebecca Friend rebeccafriend@yahoo.com 650-704-7507
2018/04/26 I Jo Ann Mandinach joann@needtoknow.com 650 329-8655
2018/04/26 I Matt Robinson matt.robinson@yahoo.com 6502243294
2018/04/26 I Jeff LaMere jefflamere@gmail.com
2018/04/26 t Caryn Marooney caryn.marooney@gmail.com 4156017977
2018/04/26 ·Yes kathho8@gmail.com
2018/04/26 ·Kristina Toland kristina_toland@yahoo.com
2018/04/26 · Jamsheed Wania jwania@gmail.com
2018/04/26 I Pam Fry pamfry@pacbell.net 650-328-6086
2018/04/261 Scott Darling scottdarling@gmail.com
2018/04/26 Uay Chung woosubc@gmail.com
2018/04/261LauriVuornos lauri.vuornos@gmail.com 6507990564
2018/04/26 ! Julie Tsang julie.tsang@gmail.com 4155331138
2018/04/26 ! yong wang yongwang_us@yahoo.com 4084521223
2018/04/26 ! Mariseth Ferring mariseth@gmail.com 415.272.8614
2018/04/26 ! Hart Walsh hartwalsh@gmail.com
2018/04/26 ! Christina Passariello christina.passariello@gmail.com
2018/04/26 ! Neela Kulkarni neela_k@yahoo.com
,2018/04/26 ! David Brunicardi brunicardi.usa@gmail.com
·2018/04/26 ! Kimberley Wong sheepgirl888@gmail.com
2018/04/26 : gabriela buendia buendia.gabriela@gmail.com
2018/04/26 : Raluca Perkins ralucag@gmail.com
2018/04/26 : Rosa V. Harvie rvharvie@yahoo.com
2018/04/26 : Lise Latour lise_latour@yahoo.com
2018/04/26 : Ola Abdelhadi olaaboulfotouh@gmail.com 7656375138
2018/04/26 : Jin Wei jinwei668@gmail.com
2018/04/26 : Vivian H. Gerritsen viviange@gmail.com 5103861058
2018/04/26 : Esin Darici Haritaoglu darici.esin@gmail.com 4085064624
2018/04/26 : Melinda Tzeng melindalt@gmail.com
2018/04/26 : Adrienne Defendi adrienne.defendi@yahoo.com 6503255357
2018/04/26 : Michelle Zhang yuezhang2000@yahoo.com
2018/04/26 : Charles Ferring safechildren@sea-ferring.com 6502535639
2018/04/26 : Jan Gerritsen jan.gerritsen@gmail.com 5103647170
2018/04/26 : Offir Gutelzon offirg@keepy.me 4159902855
2018/04/26 : Angelica angelica_estradav@hotmail.com 4088988093
2018/04/26 : Meredith Martin meredithvmartin2001@gmail.com 4153409369
2018/04/26 : Catherine Matterson clmatterson@gmail.com
2018/04/26 : keith kleiner keith.kleiner@gmail.com 6507991962
2018/04/26 : Melissa Henderson mahendo@mac.com 650-380-4445
2018/04/26 : Dandan Wu dandanwu@gmail.com 6502438100
2018/04/26 : Chuck Harvie harviecl@gmail.com 6505157593
2018/04/26 : lianaboyarsky@yahoo.com lianaboyarsky@yahoo.com 6503800779
2018/04/26 : Satomi Okazaki satomi@gmail.com
2018/04/27 : Jennifer Banks jenbanksl@gmail.com 6507335506
2018/04/27 : Kathleen Spillane kspillan@yahoo.com 917-817-7112
2018/04/27 ! Albert Hua ahua1980@gmail.com
2018/04/27 l Beth Crooker lilasparents@gmail.com
2018/04/27 l Lauren Goody lauren.goody@gmail.com 9178531137
2018/04/27 l Stephanie Frick stephanie.frick@gmail.com 3104180347
2018/04/27 ! Janice Kim missfame@gmail.com 650-427-0796
2018/04/27 ! Laurel Robinson laurel@serenogroup.com 6502697266
2018/04/27 ! Charlotte Myers charlie_a_myers@hotmail.com 2033914363
2018/04/27 ! Vivian Cromwell viviancromwell@gmail.com 6509546012
2018/04/27 : Laurie phillips lauriecdphillips@gmail.com 6503877013
2018/04/27 : Veronica Montero montero.veronica@gmail.com 6505615450
2018/04/27 : Mabel Wei mabelwei668@gmail.com 5108566190
2018/04/27 : Carolyn Donaldson randcdonaldson@gmail.com 6507526622
2018/04/27 : Jeff Brown jeffbr@gmail.com
2018/04/27 : Kien Ho kien.ho@gmail.com 4259988138
2018/04/27 : Ryan Donahue ryan@ryandonahue.com 6509066005
2018/04/27 : Felice Ahn feliceandrea@gmail.com
2018/04/27 : Brooke Carson brookecarson@gmail.com 650-308-6461
2018/04/27 : anniekkrohn@gmail.com anniekkrohn@gmail.com
2018/04/27 : Akash L Pai akashpai@gmail.com 6503871301
2018/04/27 : David McQuarrie dpmcquarrie@gmail.com 6505189322
2018/04/27 : Olga van Hulsen bortool@yahoo.com
2018/04/27 : Marc Niederer marc.niederer@svitzer.com 3053079407
2018/04/27 : erin.o.brooks@gmail.com erin.o.brooks@gmail.com
2018/04/27 : Robert Lindstrom robertlaural@sbcglobal.net 6503846574
2018/04/27 : Annemarie Lekkerkerker annemarie.lekkerkerker@gmail.com 6503914619
2018/04/27 : Maureen Hillenmeyer hillenmeyer@gmail.com 6508148871
2018/04/27 : Karen 19pita99@gmail.com
2018/04/27: Teresa Moye 4moyes@gmail.com
2018/04/27 : Xiaoyun Li candylxy1606@hotmail.com 650-9333996
2018/04/27 • Olivia Chen oli_chen@yahoo.com
2018/04/27 ! Lee Buttrill leebuttrill@gmail.com 7205304635
2018/04/27 ! Ingrid Donahue ingrid_donahue@hotmail.com 415-519-7337
2018/04/27 I Christine Roper roper.christine@gmail.com 4086790591
2018/04/27 I Mallory mmmccaskill@yahoo.com 646-271-0879
2018/04/27 I Aaron Wood woody77@gmail.com
2018/04/27 : Tina Hua tinayhua@gmail.com
2018/04/27 ! Tatiana Vasilevskaia tvasilevskaia@gmail.com 3477296672
2018/04/27 : Kristi McMichael kmcmichael_ucla@yahoo.com 6503275352
2018/04/28 ! James Myers james_w_myers@hotmail.com 9142163248
2018/04/28 : Stacy Abel stacy_abel@me.com 3123167978
2018/04/28 : Jodie Craig jodier16@yahoo.com 6505613905
2018/04/29 : Shaozhen Wen wenshaozhen@yahoo.com 650-823-1666
2018/04/29 • Lian Bi lian_bi2002@yahoo.com 650-804-5056
2018/04/29 •Andy Choi chunkerchunker@gmail.com 6507734110
·2018/04/29 I Cindy Chen cindychen37@gmail.com 2025508527
2018/04/29 t Bob Kocher bobkocher37@gmail.com 202-253-8654
2018/04/29 ! Rasmey Picek rasmeysarith@yahoo.com 3108820143
2018/04/29 : Melani Yuen lunandlanski@yahoo.com 650-384-6049
2018/04/29 : Rebecca Fox rebecca.stamm.fox@gmail.com 650 566 8784
2018/04/29 : KPat Landman kpat47@gmail.com
2018/04/30 I Julie Kim jul.moonkim@gmail.com
2018/04/30 t Kate McKenzie kmckpaint@sbcglobal.net 6503262544
2018/04/30 l Sally Espinoza ashaskovec@yahoo.com 6503919788
2018/04/30: mmsparentsl@gmail.com mmsparentsl@gmail.com 14156992691
2018/04/30 l Jessie Becker jteitz@gmail.com 4086567438
2018/04/30 ! Neva Yarkin nevayarkin@gmail.com
2018/04/30 ! Suzanne Weaver lsweaver@me.com 6508044745
2018/04/30 : Yvonne Lau yvonnecylau@gmail.com 6506868745
2018/04/30 : Kevin Carlson kevin.c.carlson@gmail.com
2018/04/30 : Renee Goumas rgoumas@gmail.com
2018/04/30 : Mikyong Yoo mkyoo74@hotmail.com
, ..
·~
In his response to my initial outreach, Mark Hur wrote, "As an alternative, we offer transferable hanging
permits at an additional cost". The cost for the hanging tag permit is $365, making the "additional costs"
$315-more than Gx I paid for the decal! This is not a reasonable option to propose.
For a lower Income employee, I can not afford to spend $365 for a six month permit. There is simply no
excuse or justification to charge someone this much money to transfer the permit over. A hanging
permit (at a nominal fee) would be a reasonable solution to what I feel should not be such a
contentious, complicated and time consuming issue.
I also have a co-worker who can not fix his decal to his vehicle because It Is prohibited in his lease
agreement. Additionally, my manager, Stephanie Wansek, has also spent time communicating with the
SP+ administrators and Mark Hur. I will attach my communications with Mark Hur and my manager's
communications as well.
I want to thank you for your attention to my Issues stated In this email.
Best regards,
Joseph Stafford
Notice of Confidentiality: This communication is intended ONLY for the
recipient(s) identified in the message, and may contain information that
is confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected by law. If you are not the
intended recipient, please disregard this communication and notify the
sender.
.Parking Permit
8 messages
Stafford, Joseph <josephstafford@cardinalhotel.com>
To: mark.hur@cltyofpaloalto.org
Mark,
Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:43 PM
I spoke with Jarrod over at City Hall and he gave me your contact Information. I am currently an employee
at the Cardinal Hotel and have a Zone 5 Parking Permit. I placed my permit on the lower driver side
window of my car and received a ticket last Friday. On Monday, I received a warning for having my permit
there. How do I get a ticket on one day and then the following day, a warning? This makes absolutely zero
sense I
The permit was clearly visible, your attendant could both see and scan It. Prior to this I had a hanging
permit and this clearly wasn't an Issue. After that, I had a temp permit which I put in the same location and
didn't have a single issue. What Is the difference between having the permit on the front or back? If the
attendant can see the permit clearly and visible, what Is the Issue?
My car Is a lease and I'm not allowed to have any stickers on the car. If I'm not allowed to have stickers or
anything else on my car, what am I supposed to do? I can put the sticker on the car or bumper but the
costs to remove the permit will be billed to the city.
I look forward to hearing back from you as soon as possible, in hopes of avoiding further citations.
Kindest regards,
Joseph Stafford
Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@cityofpaloalto.org>
To: "Stafford, Joseph" <josephstafford@cardlnalhotel.com>
Hello Joseph,
Thank you for contacting the City of Palo Alto.
Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:47 AM
Program design and enforcement were reviewed and approved by City Council In the Administrative
Guidelines back in 2015, which states:
Other Policies
5. The permit must be affixed on the outside of the rear windshield driver's side lower left corner,
or left side of the bumper. Do not place your permit In any other location. Placing your permit In
another location or behind tinted windows shall invalidate your parking exemption.
Decals were chosen to prevent permit abuse. Improperly displaying a decal would make it easier to
transfer permits, which defies the purpose of issuing decal permits. Permit placement other than what is
stated in our guidelines voids a permit's validity and are subject to citations. As an alternative, we offer
transferable hangtag permits at an additional cost.
I~ iW' !WJ
Mark Hur I Parkins Operations Lead
Planniniz & Community Environment· Transportation
Stafford, Joseph <josephstafford@cardlnalhotel.com>
To: "Hur, Mark" <Mark.Hur@cityofpaloalto.org>
Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:01 AM
Even though the attendant can clearly see the per.mlt and scan It, this falls under the category of
"fraudulent." I'm absolutely baffled at the lack of options and zero understanding from you, city council and
the city Itself.
What Is the cost to transfer my permit to a hang-tag option style permit?
Regards,
Joseph Stafford
[Quoted text hidden)
Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@cltyofpaloalto.org>
To: "Stafford, Joseph" <josephstafforcl@cardlnalhotel.com>
Joseph,
The cost for a hang tag permit Is $365.00
To: Hur, Mark
Subject: Re: Parking Permit
(Quoted text hidden)
Stafford, Joseph <josephstafford@cardlnalhotel.com>
To: "Hur, Mark" <Mark.Hur@cityofpaloalto.org>
How does the city justify this 600% Increase?
Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:07 AM
Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:36 AM
I also would like the City Manager's email and whomever else I can speak with. The lack of solutions and
this cost are unjustifiable to the Issue. Charging an employee that much to transfer a permit Is absurd.
[Quoted text hidden)
Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@cltyofpaloalto.org> Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:31 PM
To: "Stafford, Joseph" <josephstafforcl@cardinalhotel.com>
Joseph,
Unfortunately, these are the terms that were established In the initial program design.
You can find contact info for the City Manager's Office on our city website.
HE CAltDINAl HOTEL
~··:• Custer, Christopher <chrlstophercuster@cardlnalhotel.com>
Zone 5 RPP
1 message
Christopher Custer <christophercuster@cardlnalhotel.com>
To: mark.hur@cltyofpaloalto.org
Mark,
Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:37 PM
I was given your email address by Jarred because I have an issue with the parking permit guidelines. I have a leased
vehicle which prevents me from affixing anything to the exterior of the vehicle. On Monday, I affixed the parking
permit to the Inside read driver side of my car and displayed It so It was visible from the outside of the vehicle, just as
it would have been If It had been on the outside. I received a half sheet sized warning regarding this. It seems to me
that there needs to be some consideration or other options in how these rules are enforced as some people are
prohibited from affixing this type of decal to their cars. Whether that option is a hangtag or a license plate scanner
which the city enforcement personnel use. Something needs to be done as It Is not working the way the system
currently exists. I look forward to hearing from you and hope that we can have a productive discussion. If you need to
reach me, my direct phone number Is 650-346-2579 or I am at the Cardinal Hotel most weekdays.
Regards,
Christopher Custer
:'.THE
CARDINAL HOTEL t\t'.Ji~I" Custer, Christopher <christophercuster@cardinalhotel.com:::t
RE: Zone 5 RPP
1 message
Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@cltyofpaloalto.org>
To: Christopher Custer <chrlstophercuster@cardlnalhotel.com>
Hello Christopher,
Thank you for contacting the City of Palo Alto.
Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:49 AM
Program design and enforcement were reviewed and approved by City Council in the Administrative Guidelines
back in 2015, which states:
Other Policies
5. The permit must be affixed on the outside of the rear windshield driver's side lower left corner,
or left side of the bumper. Do not place your permit in any other location. Placing your permit in
another location or behind tinted windows shall invalidate your parking exemption.
Decals were chosen to prevent permit abuse. Improperly displaying a decal would make it easier to transfer
permits, which defies the purpose of Issuing decal permits. Permit placement other than what is stated in our
guidelines voids a permit's validity and are subject to citations. As an alternative, we offer transferable hangtag
permits at an additional cost.
0
P LO
ALTO
Mark Hur I Parking Operations Lead
Planning & Community Environment -Transportation
250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ph: (650) 329-2453 I E: Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org
From: Hur, Mark Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org
Subject: RE: Cardlnal Hotel employees
Date: Aprll 5, 2018at10:15 AM
To: Stephanie Wansek stephanie@cardlnalhotel.com
Stephanie,
Our enforcement staff does not have the capability to check If a permit is linked to a vehicle in the field. The adhesive on a decal permit is on
the back. Those who are taping the permit to their windshield can easily transfer the decal permit to another driver. This is a common trend for
decal violators nationwide.
Unfortunately, we cannot allow exceptions to City Polley without Council approval. if your employees wish to continue using their permits, they
must properly display permits outlined in our guidelines.
Mark Hur I Parking Operations Lead
Planning & Community Environment -Transportation
250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ph: (650) 329·24531 E: Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org
Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you'd like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a service request.
Please think of the environment before printing this email -Thank youl
-···Original Message---
From: Stephanie Wansek [malito:stephanle@cardlnalhotei.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 201810:05 AM
To: Hur, Mark
Subject: Re: Cardinal Hotel employees
Mark,
Thank you for your e-mail but I know this response will not solve anything for the Issues my two employees are experiencing.
When you say they can get a hangtag at an "additional cost", that cost is $315 ($365 versus $50) that is not truly an option.
You can not require a person with a lease that does not allow decals fixed on the vehicle to spend $365 for a hangtag. At a minimum, there
needs to be a solution for that end creating a solution would give you the opportunity to help the other few individuals that have other various
Issues. Maybe a fee -but an affordable one ($25) • to purchase a hangtag versus decal that still had the license plate number written on It so
It is non transferable.
The decals are purchased for a particular vehicle so I am not clear how placing the permit on the inside of the vehicle would "make it easier to
transfer permits, which defies the purpose of Issuing decal permits.•
Please let me know what I need to do to deal with the leased vehicle Issue as I can not purchase a transferable permit for this employee as a
solution.
Thank you,
Stephanie
Cardinal Hotel, GM
On Apr 5, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CltyofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Hello Stephanie,
Thank you for contacting the City of Palo Alto.
For clarlflcatlon, the City establishes rules and regulations for enforcement. Serco enforces at the direction of the City.
Program design and enforcement were reviewed and approved by City Council in the Administrative Guidelines back in 2015, which states:
Other Policies
5. The permit must be affixed on the outside of the rear windshield
driver's side lower left corner, or left side of the bumper. Do not
place your permit in any other locatlon. Placing your permit in another location or behind tinted windows shall Invalidate your parking
exemption.
Decals were chosen to prevent permit abuse. Improperly displaying a decal would make it easier to transfer permits, which defies the
purpose of Issuing decal permits. Permit placement other than what Is stated In our guidelines voids a permit's validity and are subject to
citations. As an alternative. we offer transferable hangtag permits at an additional cost.
Similar concerns have bee1i filed In the past, but the number of requests compared to the overall number of permits sold over the past three
years has been low. Unfortunately, we must adhere to the set guidelines, and our enforcement staff wlll cite for Improper placement.
Amending the guidelines would require department review and City Council approval.
<lmage001.jpg>
Mark Hur I Parking Operations Lead
Planning & Community Environment -Transportation
250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ph: (650) 329-24531 E:Mark.Hur®Cityof PaloAlto.org
Use Palo Alto 311 to report Items you'd Ilka the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a service request.
Please think of the environment before printing this email -Thank you!
From: Wansek, Stephanie (mallto:stephanie@cardlnalhotel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 2:25 PM
To: Hur, Mark
Subject: Fwd: Cardinal Hotel employees
Mark,
I got your contact form my employees who were just over at City Hall talking with Jarrod at the RPP window.
We are trying to understand why the enforcement (permit decal placement Is our Issue) has to be so challenging and seemingly reasonable.
Jarrod said there Is a separate company, Serco, that does the enforcement and makes the rules regarding the permit placement. he gave
my employees your contact. I am writing also because I sent an e-mail Friday regarding this that was never responded to -see below.
The requirement from Serco is that the red employee decals to be placed on the rear driver's side either window or bumper. The Issue for
my staff, and It would be my Issue as well, Is the fact that they are requiring that you place the decal on the exterior of the vehicle. There
are people, myself Included, that for whatever reason do not want a decal on their car exterior or as Is the case with one of my employees,
has a lease that does not allow stickers on the vehicle.
This company is also checking the vehicles for hanging permits that hang In the front on the vehicle so I do not understand why placement
in the front driver's side windshield is an Issue at all to check.
I have one employee with dark tinted back windows and does not want to place a permit on the exterior of his vehicle so he placed It In the
front driver's side and was ticketed on Friday. This was the pictures and a-mall I sent Friday that was never responded to.
My other employee Is restricted by his lease form placing a decal on the exterior of the vehicle. He placed his In the rear driver's side but
Inside the window Instead of on the outside. He has no tint. It Is clearly visible and he was given warning this week.
We are hoping you can perhaps have a look Into this and see If there Is a way to be more reasonable with the restrictions on the decal
placement given the front of the beehives are being checked as well and lndle versus outside on the back window. if clearly visible, should
honestly make no different. Plus Inside the vehicle they are protected from any exterior tampering.
Thank you,
Stephanie
Cardinal Hotel, GM
······-·· Forwarded message ••••••••••
From: Wansek, Stephania <Stephanle@cardlnalhotel.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 4:32 PM
Subject: Cardinal Hotel employees
To: paloaltopermlts@spplus.com
Cc: Jarrod Young <jayoung@spplus.com>
One of my employees got his first ticket with the new permit.
Ha has the permit clearly affixed in the left front of his car.
It Is Inside the window and clearly displayed.
I want to clarfly If the ticket Is because It was not on the outside of the vehicle. I think It is unreasonable to expect anyone to attach these
stickers to the outside of their vehicle unless thev are ok with It. It also allows for oeoole to tamoer with them. I have had a cc oermlt for 1 O
I ' I I t years and I have It on the Inside affixed with scotch tape so that I can remove II easily every year. No employees are going to be expected
to change permits every 6 months.
And ii the ticket Is because of the placement of the permit, there should be a warning.
Can you please let me know as I have a few employees with these permits?
He Is still In possession of the blue hanging permit that was good through tomorrow.
So now I have (2) permits for this employee and he still got a ticket. This Is kind of frustrating.
Thank you,
Stephanie
Stephanie Wansek
General Manager
Cardinal Hotel
235 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Stephanie Wansek
General Manager
Cardinal Hotel
235 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Notice of Confidentiality: This communication Is Intended ONLY for the reclplent(s) Identified In tile message, and may contain Information
that Is confidential, privileged, or otherwise protected by law. If you are not the Intended recipient, please disregard this communication and
notify the sender.
Notice of Confldentlallty: This communication Is Intended ONLY for the
reclplent(s) Identified In the message, and may contain Information that Is confidential, prlvlleged, or otherwise protected by law. II you are not
the Intended recipient, please disregard this communication and notify the sender.
From: Mello, Joshuah
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 201811:39 AM
To: Stephanie Wansek
Cc: Safford, Joseph; Christopher Custer; Hur, Mark
Subject: RE: RPP parking decals for employees
Ms. Wansek:
I am sorry. There are no exceptions. All permits need to be affixed as instructed. I understand your
frustration.
FYI: The garages and lots are enforced by a different department than the RPP programs. They may have
different requirements regarding permit display.
Regards,
JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP
Chief Transportation Official
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Transportation
J.Q.~h~.~-~:M~!!P.@.~itY.9.f P.~JgA.J~.<?:.9rB
office: §?.Q~~.?.~:i?.~Q fax: §?.Q~~.?.~:~~~~
Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you'd like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a
service request.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Wansek [mailto:~t~P.b.~nJg@£~.~9.l.r:i.~Jhgtg!&9ml
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 201810:38 AM
To: Mello, Joshuah <J.Q.!!hM~.b.·M.~J!Q@~jtY.QfP.ii.l.QP..Jlo~.Q.r_g>
Cc: Safford, Joseph <jQ~.':?.P.h~t~.ff P.rgre!~~XQlr:'l.~!h2~~!&Qm>; Christopher Custer
<$;hri~19.P.b.~r.c;M~1fi!!.@.~.~!'.QJm~!tmt~l .. c;gm>; Hur, Mark <M.~r.~:H.l:l.r:@.~lW.911?.~Jg~Jt2:2rg>
Subject: Re: RPP parking decals for employees
Josh,
I guess I am now officially asking about the process of making an exception.
For example we can just look at this 1 case for now: leased vehicles not allowed to affix a permanent
decal. What Is your solution for someone whose lease agreement prohibits them from affixing a sticker
permanently to a vehicle which does not belong to them?
I have already had this boiler plate answer that you provided from Mark Hur last week which is why I am
e-mailing you for assistance to come up with a reasonable solution that can work for employees needing
to parking In the RPP zones.
4/30/2018
Good Evening Mayor and CityCouncil Members:
I am here to express my disappointment that you all decided after a Closed Session not to
pursue litigation against the FAA 2 weeks ago.
I think you heard from PA. residents that they are not satisfied with 4 years of basically no
lessening of airplane noise over Palo Alto, contrary these 4 years have solidified the air routes
with the anew normal" of Palo Alto being the Sacrificial Noise Corridor for all over land arrivals
into SFO, +rr/J t'Y\ 5'014 rt... , 1\/orth t" We ~f
People say the Best Defense is a Good Offense
In determining a strategy to effect change with the FAA, I have a few points I'd like for you to
consider.
1. FAA will not make any changes for the benefit of the public under their Skyway routes
unless they are forced to. It is apparent with the settlement for Phoenix, that they only
made a change after they realized that the City of Phoenix was not going to give up.
2. The FAA and the roundtable have deliberately taken a stance and support a narrative
that the number of planes is the same number before 2014 and after 2014. How can this
be true when there was not 1 single complaint before NextGen?
3. A regional solution for Santa Clara County will once more put Palo Alto on the spot,
since Mt. View, Sunnyvale.Santa Clara, San Jose and other cities will not accept any
new noise over them. _They like it just the way it is--over Palo Alto. tJs.tor1 Le-l
4. The Select Committee was a demonstration of throwing out any type of baseline (since
San Mateo, then Atherton were once the sky routes into SFO) and establishing a new
normal, have all 3 air routes converge over Palo Alto to the Menlo waypoint for landing
atSFO.
5. The Select Committee spent 90% of its time with SERFR route and the issues of Santa
Cruz. The changes implemented made conditions better for some Santa Cruz residents,
but did nothi~-~~ Palo Alto, may have actually made things worse.
6. The FAA pG6i~ 10 new procedures and a new way point SIDBY(over Palo Alto) with
no input from our City, which is the most heavily impacted City.
7. I spoke to a very knowledgeable person who advised me that legally our City can file a
petition for review and/or get an extension for each of these new procedures that were
enacted 3/29/2018. The 60 day time period is running out DO SOMETHING NOW!
'.RACES
-
'• , I
•I 'I / I ,,{
/ ' I
Proposed procedure specific amendments are described below.
SERFRSTAR:
• Add a new waypoint, NARWL, between EPICK and EDDYY with a crossing restriction of
"At or Above 8,000" feet msl.
• Move EDDYY 3.04 nautical miles (NM) north: EDDYY (New).
• Vertical profile of the procedure will not be changed.
Instrument Approach Procedures:
1. ILS or LOC RWY 28L and RNAV (GPS) RWY 28L:
a. Remove the segment from the initial approach fix (IAF) MENLO to the IF
HEMAN from the procedure.
b. Add new initial segment for connectivity to SERFR.
c. Add new IAF EDDYY (New).
d. Add new waypoint, SIDBY, north of EDDYY (New).
e. New segment EDDYY (new) -SIDBY connects to the intermediate fix (IF)
HEMAN.
2. (1) ILS or LOC RWY 28R; (2) ILS RWY 28R (SA CAT I); (3) ILS RWY 28R (CAT Il-
Ill); and (4) RNA V (GPS) Z RWY 28R:
a. Remove the segment from the IAF MENLO to the IF CEPIN from the procedure.
b. Add new initial segment for connectivity to SERFR.
c. Add new IAF EDDYY (New).
d. Add new waypoint, SID BY, north of EDDYY (New).
e. New segment EDDYY (new) -SIDBY connects to the intermediate fix (IF) CEPIN.
3. ILS or LOC RWY 28L and RNAV (GPS) RWY 28L:
a. Remove the segment from the initial approach fix (IAF) MENLO to the IF
HEMAN from the procedure.
b. Add new initial segment for connectivity to SERFR.
c. Add new IAF EDDYY (New).
d. Add new waypoint, SIDBY, north of EDDYY (New).
e. New segment EDDYY (new) -SIDBY connects to the intermediate fix (IF)
HEMAN.
4. RNA V (RNP) Y RWY 28R:
a. Remove the segment from the initial approach fix (IAF) MENLO to the IF GUTTS
from the procedure.
b. Add new initial segment for connectivity to SERFR.
c. Add new IAF EDDYY (New).
d. Add new waypoint, SID BY, north of EDDYY (New).
e. New segment EDDYY (new) -SIDBY connects to the intermediate fix (IF) GUTTS.
Charted Visual Flight Procedures:
1. QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL RWY 28L/R:
a. Remove the segment from MENLO to the SAN FRANCISCO VOR/DME (SFO)
R-095 lODME.
b. Add new initial segment from EDDYY (New) for connectivity to SERFR. CVFP
will start at EDDYY (new).
c. Add new waypoint, SIDBY, north ofEDDYY (New).
d. Add new segment from EDDYY (new) to SIDBY with an altitude restriction of "At
or Above 5000" feet MSL to SFO 095R 10 DME via OAKLAND VOR/DME (OAK)
150R.
CATEX MEMO (AMDT 1)-KSFO: Amendments to Procedures 20170718
2. TIPP TOE VISUAL RWY 28L/R:
a. Remove the segment from MENLO to the OAKLAND VOR/DME (OAK) R-151
14DME.
b. Add new initial segment from EDDYY (New) for connectivity to SERFR.
c. Add new waypoint, SID BY, north of EDDYY (New).
d. Add new waypoint, SHIRA, north ofEDDYY (New). Approximately 6,076 feet east
of the OAK 151R14DME where TIPP TOE currently bends.
e. Add new segment from EDDYY (new) to SIDBY with an altitude restriction of "At
or Above 5000" feet MSL to SHIRA then via a 310 heading to localizer.
The MITRE Guidance noise screening Lateral Movement Test (LAT Test) was used to determine
the potential for noise impacts related to (1) the proposed amendment to replace the IAF MENLO
with the IAF EDDYY (New); and (2) add a new waypoint SHIRA located east of the current bend
in the TIPP TOE CVFP. The LAT Test is applied to determine if the lateral movement of a route
resulting from adding, removing, or changing the location of a fix is enough to cause a change in
Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL) exceeding the noise screening thresholds.
The results of the LAT noise screening results indicated that potential noise impacts are not
expected due to the lateral movement resulting from (1) the replacement of the IAF MENLO with
IAF EDDYY (new) and (2) the addition of the waypoint SHIRA which moves the route
approximately 6, 076 feet east; therefore, further noise screening is not required.
Declaration of Exclusion:
The FAA has reviewed the above referenced proposed action and it has been determined, by the
undersigned, to be categorically excluded from further environmental documentation according to FAA
Order 1050.lF, "Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures." The implementation of this action
will not result in any extraordinary circumstances in accordance with FAA Order 1050.lF.
Basis for this Determination:
The Initial Environmental Review was processed and reviewed by the Western Service Center. This
review was conducted in accordance with policies and procedures in Department of Transportation
Order 5610.lC, "Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts" and FAA Order 1050.lF.
The proposed procedure meets the following categorical exclusion contained in FAA Order 1050. lF:
5-6.5.i. Establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more
above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be
routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted
below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases
in minimum altitudes and landing minima.
CATEX MEMO (AMDT 1) -KSFO: Amendments to Procedures 20170718
I
April 30, 2018
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
co~,/51~ J:'t?1"ING
[ 1 )?laced Before Meeting
[vf Received at Meeting
My name is John Hutar and for the past two years have had the privilege to work
as General Manager of Dinah's Garden Hotel. I have previously served on the
Board of the San Francisco Convention and Visitor's Bureau where on two
occasions, the Hotel Community joined forces with The City to increase TOT in
order to secure necessary funding to expand and improve the convention
center amenities which in turn benefited those who paid the tax by staying in
San Francisco hotels. Ironically, this evening is my first experience not being
in agreement with a TOT increase. The individuals paying the tax will get
nothing in return by paying a higher tax.
I understand it is challenging to keep expenditures in line with revenues. This
evening, I urge you to further study and explore other revenue opportunities
before putting in jeopardy proceeds from our transient occupancy tax. Both
Menlo Park and Mountain View border Palo Alto and have significantly lower
TOT rates.
Compared to other peninsula municipalities, Palo Alto has a significantly higher
number rental by owner units. For example, Menlo Park has 338 AirBnB
rentals, Redwood City has 423 and Palo Alto has 601. I urge you to go down the
path that Unincorporated San Mateo County and Redwood City have taken -
make these rentals subject to TOT. As with hotel TOT, the consumer would pay
the tax, not the Homeowner. The Agency managing the booking, (AirBnB, VRBO
etc.) would be required to collect and remit the TOT from the renter.
Palo Alto is most likely missing out on a tremendous amount of TOT revenue
by not having these rentals subject to TOT. These websites may also be
misleading by loosely using the term "taxes and fees" where there really is no
DINAH'S GARDEN HOTEL
4261 El Camino Real I Palo Alto, CA 94306-4405 I HOTEL 650.493.2844 I TOLL FREE 800.227.8220 I FAX 650.856.4713 I dinahshotel.com
# I
tax collected but amounts represented are fees for cleaning/security etc. I urge
you to study the potential of taxing this segment before you increase the
overall TOT. In the best case scenario, you may find this new source of revenue
adequate to solve the revenue shortfall you are facing. In a worse-case scenario,
proceeds from the new found revenue will minimize the amount of increase
necessary. Our market does have a ceiling, hotel revenue growth won't
continue forever and simply increasing the TOT tax rate could generate less
revenue for the city in the long run.
Sincerely,
John utar
General Manager
Dinah's Garden Hotel
DINAH'S GARDEN HOTEL
4261 El Camino Real I Palo Alto, CA 94306-4405 I HOTEL 650.493.2844 I TOLL FREE 800.227.8220 I FAX 650.856.4713 I dinahshotel.com
I !• CO\l,IL ~EYING . lf 70 8-
[ ] !!Ja'ced Before Meeting
· ·: [ "'J"Received at Meeting
In 2016, the total revenues for Airbnb lodgings in Mountain View totaled $9.8 million,
according to the data research site AirDNA. By not charging hotel taxes, Mountain View
has forfeited nearly $1 million in annual revenues --even more, when other short-term
rental companies are taken into account. April 2017
Some cities have managed to sidestep the complex mess of zoning issues attached to
short-term rentals but still collect tax revenues from them. In 2015, Palo Alto officials
last year decided not to draft formal regulations, but Airbnb still collects transient
occupancy taxes on behalf of the city. April 2017
Answered Jun 29, 2015
As of March 2015, Palo Alto does not have any restriction on Airbnb listing
or short-term rentals. However, homeowners (Airbnb "businesses") are
technically required to pay the 14% transient-occupancy tax but there is no
enforcement of this taxation.
According to the local newspaper, the city council briefly entertained the idea of
imposing regulations in late 2014 and early 2015 but decided officially March 9, 2015 to
not pursue any regulation. As noted in the article dated 3/10/15:
But several council members remained unconvinced that this is indeed a problem. Greg
Scharff pointed to the fact that the city received only seven complaints in the past year
about this issue and that two of them were deemed invalid.
"This hardly strikes me as a hot-button issue on which we should spend a huge amount
of resources on," Scharff said.
He also said he supports "home-stays" of the sort enabled by Airbnb. The
"shared-economy" model provides an attractive alternative to the traditional hotel, he
said.
"The city sees 300 to 400 Airbnb listings alone per night and stands to lose
$210,000 in transient occupancy taxes this year'', according to the memo.
However, council members at the study session said they were more concerned
about addressing quality of life issues related to illegal short-term rentals than
collecting unpaid taxes.
"The cost recovery should not be the primary driving factor," said Councilman
Cory Wolbach. "The negative impact on the neighborhoods should be the primary
driving factor."
Wolbach added that the city was better off focusing on other priorities, including
retail preservation and parking.
However, Councilman Tom DuBois said more and more cities are starting to
collect taxes from brokers like Airbnb. City Attorney Molly Stump said Palo Alto is
looking into doing the same.
"At some point, if we don't do anything, we may be being irresponsible for
not collecting it if a lot of other cities are," said DuBois. (March 2015)
https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/653/in-what-areas-is-occupancy-tax-
collection-and-remittance-by-airbnb-available?topic=264#California
Palo Alto
~ ....
= lJl r.iu:: 2018 Palo Alto Performance Evaluation Process Overview and Schedule (as of 4/26/18)
_...r:JL f I
2018 Process Steps
" =--
1. Process Kick Off Meetings
1. CAO Committee with consultant (open
session process discussion)
2. Phone calls with each CAO
2. Gather feedback on CAO's performance
Methods include the following:
a) CAO self-assessment (in Council survey prep
packet)
b) Direct Reports survey (final summary in
Council survey prep packet)
Process Description
Process "launch meeting". Discuss process, timeline,
areas of focus, etc.
Survey and interview methods are used to gather
individual feedback and perspectives on the
performance of each CAO.
CAO develops self-assessment of own performance
for the reporting period.
MRG provides CAO's with CAO Performance
Process Self-Assessment Considerations and
Guidelines.
CAO's Direct Reports provide feedback on
performance through an individual on-line survey.
CAO identifies direct reports with input from MRG.
Step
Used
in
2017?
Target Dates
Comments/ Areas to Discuss
Yes I 4/30/18
Yes I Covers the period as
detailed in steps #2 (a) thru (d).
Yes I 7 /9/18 -CAO to MRG
7/13/18 -MRG mails packet to
Council residence in advance of on-
line survey, Step #2 (c).
3 DR surveys (Attorney, Auditor,
Yes I Clerk)
2 Dept. follow up interviews (City
Attorney and City Clerk)
5/7 thru 5/11-On-line survey
period
5/14 -MRG Drafting
5/16 &17 -111 Direct Report
interviews with consultant (Attny
and Clerk)
5/18-20-MRG finals DR
summaries.
June 1 -MRG distributes DR
summary to CAO for self-
assessment prep.
CAO has 30+ days with summary
c) Councilmember survey City Councilmembers provide feedback on Yes Initiate 2018 survey during the
performance through an individual on-line survey. recess
The results of this survey are the foundation for the 7/13-Council receive prep packet
preliminary draft CAO performance evaluations 7/13 thru 27-Survey period
which are used in process step #4, Council's closed 7 /30-8/9 -MRG drafts prelim eval.
session discussion without CAO's present 8/9-Mail prelim evaluations to
Council residences or distribute
through City Clerk.
Interviews are encouraged but
d) Councilmember interviews MRG offers a 111 interview with each Yes optional.
Councilmember on 2 occasions. 1) 6/27 and 28-Pre process
1) Pre-2018 process overview discussions (e.g. schedule, plan,
2) After MRG receives on-line survey etc.). Interview schedule set by
responses 5/24.
2) 7/30-8/3 -After survey closes-
Consultant calls council members
to clarify their survey responses as
needed. Occurs concurrently with
drafting.
2
I
..,.
-
3. Prepare a preliminary performance evaluation MRG summarizes (without attribution) Council Yes Complete document for
document feedback received through the on-line survey and distribution by 8/9
through the Council 1/1 meeting with MRG. MRG
prepares a draft preliminary evaluation and provides
it to the City Council in advance of the 1st Closed
Session (see step #4)
4. City Council discusses preliminary draft This is the 1st of 2 meetinfs and is conducted without Yes 2018-Full process for 3 CAO's
performance evaluation (without CAO the CAO present. The 2" meeting is shown in step
present) #7 and is conducted with the CAO present. Modified process for City
Manager
MRG facilitates a performance evaluation discussion
with City Council in closed session. Council reaches Any combination of
a "consensus" performance evaluation for each CAO. 8/15 and 16 &/or
8/22 and 23
MRG prepares final draft performance evaluation
reflecting Council's consensus feedback received Requires at least 2 meetings based
during this meeting. (See step #5). on past experience.
Council delegates authority to the Mayor and CAO City Clerk will calendar and
Chair (or Vice Mayor) to respond to and/or review confirm Council schedules
MRG's final draft performance evaluation document
if needed to ensure it reflects the Council's discussion
prior to distribution to the appointees and the Council
in advance of steps #6 & 7.
Yes Process begins the day after
5. Prepare final draft performance evaluation for MRG develops a final draft performance evaluation Council's step #4 discussion is
Council/CAO discussion document based on the Council discussion and completed for each CAO.
3
consensus direction in step #4.
Within 2-3 days immediately
The document is shared with the City Council and the following Council discussions
CAO in advance to prepare for the Council/CAO
Closed session performance evaluation discussion
(Step #7).
6. CAO reviews final draft and prepares for MRG meets with each appointee (in person or as an Yes Within 2-3 days immediately
performance evaluation discussion with the alternative, by phone) to prepare them for a closed following Council discussions in
City Council session with the City Council coordination with step #5
7. Council/CAO performance evaluation MRG facilitates Council/CAO closed session Yes Any combination of:
discussion discussion about performance. 8/29 and 30 or
915 and 6
To allow sufficient time for each Council/CAO Requires 2 meetings based on past
discussion, 2 CAO discussions are scheduled for each expenence
evenmg.
City Clerk will calendar and
After CAO leaves the discussion, MRG receives final confirm Council schedules
Council consensus direction regarding the
performance evaluation.
4
/
,/
.......
MRG modifies the final draft performance
8. Prepare final evaluation for signatures evaluations based on Council direction in step #7. Yes By 9/10-Final documents to HR
MRG prepares the final evaluations for signatures. Electronic signature internal
MRG and Human Resources facilitate the e-signature process
process. Final documents are distributed to the CAO Coordinated with step #7
for their personal records and to the Mayor for filing
in the Mayor's Office.
1) Summer 2018 -MRG initiates
9. Determine Compensation MRG conducts a compensation survey of comparable Yes* Compensation Survey (with City
agencies concurrent with the above process steps for approval)
the closed session compensation discussion with
CAO Committee. An update of the prior year's 2) Week of 9/24-Closed Session
survey using the City's same survey agencies is CAO committee review and
provided. The City's Chief People Officer provides recommendation to Council
data and responds to questions about City
compensation policy and practices. 3) Week of 10/8-Council Closed
MRG facilitates the discussion and responds to Session to discuss recommendation
questions about the survey collection methodology.
The City's Chief People Officer supports the 4) By early Dec. -Council
technical work in this process. approves contract amendments in
CAO Committee makes a compensation open sess10n
recommendation to Council in closed session for
Council's consideration. Council makes the final *2016 Council asked CAO
determination about CAO compensation in open Committee to "vet" the
sess10n. compensation data and make a
compensation recommendation to
the full Council.
5
10. Debrief Process The CAO Committee debriefs the current year's Yes Week of 10/29 (if needed)
process in open session.
MRG administers a Council/CAO process
satisfaction survey to provide input to the Committee.
MRG facilitates the debrief.
6