HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180430plCC701-32
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: 4/30/2018
Document dates: 4/11/2018 – 4/18/2018
Set 1
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 | 4/16/2018 9:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Art Liberman <art_liberman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 5:01 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James
Subject:Stop or Slow premature authorization for Charleston-Arastradero reconstruction
The Council agenda for the April 16th meeting has an item on the Consent Calendar for the Charleston-
Arastradero roadway reconstruction. This is premature, in as much as the Council has not yet voted on the
Infrastructure Capital Budget. It should be removed from the consent calendar.
We can't afford all of the Infrastructure projects, given the construction inflation costs, and so the
Council needs to review the list of projects. You need to make some hard decisions - that's why
you were elected - and I think you should eliminate those of lower priority.
One project that I think should be eliminated is the "Charleston/Arastradero Corridor
Improvements ($10.0 million)" plus an additional $5.0 million for "Phase I of the
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor reconfiguration," written on page -IV of transmittal
letter http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57409
The project plan includes completely grinding up and repaving the roadway from Gunn to Fabian
Way, replacing existing traffic lights with new traffic lights, replacing sidewalks, etc. It's a massive,
massive undertaking. The engineering project review that I heard goes way beyond what is
described for this project in the budget plan (page 61 of the link above: "new landscaped median
islands, enhanced bike lanes, new street trees and landscaping, and bulb-outs.") In my view, the
rebuilding of the corridor will not improve traffic flow, nor will it measurably improve the safety of
those using it in cars or on bikes. The roadway surface is currently in good shape, and I feel this
project is largely cosmetic. And if there is to be a grade crossing for rail on Charleston, the roadway
would have to be dug up all over again.
We can't afford everything and given our budgetary limitations, this project is an extravagance and
should be eliminated.
Arthur Liberman
751 Chimalus Drive
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 3:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 3:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SB1 proposal and Arastradero Plan
Dear City Council,
On the consent calendar for this evening, there is an item that includes an SB1 proposal for funds for infrastructure improvement that is coupled with approval of the plan for Arastradero improvement. Since the
SB1 funds don't have to be used for Arastradero, these two items should be separated. In particular I believe
there we should give Arastradero more consideration before proceeding with the plan for the following reasons:
City budget is overspent already. Arastradero should be considered with all other needs of the city like Fire and Police. Is this a need or a want?
Do we need to spend over $10m on hardscape for a system that is already working the way it was designed? With the
current painted system, bikes are safe and we have some flexibility if cars need to turn or pull over in
emergencies.
The aggressive construction on Ross Road has resulted in almost 1000 signatures to a petition to change the design,
more than any other issue has produced. Do we want to have another Ross Road?
Please separate the SB1 proposal from the Arastradero project.
Jim Colton Georgia Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 4:01 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eugene Zukowsky <eandzz@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 3:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SB1 proposal and Arastradero Plan
Dear Council Members,
We urge you to separate the two items, an SB1 proposal for funds for infrastructure improvements and the Arastradero
Project. The Arastradero Project should be studied before a large amount of money is spent for this proposed project.
There are other needs in this city that require funding and there is a shortfall of funds.
Dr. And Mrs. Eugene Zukowsky
Maybell Way
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 4:01 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Ron Baker <rabaker.pa@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 3:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SB1 Proposal And Arastradero Corridor Plan
Dear City Council:
The SB1 Proposal should be separated from the Arastradero project. The corridor project itself is wasteful, and creates additional problems for residents of neighboring streets attempting to enter Arastradero Road during
rush hour. Moreover, it will make transit of Arastradero, one of this city’s prime corridors, slower and more
problematic, at a time when traffic is already a disaster. The entire project is poorly designed, and creates a
variety of new risks for bicyclists. Lets save money now, and avert this unnecessary and problematic
development.
People from our neighborhood are being ignored at public meetings and in side sessions with city staff. It
smacks of the same treatment that South Palo Alto got over the Maybell project.
Ron Baker rabaker.pa@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 4:14 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:NTB <aarmatt@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 4:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SB1 and the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project
To the Honorable Mayor Kniss and City Council Members:
I am writing you in support of including the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project in the SB1 funds for
infrastructure improvement so that the hardscape portion of the project can be completed.
For the past fourteen years, the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project in its various phases has received
unanimous approval from every City Council who reviewed it. The performance measures for the trial have
been met. However, the safety features that were built into the design will not be fully realized until the
hardscape is in place. The primary goal of the project - to create a safer environment for our school
children to walk and bike to eleven public and private corridor schools and for other road users– will not be achieved until the hardscape is in place. It is imperative that the job be finished as designed…..and it
needs to be finished now…for our kids.
I don’t ride a bike any more myself, but I do walk and drive on the corridor frequently. I continue to see that
the previously approved improvements are acutely needed. Many citizens like me have worked hard with the
City for fourteen years to create the best possible plan to balance the needs of all street users. That is a very long time. Please follow though on the promises made fourteen years ago. A nexus study was done, multiple
phases of striping trial were implemented and reviewed. Citizens (including me) have attended countless
community meetings and public hearings. I’m not sure I can attend the meeting tonight, but I feel I should not
have to. At this point, I feel the City is obligated to follow through on the commitments made related to this
project…expediently.
In addition, the Corridor factors into the City’s Safe Routes to School goal network of bike and pedestrian
routes as well as helps in making the City a premiere bike friendly environment. Please don’t leave the project
hanging. Please approve the funding to finish this important project that implements the vision of our
Comprehensive Plan without any further delay
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nina Bell
Los Palos Ave., Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 4:17 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kathleen M Eisenhardt <kme@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 4:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Arastradero and sb1 separation
Council
At tonite's meeting, pls separate the Arastradero plan from the sb1 consideration. Specifically, it would be ideal to think
more about Arastradero for reasons that include
1. Expense ‐ is this a necessary improvement now? Or ever? There is a lot of community opposition, making it unclear
whether this is s wise use of money especially with an over spent city budget.
2. Flexibility‐ is hard scape a good idea? It locks in the design and so limits future responsiveness.
Thanks for your consideration on this. More thought is needed about this project, its priority, and its expense.
Kathleen Eisenhardt
Donald drive
Sent from my iPhone
From:Ng, Judy
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk"s Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Portillo, Rumi; Blanch, Sandra; Jimenez,
Angelica; Lee, Frank
Subject:4/16 Council Agenda Questions for Item 5
Date:Friday, April 13, 2018 1:41:40 PM
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 16, 2018 council meeting agenda.
Item 5: Approval of Employee Benefits Contracts for Dental, Vision, Life, AD&D, and LTD
- CM Tanaka
Item 5: Approval of Employee Benefits Contracts for Dental, Vision, Life, AD&D, and LTD
Q. 1. Which employees get benefits?
A. 1. All employees except unbenefited hourly employees.
Q. 2. How much did the City pay each of these companies in the past terms? Is it
more, less or equal to this contract? Why? In the future, it would be very helpful if
staff mentions past contract amounts in reports as a basis of comparison.
A. 2. The amounts are equal to the prior contracts – the extensions lock in the
current rates.
Q. 3. How many companies bid in each of the RFPs? What were the bid amounts?
A. 3. The RFP process for the Life /LTD insurance will begin May 2018. The RFP
process for the Dental/Vision insurance will begin during the second half of 2020.
The extensions lock in the current rates without disruption to coverage.
Q. 4. Why is there a not to exceed amount if this is insurance for a fixed rate?
A. 4. The “not to exceed” amount represents the new total for the entire life of
the contract, which includes the prior contract plus the extension.
This is not a completely fixed rate, as the actual amounts paid to the
administrators vary depending on the number of enrollees.
Q. 5. Are the benefits better or worse than the last contract (for employees)? Why?
A. 5. There are currently no changes to the benefits for these plans.
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 | 4/16/2018 10:09 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 15, 2018 4:29 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:April 16, 2018, Council Meeting, Item #6: Rail Contract with AECOM
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
April 15, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
APRIL 16, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6
CONTRACT WITH AECOM IN THE RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION AND
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Dear City Council:
I urge you to remove this item from the Consent Calendar and reject the
proposed contract with AECOM, because AECOM has a potential conflict of
interest due to its receipt of funds from both the Peninsula Corridor
Joint Powers Board and the California High Speed Rail Authority.
I notified you at you January 29, 2018, meeting that the previous
contractor for this project, Mott MacDonald also had a conflict of
interest in regard to this project.
See my January 29, 2018, letter to you in the February 12, 2018, City
Council agenda packet Public Letters Set 2 of 2 on PDF pages 149-156 at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63291.
On August 3, 2017, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board awarded a $4
million contract to AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) to provide on-
call planning support for grade separation projects.
See Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers (JPB) Board staff report, “Award of
Contract to Provide On-Call Planning Support for Grade Separation
Projects” in the agenda packet for the August 3, 2017, JPB Board meeting
on PDF pages 155-159 at:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Director
s/Agendas/2017/2017-08-03+JPB+Agenda.pdf; and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:09 AM
2
minutes of the JPB August 3, 2017, JPB Board Meeting at the bottom of Page
6 of 8 and the top of Page 7 of 8 at:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Director
s/Minutes/2017/2017-08-03+JPB+approved+minutes.pdf.
Therefore, AECOM has a potential conflict of interest in working for the
City of Palo Alto on the Grade Separation project, because it receives
funds from the JPB for "Planning Support for Grade Separation Project".
The proposed contract with AECOM, including the Scope of Services for the
contract, appears in the 4/16/2018 staff report (ID # 9100) for this
agenda item at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64464.
The following information appears in that staff report and scope of
services at the pages indicated below:
Contract page 7, PDF page 12 of 51, under "Section 21. Conflict of
Interest, paragraph 21.1": "In accepting this agreement, CONSULTANT
covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any
interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict
in any manner or degree with the performance of Services."
Contract page 11, PDF page 16 of 51, under "Scope of Services Contents":
"Task 7. Assist the City during CAHSR Environmental Analysis Phase".
Contract page 12, PDF page 17 of 51, under "Project Understanding", first
paragraph, last sentence, "City is preparing for increases in passenger
rail service due to Caltrain's Electrification Project and the probable
California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) Project."
Contract page 28, PDF page 33 of 51, under "Task 7. Assist City during
CAHSR Environment Analysis Phase": "At CITY's request, CONSULTANT will
attend relevant CAHSR EIR meetings and ensure that CITY's interests are
represented during the environmental analysis process. ... CONSULTANT will
review and summarize relevant information in the EIR documents and [help]
draft comments and [provide] supplemental information to the CHSRA to
address CITY's concerns."
Since November 2008, AECOM has had a $55 million contract with the
California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) for the Altamont Corridor
Rail Project as part of the Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/EIS.
In May 2013 CHSRA transferred funding for Altamont Corridor Planning to
the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), including the $36.43
million the California Legislature appropriated to CHSRA for the Altamont
Corridor when the Legislature approved SB 1029.
See the staff report prepared for the June 6, 2013, CHSRA Board Meeting,
Item #3 to "Transfer Leadership and Funding for Altamont Corridor to the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:09 AM
3
SJRRC at:
https://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2013/060613/AI_3_Proposal_Amend_MO
U.pdf
See "Amended Second Memorandum of Understanding" between the California
High Speed Rail Authority and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission at:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2013/060613/AI_3_Attachment_MOU_SJR
RC.pdf, on PDF page 5 of 6, under "12. Funding.: The California State
Legislature appropriated funds specifically for environmental and design
work in the Altamont corridor as part of SB 1029 (Chapter 152, Statutes
2012) in the amount of $36.43 million. The Authority plans to apply these
funds to the planning and environmental work within the Region in
cooperation with SJRRC ..."
Monthly reports of the spending on the CHSRA contract with AECOM funded by
CHSRA and currently administered by SJRRC are provided to the CHSRA
Finance & Audit Committee.
These reports enable the calculation of the contract amount spent during
any time period by comparing the contract balance between two of these
monthly reports.
During the most recent twelve months, it is possible to calculate the
amount spent for the ten months of May 2017 through February 2018
inclusive.
For that ten month period over $7 million of the $55 million contract with
AECOM was expended:
Balance as of April 30, 2017: $37,222,747
Balance as of February 28, 2018: $30,201,568
-----------
Total Expenditure: $ 7,021,179
CHSRA June 2017 Contracts & Expenditures Report as of April 30, 2018:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2017/brdmtg_061417_FA_Contracts_Exp
enditures_Report.pdf, Page 1 of 19.
CHSRA April 2018 Contracts & Expenditures Report as of February 28, 2018:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2018/brdmtg_041718_FA_Contracts_Exp
enditures_Report.pdf, Page 1 of 18.
AECOM has a potential conflict of interest in working for the City of Palo
Alto, because it receives funds from CHSRA that are laundered through
SJRRC.
AECOM should not be working for the City of Palo Alto on rail issues
related to Caltrain and related to CHSRA, because AECOM receives funding
from both of these organizations.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:09 AM
4
Therefore, you should remove this item from your Consent Calendar and
reject the proposed contract.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:09 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 15, 2018 9:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Opposition To Council's Opposition To Tax Fairness Act of 2018
Elected Council Members:
I am opposed to the Council's alleged opposition to the "The Tax Fairness, Transparency, and Accountability Act of 2018" which may
well appear on the 2018 ballot. If it does appear, I will be voting for it.
The Council has provided little in the way of evidence as to why the Municipal Government of the City of Palo Alto should be on record as opposed to transparency, or prudent use of our money. Perhaps the Council should make an effort to explain the voters, and
taxpayers, why transparency and prudent financial administration is not in our best interests.
Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:09 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 15, 2018 4:18 PM
To:Maximilian Goetz; Greg Tanaka
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Councilman Tanaka Encourages You to Speak Out Tomorrow
Thanks for the heads up about this issue. I have a three comments.
#1 I cannot find any documentation on the internet that ballot measure is officially sponsored by the Calif Bus.
Roundtable. I see that one of the CBRT officers is a proponent but I cannot conclude that the staff report findings are accurate. Can you clarify? I think the staff report must be correct but documentation of sponsorship is unclear.
#2 CBRT is a substantial organization with concerns for employment for many Californians, often workers of
moderate and middle income. Our regional housing agony is affordability of housing for some of those workers. One side of the coin is acquisition cost of housing; the other side of the coin [seldom discussed] is adequate worker income to buy or rent a home.
Consequently, if CBRT is indeed sponsor of this ballot measure, isn't it more appropriate to hear directly from
one of the business leaders advocating this issue. I think Council and citizens would be better informed to hear from one of the business sponsors (ideallly not CBRT staffers). In all probability there is a coalition of sponsors; Council and public should be informed who they are.
#3 I want to be clear about my position and motivations. The ballot measure as written imposes too much
sudden change and uncertainty upon California's economy and governments. However, the measure is, as a minimum, a substantial opinion from business leaders acting on behalf of their self-interest and employees.
A more responsible action by staff and city council is to hear directly from the sponsor(s) and then act with full
information about sponsors' intent and motivation. The process of inviting proponents to public forum is
important process...ie it clarifies accountability. It would be interesting if any CBRT member would have the courage of their convictions to appear in front of our Council.
To take Council action without hearing an opinion of so-called sponsors contributes to the polarization
engulfing our society today.
I am unable to attend the Council meeting but appreciate the opportunity to comment belatedly.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:09 AM
3
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
On Sunday, April 15, 2018, 12:51:45 PM PDT, Maximilian Goetz <max.goetz@gregtanaka.org> wrote:
Hello,
My name is Max and I am a legislative aide to Councilman Tanaka. Tomorrow, city council is set to vote on a resolution that if
passed, will declare council's opposition to a statewide government tax transparency act ("The Tax Fairness, Transparency, and Accountability Act of 2018") that is set to be voted on in November. For more details, the resolution can be view
at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64478
Regardless of your stance on the issue, Councilman Tanaka encourages you to come to council chambers tomorrow night to speak about the item.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know.
Thank you,
Max
-- 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 addressee, you
may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the
message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. Views I state are my own and may not
represent those of this Office or the full Council.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/18/2018 7:37 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cedric de La Beaujardiere <cedric.bike@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:40 AM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Cc:de La Beaujardiere, Cedric
Subject:Concerns and Suggestions
Honorable Council Members of the Rail Committee,
Thank you for your time and effort to work through this challenge and this opportunity of grade separation. I have several concerns about the process of selecting alternatives to study for achieving grade separations in
our rail corridor. This is a major decision for the community and its outcomes are likely to affect the next
seven generations. I'm concerned that the initial screening is stacking the deck with bad options (do nothing, close crossings, spend $1B) and leaving out Rail Over Road Viaduct which is the clearly superior option (raised rail hybrid is a good option but may be more expensive and disruptive than only raising rail).
CRITERIA We should add a criteria: How effective is each alternative at deterring suicides.
Given the extent to which our community has been impacted by suicides at the rail crossings, I'm surprised that
this criteria, or any safety criteria, is not included in the evaluation. Studies have shown that making it more
difficult to commit suicide has a strong deterrent factor by giving people time to reconsider their impulsive decision.
OPTIONS
The raised rail option should be split into two or three options, differentiating viaduct from berm or wall. These each have very different aesthetics, benefits, and possibly cost so it does not make sense to lump them all into one ambiguous category and judge them blindly. A viaduct could potentially be
constructed in parallel to the existing tracks, above and east of the eastern track, leaving at least the western
track operational during the majority or totality of construction and avoiding the cost and impact of constructing a temporary shoe fly track on Alma.
The Master List of Ideas (page 24 public scoring) and the table in the Results of Initial
Screening (page 28 staff screening) do not include the Rail Over Road option neither city wide
nor only at intersections, and yet in a viaduct configuration this has greater mobility benefits than the
trenching since we could easily have bike and pedestrian paths under the structure, and it provides a greater deterrent to suicide, seemingly at a fraction of the cost of trenching. It is not clear that this option has even been scored, and if so how it fared. Looking at the current Scoring Criteria, a
Viaduct could be dinged on the criteria "Minimize visual changes" and "Reduce rail noise", but these
are tier 2 criteria and a Rail Over Road Viaduct should score well on all of the Tier 1 criteria, so it is
not clear why this option is not in the top 16.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/18/2018 7:37 AM
2
Staff should make public what they envision each option looking like as they are scoring its
impacts. Some of the criteria involves judgment on the appearance of the change, but there is not a
clear and publicly shared visualization of these options which are being scored. So someone may envision the raised rail as a Berlin Wall dividing the city and score it poorly, whereas someone else envisions an elegant viaduct with native plantings and bike and pedestrian paths underneath, and
score it highly. Similarly, Staff should make clear what level of sound and vibration reduction
measures are being assumed when estimating cost, sound reduction, visual impact, and public
acceptance. In regards to the hybrid options (which both lower the road and raise the rail), at the last Rail
Committee meeting Staff clarified that they assumed some property taking, but clearly the extent and
cost of this impact depends on how deep the roads are lowered. Staff should assess and publicize
how far deep the roads can be lowered at the railroad right of way WITHOUT causing
properties to become inaccessible and thus avoiding their acquisition cost and impact. This would then inform how high the rail would need to be raised in such a scenario, and thus how far
back the railway ramp up at 1% grade would extend.
Below is my 3D model visualization of a raised rail viaduct, adapted from a design in Hong Kong which successfully reduced noise by 20dBA. I modified the design by increasing the height of the
soundwalls, incorporating windows with horizontal fins to prevent passengers from peering down into
yards, and cladding the exterior with trellises and planter boxes supporting vines, and some dwarf
fruit trees at the ROW property line. I scooted it east so that the western track could remain
operational through construction, and could allow the very few freight trains to run at grade. (The twin black lines are the existing tracks, the purple lines are the JPB Right of Way (ROW) property line.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/18/2018 7:37 AM
3
COSTS
The costs of the entirely raised rail options have not been estimated, I speculate it's in the range of $50M-
200M based on other cost estimates given on page 23 of Types Of Grade Separations & Constraints. It is unclear if the costs are comparable whether it is viaduct, berm, or wall. Providing a thorough estimate of the
cost of a raised viaduct for the length of the city as well as raised only over the intersections would help
Council and Community make fully informed decisions.
At the February Rail Committee meeting, the $4B cost of trenching city wide was interpreted by Mr. Keene as, "Four billion dollars could cost us $267 million a year that we’d have to finance. That is 20 percent more than the entire City’s General Fund Budget each year for the next 30-years." (bottom of page 23 of the
February meeting transcript). While the costs of the lowered rail options were presented to the community in
March, it was not put in that helpful context of what that means for the city, and without that context, it is
difficult for people in the community to really judge if the cost is just a stretch goal or totally crazy.
OUTREACH
Now that the matrix of 34-36 options has been made public and the extreme cost of trenching
have been revealed, the community should again be engaged and a concerted effort should be
made to determine how this information affects their priorities and to try to build consensus in
the community. I have seen very few examples of real visioning and consensus building process in
Palo Alto, on any topic. It's usually a set of presentations which go over time, then people spread into
small tables where the loudest get the most say, while the shy are afraid to speak up. Finally, the
inconvenient and annoying comments are collated and as far as the community can tell, basically
ignored. This is not a good recipe for success in making a major decision for the community, whose impacts will be felt for a century or more. At the last community meeting we saw the costs of
trenching, but it was not put in context as Mr. Keene did for you in February, and we were not
given the opportunity to weigh in on all the alternatives. I think many in the community are
expecting they will have this opportunity, but the screening process I see you engaged in here puts
this assumption in doubt.
I'm concerned that Staff is making assumptions of what options the public is willing to support when the
costs, benefits, and visualizations of these options has not been made clear. For instance, past outreach to
the community has shown a lot of support of the trenching option, but I bet a lot of that support evaporates when the $1-4B price tag is put on it and it is properly put in the context of the total city budget. In this more informed context, maybe the community starts to support a raised viaduct option which provides greater
connectivity than a trench at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Staff has made a first pass at applying the criteria to the 34 options so screen out half of them. Staff should make their detailed scoring of each option public. All we see is the results of their screening, but we don't see how each option fared relative to each other or how close some of the decisions may have been.
The database of public input should be made available to the public. Presumably Staff has processed all
the input and made it more analyzable than poring through scribbled and jumbled up comments written on table cloths and distributed across several documents on meeting summaries. The website or one of the reports says this database exists, I searched for it, but could not find it.
Thank you for you time and devotion to this important decision. Regards,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/18/2018 7:37 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Ken Tam <kenkwtam@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 17, 2018 10:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Citizen Concern Regarding Rail Grade Separation
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I share the North Old Palo Alto (NOPA) Community's concern with the upcoming raid grade separation project
as a resident of the Southgate neighborhood.
There is growing concern within my local community, the North Old Palo Alto (NOPA) Community, regarding
the imminent rail grade-separation project under review by the City. We are very supportive of the coming rail
electrification and modernization initiatives, but we are concerned about the financial, community,
environmental and safety implications of a subset of the grade separation options currently under consideration,
specifically at Churchill Avenue.
Our community members have become very actively involved in the City’s Connecting Palo Alto initiative,
have attended several meetings with City staff, have read all the various research by the consultants on the
project, and have started to hold local community meetings to become activated on these issues. We believe that
there are some critically important elements missing from the current process and analyses that should be part
of the City’s core guiding principles in considering these various grade separation proposals.
Specifically, the NOPA Community members believe that the following principles are not yet adequately being
factored into the City’s process or research and should be prioritized:
(1) Complete Financial Impact, including the multi-hundred million dollar cost of Eminent Domain that would
be required in some proposals;
(2) Community Impact given that some options would eliminate dozens of families’ homes and destroy entire
neighborhoods;
(3) Leverage of Existing Infrastructure given that some options are being considered in isolation despite
massive existing adjacent investments; and,
(4) Safety Impact given that any proposals should address known safety concerns of our pedestrians and
bicycling student/children.
In order to properly communicate our concerns, we ask you to:
(a) Please read our Community Letter to Palo Alto City Council
(http://www.northoldpaloalto.org/community_letter_to_city_council), which lays out our concerns and
proposals that we believe will provide for East-West traffic flows and pedestrian safety in the most cost-
effective, community-sensitive way for the community at large.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/18/2018 7:37 AM
6
(b) Please meet with us to discuss our concerns and issues face-to-face. We would be happy to come to City
Hall or welcome you to our home(s). Please let us know what is optimal for you.
Please let us know when a meeting would be convenient for you. Many thanks in advance for your
consideration.
Regards,
Ken Tam
Southgate Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:31 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 5:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:AMI 120%
Dear Members of the PA Council,
If you are really concerned about genuinely serving LOW-INCOME people who work in Palo Alto, you must remedy the formula that you have chosen for the PA Housing Overlay. As it stands, you are pitting the PA
Housing Corp and any other low-income housing development groups against big, profit seeking developers,
and the big developers will win out most of the time. Look at the new "Luxury rental housing that you
approved and is ready now to be rented in the 400 block of Forest. I sent a photo of that development a few
weeks ago. Is that what we are in for, as BMR housing?!
Will you survey your own city workers? I have taken an informal survey and even city planners say that they
can't afford Palo Alto, unless a partner is working and there is more than one income.
Janitors, cooks, receptionists, waitresses, baristas, ( Mr. Fine, give me a break), drivers, secretaries, medical workers, cleaning folks, para-professionals, newly hired teachers, nearly all service sector employees will not
have access to this housing. You have locked up and sealed a deal for the construction of housing for the upper-
middle and upper classes. Why? This is not an example of diversity, but more of the same. And the Palo Alto
Forward group has been very deceptive in pretending to support truly LOW-INCOME housing. We have
withdrawn our names from their petition, and Peninsula WILPF voted unanimously on Saturday to not support this sham attempt at providing low income housing to our workers, especially service sector, low income
workers.
We ask that you go back to the drawing board and drop the rate from 120% to 60% and seek to build the needed
low income housing for our workers, who now travel two to three hours to reach their jobs. This would be an easy modification, and it would show workers that you are sincere about providing the grossly needed housing
for the working class.
Sincerely,
Roberta Ahlquist WILPF Low-income housing subcommittee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 11, 2018 3:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:April 9th's Council meeting
Hello Council,
I realize there are many issues and priorities on your minds but no excuse for sloppy meeting communications with the public.
You have an entire City machine to operate in an organized manner, what is going on?
Some of the people who showed up Monday for the 9:30 item (that was postponed) had no idea what you postponed the item, waited politely and patiently through several minutes, only to eventually find out later that
the item was not happening.
One or two people I understand did find out because Greg Scharff came off the dais to let those people know.
That didn't cover everyone, like anyone who was sitting down waiting.. or the people who set the time to watch the meeting at 9:30 from home.
How difficult was it to just make a few announcements for a heads up?
It's hard enough to get your attention in 2-3 minute segments, people show up to watch you, provide input, in theory to help you do your work more effectively, please do not act omnipotent and make sure to avoid this
happening again (to anyone on any issue).
Now that I got this off my chest, I otherwise look forward to following up on the actual news from your closed
session with Peter Kirsch. Since I am one of the people who were not in the room when you announced you have opted not to challenge the FAA, if you have a chance to please send me approximately what time you
made this announcement, I would appreciate it, so I can watch it on replay.
Thank you,
Jennifer
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:30 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Jo Colton <mjcolton@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 4:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Arastradero plan on the Consent calendar with SB1!
Dear Council Members,
This combination is like gerrymandering. Put one good item on the list...and sneak in an unpopular item that is not related in any way, but maybe you can get what you want, even if it isn't appropriate.
1. We have more important infrastructure issues to apply time, effort and money to than the Arastradero plan.
2. We do NOT need to spend $10M on hardscape for a system already in place and working the way it was designed. The hardscape does not add value. The current system even provides some flexibility...just in case
cars need to pull over in emergencies.
3. This looks a lot like another Ross Road...a very unsuccessful hardscape plan that has resulted in almost 1000
signatures on petition to change it.
Please separate these items.
Mary Jo Colton
Georgia Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:34 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 17, 2018 10:45 AM
To:Scharff, Greg
Cc:hilary gitelman; Council, City; joe simitian; Court Skinner; MN Letters;
gsheyner@paweekly.com; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; David Werner
Subject:Be careful what you wish for.
Dear Greg I don't think I was really clear when I spoke at the Council this evening, or rather, last night, but I thought you would be the most likely to understand because you're a lawyer in the real
estate business and you worked so hard on Maybell, which I think was the last hurrah for the system
which assumed what's good for General Motors is good for the US, i.e. that the most important goal
for a city was financial solvency. And you were so, so close! a difference of only three starter castles
between what the developer would settle for and the neighbors would put up with. And I have it on good authority (Judge Scoyan, whom I worked with at the Stanford Cellar when he was in Law
School) that every lawyer is a Constitutional lawyer, so you know all about Brown vs. Board of
Education. One of the cases in the landmark decision involved a woman in Delaware, Sarah Bulah,
who wanted a bus to take her daughter to the black school which was much farther from her home
than the white school. The attorney insisted that she apply to the white school, instead, but when she did, the judge did not agree that separate was ipso facto unequal. She didn't get to go to the white
school, nor be taken on a bus either; the judge ruled that Plessy v Ferguson was a perfectly valid law
in conformance with the US Constitution. However, he continued " ...it seems to me that when a
plaintiff shows to the satisfaction of the court that there is an existing and continuing violation of the
separate but equal doctrine, he is entitled to have made available to him the state facilities which have been shown to be superior." Bulah was awarded , not a bus, but an entire school, lock, stock
and barrel. Does that begin to sound like something you mght be worried about? Bulah went to the
Supreme Court because, even though technically Delaware had won, it was a Pyrrhic victory, and
they appealed.
In the 60's, after Sputnik, Palo Alto began a development policy of rezoning Stanford foothill land for
industry, without any provision for worker housing so Palo Alto took in lots of tax revenue, and
considered itself very virtuous, since the lion's share of the money went to the schools, which were
superb. However, life was not so rosy for the surrounding districts to which the workers went for
housing. which had no money to speak of. The superintendent of the Cupertino School district gave a talk in which he revealed that it took $42,000 in assessed value for a house to support one (1) child
in school. We had purchased our home in Los Altos , which has hardly any commerce, for $17,000
and we had four children. Homes in East Palo Alto , which had been blockbusted after the war, to
create a housing market for African Americans who had migrated to the West Coast for defense
work, from the South, were worth about half as much, and the value never rose, although the houses were satisfactory enough except for the one-car garages, because parents, at least white
parents, wouldn't buy where the schools were so poor. After Prop 13, when people were no longer
forced out of their homes by ravenous taxes, Ravenswood School District was a lawsuit waiting to
happen. When the dark-skinned plaintiffs finally found a judge who consented to take the case,
PAUSD lawyers didn't waste one day fighting it. They came to court armed with a compromise settlement admitting the Tinsley girl and a certain number of other East Palo Alto children into their
schools in perpetuity. Meanwhile, out in the Great Valley, Mr. Serrano was claiming that his child was
receiving an unequal education, and his pleas did not fall on deaf ears. For several years, every time
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:34 PM
2
Palo Alto bought a new laboratory, a new playing field, they had to supply one for a poor district--can
you imagine how that was received by the worthy burghers of Palo Alto?--until eventually the State
invented basic aid districts, which supposedly were given less state funding to balance the fact that they were richer. Here we are, flagrantly, blatantly, in violation of Brown, and Serrano as well, and we become more so every time the Palo Alto City Council adds another office building to its belt. Last
night you were supposed to discuss office limitations, and it was my intention to beg you not to permit
even one without a corresponding increase in affordable housing, but you postponed the
discussion. However, the principle is the same with the golf course. Whenever you give a money-making entity a gift which allows it to make more money--and that's what a development permit is, a gift--it redounds to the monetary robustness of the city, just as you surmise. (Of course, whenever
you add value to a human being, by, for instance, teaching him or her a marketable skill, or
contributing the stability of a home, you add value to society as a whole, but that is not a motivating
force for you.) I'm suggesting, I'm urging you to stop giving these gifts precisely because, as you suppose, they add value to real estate. Respectfully yours,
Stephanie Munoz
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:33 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jake Millan <biodieselmillan@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 17, 2018 8:24 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike Route Planning and Safety
Hello City of Palo Alto,
I am a father of two kids and live in Downtown North. I ride my bike with one of my sons almost every day along the Bryant St Bike Blvd and cannot express my gratitude for such a route and service within the City.
Having dedicated bike lanes and routes not only increases the overall quality of life in the City, but also
decreases traffic due to removing cars from the roads.
Please, please please continue to invest in the walk-ability and bike-ability of our great City, as that what sets it apart and makes people want to live and shop here.
Thank you for your continued support for bicycles and pedestrians.
-Jake Millan 206-409-5606
--
Jake Millan (206.409.5606 mobile) biodieselmillan@gmail.com
"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:31 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 5:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Both Items for Tonight
Dear City Council:
I won't be able to make it in to tonight's meeting so I will be depriving you of my dulcet tones.
As a newly minted co-chair of PAN I have been trying to get a bead on all the neighborhoods and what their
concerns are. No small feat. However, I have direct experience now of the growing rumble in south Palo Alto
regarding the contemplated transformation of the Arastradero corridor. Based on the concerns I have come to
understand, it makes sense to give a little more thought to this part of the infrastructure project and to cut Arastradero out of the grant application. Residents deserve more time to weigh in on the design, based on the
fact that the original plans are quite old and the city has changed so much in the intervening
years Circumstances have changed. Plus we don't want another Ross Road situation. Thank you for
considering my thoughts in the matter.
Additionally, with regard to the Office Cap, I urge you to continue to STOP office development anyway you
can not only in heavily saturated areas but all through Palo Alto. You say you want to address the jobs-housing
imbalance by densifying Ventura among other less well off areas of the city but if you do not stop the growth of
office, then your talk of housing is nothing but fiddle faddle. So I urge you to add some teeth to your housing
advocacy and not only continue the office cap but indeed to seek them aggressively throughout the city, until we have sorted out our housing situation. Thank you for considering my thoughts in this matter as well.
Sincerely,
Becky Sanders Ventura
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:33 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 17, 2018 9:39 AM
To:Council, City; Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalot.org
Subject:car break-ins
On Sunday I went over to the Stanford Museum and once I turned on to Museum Way there were 2 big stand
alone posters on either entrance to the parking lots and two at the other end in front of the
Cantor……. unfortunately I didn’t have my phone for a photo. They were about 3x4’ with a photo of a car with it’s window smashed….. below the image some text about making sure your car is empty of stuff and
unappealing to a quick crook.
It is time we take our heads out of the sand as everyone knows cars are fodder for crooks in shopping centers,
(but shh-we can’t talk about it). It wouldn’t take much to get these signs printed up (or some variation) to serve as a constant reminder. Way back when - there were signs all over parking lots to bring your own shopping bag —
how many times did some of us walk back to the car and get the bag because of a reminder………this is the
same thing.
Put them at entrances - smaller signs in store windows- we have nothing to lose and need to recognize our forgetfulness makes us part of the problem
What deters smash-and-grabs? Nothing — when that’s what’s in the car
SF Chron article about this exact issue. Worth reading
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/What-deters-smash-and-grabs-Nothing-when-12800256.php?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=newsletter&utm_campaign=sfc_mornin
greport&utm_campaign=email-premium&utm_source=CMS%20Sharing%20Button&utm_medium=social
Thank you for paying attention to this
Lenore Cymes
Wildwood Lane
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Meyer <meyere@concentric.net>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 1:23 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Conduct of meetings
To Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council April 16, 2018
From Elaine Meyer meyere@concentric.net
There have been a number of messages on the Weekly's Town Square and also from speakers at
Council meetings, expressing concern about the procedural anomalies that have become
common in the conduct of Council meetings.
For example,
* At the opening of Council discussion on an item, the first or second speaker proposes a Motion.
This limits the discussion to the Motion, before the conversation of the issue even begins.
It is clearly unfair to council members who are then unable to express their views.
Proper procedure requires that motions follow members' comments, not precede it.
* Sometimes the Mayor decides to speak first, preempting the discussion, before allowing others to speak.
These new procedures are undemocratic and unfair.
The norms for Chairing a municipal council are described clearly and briefly on the city website.
..."To enable the chair to be a fair guider of the discussion, the chair will typically
refrain from offering their thoughts at the beginning."
It may be useful to review "Guidelines for Meeting Management" page 2, on the city website.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/board_member_and_commissioner_resources/default.asp
and Codes of Conduct for Elected Boards www.ca-ilg.org/CodesOfConduct
These improper practices began prior to the current Mayor's term without any correction
from the City Attorney, and by continuing them, they are being normalized.
Mayor Kniss, it may be time to correct these improprieties, rather than continue them.
Sincerely,
Elaine Meyer
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:05 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Yuling Sun <sunyuling88@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 15, 2018 9:30 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Construction on Ross
Dear city council,
I’m writing to complain the project on Ross road. The construction makes the road more dangerous to
pedestrians, bikers and drivers. It forces bikes into traffic unnecessarily. The island at the crossing of Ross and east Meadow is especially dangerous. I saw cars failed to yield to
pedestrians and other cars already in the circle. They just run through because there is no stop sign
anymore. School buses and delivery trucks have hard time to go through , almost impossible to make a smooth
left turn. It causes traffic jam in the rush hours which never exist before.
You may get some emails complaining about this project. But that is only a fraction. Everyone I know in this neighborhood is not happy with this project. You should stop any similar constructions on our street. I wish you
can remove the island at the Rose/east Meadow.
Thanks!
Yuling
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:11 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzy Brown <suzybrown136@comcast.net>
Sent:Friday, April 13, 2018 9:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:eviction of homeless elderly woman from Cubberly
Before you evict the 70 (or older) woman living in her car today on , consider the message you give to
students of that school as well as the rest of us in the affluent high rent Bay Area.
The message is simple: “it is OK for wealthy, powerful people to treat fellow citizens who are impoverished enough, in
part by local housing conditions created and maintained by the wealthy and powerful, as if their humanity has so little
worth that they may be cruelly and inhumanely evicted.”
please provide this woman with secure permanent housing, please treat her with compassion.
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:11 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 13, 2018 12:03 AM
To:letters@padailypost.com; MN Letters; letters@paweekly.com; Clerk, City; Council, City;
citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Aram James; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Mary
Wisnewski; neighborshelpingneighbors2013; Bains, Paul; Robert Aguirre; Paul George
@ PPJC; HRC; Jason Green; DNG Letters
Subject:Re: Let Sleep in Her Car at
(this has been cut to 247 words)
April 12, 2018
To the Editor:
A frail woman in her seventies sleeps in her car at in Palo Alto. She's been told
The City is evicting her as of Friday (today). I ask every person who reads this to write and call the
Palo Alto City Council to ask them to suspend the "De Facto Homeless Shelter Ban" at
became a focus and locus of homeless camping and parking a few years ago and Palo Alto
evicted the homeless after City Manager Jim Keene declared a "de facto homeless
shelter." Like that was a bad thing.
Jim is wrong. If Palo Alto made even this small step toward recognition and solution-- by welcoming
what it used to tolerate-- homeless camping and parking at it could signal a reversal of
years of homeless persecution and the beginning of a policy of homeless relief. It wouldn't solve the
whole problem but it would be a step in the right direction. And it would be something Palo Alto could
be proud of.
was a community resource for all to enjoy and benefit from. Why shouldn't it be one now?
The once-common resource is now only for the whiter, wealthier folks. The campers used
to rent and own, and teach school, and were trades people. Then they became evictees.
Isn't it time to change this mean, cruel, unnecessarily exclusionary and selfish policy?
Let sleep in her car at Write/call the Palo Alto City Council. Please.
Chuck Jagoda
495 N Wolfe Rd.
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
516.398.5100
chuckjagoda1@gmail.com
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:09 PM, chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> wrote:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:11 AM
3
April 11, 2018
To the Editor:
A frail woman in her seventies sleeps in her car at in Palo Alto. The City is
making its statement on homelessness by evicting her from sleeping there on Friday of this
week. I'm writing to ask every person who reads this to write and call the Palo Alto City Council to
ask them to suspend the "De Facto Homeless Shelter Ban" at
In Palo Alto, Mountain View and other local cities, people living in RVs on residential streets and
even on El Camino at Stanford has occupied a lot of time and attention. It's an obvious and repeated
scene resulting from the increasing rarity of affordable housing.
became a focus
/locus
of homeless camping and parking a few years ago and Palo Alto evicted the homeless after Jim Keene
(Palo Alto City Manager) declared a "de facto homeless shelter." And you could tell from
the way he said it, he didn't think it was something to be proud of.
I think Jim is wrong. If Palo Alto made even this small step toward recognition and attempted to
contribute to a solution-- by welcoming what it used to tolerate-- homeless camping and parking at
it would signal a reversal of years of homeless persecution and the beginning of a policy
of homeless relief. It wouldn't solve the whole problem but it would be a step in the right direction. I
think that's something Palo Alto could be
very
proud of.
used to treated as a community resource for all to enjoy and benefit from. Then, in 2013 it
all changed. The once-common resource was only to be for the whiter, wealthier folks who lived
around the Stories and fear mongering worked their way into the mouths of local
politicians (e.g. Liz Kniss) and became a resource only for those who could afford rent or
home ownership. The homeless who camped at used to be home owners and renters in
Palo Alto, teachers of local children, and trades folk. Then they became evictees.
Isn't it time to change this mean, cruel, unnecessarily harsh and selfish policy?
Let sleep in her car at Write/call the Palo Alto City Council. Please.
Chuck Jagoda
495 N Wolfe Rd.
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
516.398.5100
chuckjagoda1@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:11 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 8:19 PM
To:Robert Aguirre
Cc:chuck jagoda; letters@padailypost.com; MN Letters; letters@paweekly.com; Clerk, City;
Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Mary
Wisnewski; neighborshelpingneighbors2013; Bains, Paul; Paul George @ PPJC; HRC;
Jason Green; DNG Letters; Alan Hebert; Mary Wisnewski; Aparna Ananthasubramaniam;
Carolyn Schwartz
Subject:Re: Let Sleep in Her Car at
Excellent letter Robert Aguirre!!
Thanks, Aram James
Sent from my iPhone On Apr 12, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Robert Aguirre <robert_j_aguirre@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello Alan Hebert,
I believe Chuck is correct in bringing a name and a place to the problem being experienced
every day by thousands living throughout Santa Clara county and who knows the numbers throughout California, the country and the world. Putting a name and a face on this problem makes it personal and easier with which to identify and possibly do something. A letter that
does not make it personal is easily dismissed a few seconds after reading, by most people.
Perhaps bringing this to light, someone with compassion and a kind heart and the means to
help this frail senior citizen living in her car and save her from the thousands of creeps in the Peninsula might victimize her and what little she might possess. You may be just the person to help her!
There are other people staying at so there is a community, much the same
as in your neighborhood. Those people probably know each other better than you know
most of your neighbors; they watch out for each other, after all, they are all they have. Thank you Chuck for bringing this to everyone's attention. I hope they all get to stay there, safe in their community and gets the help she needs.
Regards,
Robert Aguirre On Wednesday, April 11, 2018, 11:31:29 PM PDT, Alan Hebert <alanhsails@yahoo.com> wrote:
Chuck, did you stop to think that if this is published you just told thousands of people that a
vulnerable "frail" senior woman is sleeping in her car at If your letter is published,
every single creep on the Peninsula will know that someone they could victimize is sleeping in
her car at You even told them her name.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:11 AM
6
I hope that the newspapers have enough sense to not publish this, or at least heavily edit it..
From: chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
To: letters@padailypost.com; MN Letters <letters@mercurynews.com>; letters@paweekly.com;
"Clerk, City" <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org;
citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>; Mary Wisnewski <spinnity@gmail.com>;
neighborshelpingneighbors2013 <neighborshelpingneighbors2013@gmail.com>; Paul Bains
<pbains7@projectwehope.com>; Robert Aguirre <robert j aguirre@yahoo.com>; "Paul George
@ PPJC" <peaceandjusticecenter@gmail.com>; hrc@cityofpaloalto.org; Jason Green
<jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com>; DNG Letters <letters@dailynewsgroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 11:09 PM
Subject: Let Sleep in Her Car at
April 11, 2018
To the Editor:
A frail woman in her seventies sleeps in her car at in Palo Alto. The
City is making its statement on homelessness by evicting her from sleeping there on
Friday of this week. I'm writing to ask every person who reads this to write and call the
Palo Alto City Council to ask them to suspend the "De Facto Homeless Shelter Ban" at
In Palo Alto, Mountain View and other local cities, people living in RVs on residential
streets and even on El Camino at Stanford has occupied a lot of time and attention. It's
an obvious and repeated scene resulting from the increasing rarity of affordable
housing.
became a focus
/locus
of homeless camping and parking a few years ago and Palo Alto evicted the homeless
after Jim Keene (Palo Alto City Manager) declared a "de facto homeless
shelter." And you could tell from the way he said it, he didn't think it was something to
be proud of.
I think Jim is wrong. If Palo Alto made even this small step toward recognition and
attempted to contribute to a solution-- by welcoming what it used to tolerate-- homeless
camping and parking at it would signal a reversal of years of homeless
persecution and the beginning of a policy of homeless relief. It wouldn't solve the whole
problem but it would be a step in the right direction. I think that's something Palo Alto
could be
very proud of.
used to treated as a community resource for all to enjoy and benefit
from. Then, in 2013 it all changed. The once-common resource was only to be for the
whiter, wealthier folks who lived around the campus. Stories and fear mongering
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:11 AM
7
worked their way into the mouths of local politicians (e.g. Liz Kniss) and
became a resource only for those who could afford rent or home ownership. The
homeless who camped at used to be home owners and renters in Palo Alto,
teachers of local children, and trades folk. Then they became evictees.
Isn't it time to change this mean, cruel, unnecessarily harsh and selfish policy?
Let sleep in her car at Write/call the Palo Alto City Council. Please.
Chuck Jagoda
495 N Wolfe Rd.
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
516.398.5100
chuckjagoda1@gmail.com
Virus-free. www.avast.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:11 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:
Dear Council Members and City Manager,
People who have cars to sleep in are lucky. They aren't in your backyard or on the street. Let sleep in her car at It's time for
more humane treatment of our residents, our neighbors. It's unconstitutional and illegal to not let people sleep in
their vehicles.
Roberta Ahlquist, WILPF Low-income Housing Subcommittee Member
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:32 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 6:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Finance Committee
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Elected Council Members:
Re: Finance Committee
As the City of Palo Alto’s revenue streams increase year after year, and its spending increases in like manner, the complexities of oversight of these vast sums falls on the Finance Committee before these matters are brought before the
full Council.
The Finance Committee currently meets once a month for only three, or more hours. Sometimes the business before the
Committee drives the meetings beyond three hours, making it difficult for both Committee members, Staff and the public to sit through the entirety of these meetings, as well as to offer the keenest of attention to all of the night’s business.
As an interested member of the community, I would like to suggest that the Finance Committee meet twice a month, for a fixed schedule of three hours. This would provide more time to the Committee and public to discuss, or educate itself,
about the matters facing the City’s finances than is currently available.
The Council is encouraged to consider this matter and direct the Finance Committee members to increase its meetings to
twice a month.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:00 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 13, 2018 11:51 PM
To:Constantino, Mary; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Council, City; Kan, Michael;
Jonsen, Robert; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Lee, Craig
Subject:From the archives —Police Board has a problem.....
>
> > > Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:30 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 4:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: SB1 and Arastradero
-
To the Palo Alto City Council,
On tonight's consent calendar there is an item that includes an SB1 proposal for funds for
improvement of infrastructure, connected with
approval for the Arastradero improvement. Firstly you must have the message that most of
us in the Arastradero area do not like what has
already been done with the striping changes. This street is one of the few east/west
corridors in Palo Alto. Plus with our overspent budget,
why spend millions for 'improving' a system that is already working the way you want it to,
even if not agreeable to many of us.
These funds do not have to be used for Arascadero, the items need to be separated.,
especially considering other needs of the city, and
the state of our city budget. You have seen how the extreme construction on Ross Rd.
caused an uproar, and resulted in 1000 signatures on
a petition to change the design. This can happen here as well, plus the extreme plans for
Charleston. There are other needs the city
needs much more. Arascadero needs to be a separate, or a moot issue.
The headline in the Daily Post today : Anemic Support for New Taxes, (for
infrastructure) You polled 1,191 residents, wish you had polled
more, as more taxes are not supported by many residents. Further says POLL: Sales, parcel
taxes would fail. Palo Alto need to be fiscally
responsible, especially with the very high retirement benefits for city employees
etc. What do we really need? El Camino really needs
repair, in my opinion.
You might do a poll asking us what we think is important.
Sincerely
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:31 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 5:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Item 4, Consent Calendar
Dear Honorable City Council Members,
I’m writing to ask you to support staff’s recommendation to adopt the fiscal year 2019 list of projects proposed in the Attachment B resolution (Item 4, Consent Claendar).
Implementation of the Charleston Arastradero Plan is long overdue. The current striping was intended as a paint trial to see if the city could maintain road operations with a lane reduction. The trial was successful maintaining point-to-point travel times. Safety improvements have not been implemented yet.
The assumption that the current configuration is safe for bicycles (or for cars, for that matter) is not born out by the continuing collisions that occur on the corridor. Further, it ignores the fact that bike lanes still completely
disappear on the approaches to the dangerous El Camino state highway intersection. It also ignores the
signalization and lane capacity improvements at Terman that would be included in the hardscape implementation to improve road operations. Finally, it ignores the proposed off-road multi-use paths that will
enable wrong-way student bicyclists from land-locked neighborhoods south of Arastradero to get safely off the
street. These are just a few of the safety and operations improvements that will come with the final project.
This project is designed with emergency needs in mind. In an emergency, a car may pull over into the bike
lane (as they do today in emergencies). The project is designed with mountable medians for emergency
vehicles.
Charleston-Arastradero, a residential arterial that carries nearly 16-20,000 cars per day, depending on which
segment of the road you are looking at, serves eleven public and private schools. The project has been
extensively studied over 15 years. Many of the final implementation improvements will facilitate better operations as well as improving safety. These improvements could not be implemented without hardscape
changes. After more than a decade of testing and repeated unanimous approvals, it is critically important to implement the project before grade separation occurs to maintain safety and operations for all road users in
coming years.
Please adopt the list of projects, including Charleston-Arastradero Plan.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Penny Ellson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/18/2018 12:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kniss, Liz (internal)
Sent:Wednesday, April 18, 2018 11:37 AM
To:Nadia Naik
Cc:Mello, Joshuah; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Gitelman, Hillary; De Geus, Robert; Council,
City; info
Subject:Just FYI
Filseth, Tom and I are all recused on rail issues unless the FPPC gives a different interpretation.
On Apr 18, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> wrote:
I would like to clarify one thing related to what Elizabeth wrote - only one track for freight is
needed if freight was kept at the surface. We would have room for bike/ped and or even a
busway at the surface within the ROW.
Nadia
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <elizabeth@calhsr.com> Date: Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Alternative for south Palo Alto - bored tunnel exclusive for electric trains
To: "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Nadia Naik <nadianaik@calhsr.com>
The city should seriously evaluate a bored tunnel for the south Palo Alto grade
separations that leaves one track at the surface for freight trains. Previous
considerations of tunnels assumed very expensive configurations - either 4 tracks or
very large diameter to accommodate double stack freight.
The community has voiced strong support for an underground alternative given the high volume
of trains anticipated and the use of the crossings by pedestrians and cyclists of all ages. Current
development on either side of the corridor is almost exclusively residential.
The current alternatives being considered are designed to accommodate the handful of
freight trains today, as well as the requirements that high speed rail has for its mainline
sections where it plans to travel at speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/18/2018 12:23 PM
2
Split configuration has precedence
There is precedent for this split configuration concept in the East Bay where several
trenches for the BART extension have a surface track for freight.
Caltrain and high speed rail will exclusively use low profile, high powered trains at a
maximum speed of 110 mph.
In January, Caltrain announced that it now plans to use an all electric fleet and is seeking grant
money for the additional trains. This fleet will have a relatively low profile and handle
significant slopes. There is precedent with both BART and LA Metro for much required lower
clearance levels for their exclusive tracks from CPUC. High speed rail trains will be lower but
may travel slightly faster. It should be noted that the requirements in high speed rail technical memorandum that were cited in the alternatives document would not apply to the Caltrain
corridor - these were designed for very high speeds which require large bores. The actual bore
size could be much closer to the current San Francisco tunnels which are less than 20 feet high.
Another reference point would be the tunnels in Zurich that accommodate the same trains that
Caltrain will purchase.
There are no stations in south Palo Alto
Bored tunnels can be very expensive, but the high cost of some recent projects relates to excavation required for stations or safety measures required for long (6 miles+) bores. In areas
without stations, relatively short tunnels are surprisingly low cost. The tunneling costs for the
Central Subway in San Francisco was only $300 million and was done on time and on budget
while the stations cost $1.5 billion. New water tunnels were recently bored alongside the
Dumbarton bridge. These were quite large and done quickly and inexpensively.
The current alternatives being considered will likely have costs multiple times initial
estimates
Surface construction of any grade separation that involves an existing active rail corridor and a
heavily used adjacent roadway can be surprisingly expensive - with final costs multiple times
original cost estimates. The requirements to maintain rail and automobile traffic take projects
that could take 6 months and turn them into multiple year projects where the work is done in
small chunks over nights and weekends. There are very high labor costs and significant lasting impacts to residents and traffic. Significant diversions could be required which would be a real
challenge for our school bicyclists.
In addition, there are many utilities that run along and across the corridor. A story in today's LA
Times shows costs for relocation of just two utilities in Fresno for the high speed rail project will be almost 6 times higher than originally forecast. In the Central Valley, utility relocation
costs will be higher than the civil work for grade separations.
Mountain View
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/18/2018 12:23 PM
3
The issues with the Rengstorff crossing are similar to those with Charleston and Meadow.
Mountain View is currently planning to fully lower both Rengstorff and Central Expressway.
This will be extraordinarily expensive and disrupt traffic from Palo Alto for many years. It will also be a problem for bicycle networks. This same concept would work well there. We could
not only partner with the city for the necessary variances but boring machines could be used for
both projects.
Elon Musk This is not a joke. He wants to practice building tunnels the same length as what would
be required in Palo Alto. We should at least have a conversation.
-- Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis
Co-founder Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD)
cell (650) 996-8018
www.calhsr.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:35 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 4:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Letter to the Editor in the POST
car camping
is about an 70 some frail woman sleeping in her car at
.
The city is evicting her, HAVE a HEART. Is this high brow city too good for folks that
haven't
'made it?' There must be churches or some city facility for people who need help. It
could
be any one of our relatives. Lydia Ku had a great idea of creating a place where at least
folks in campers could park at night with facilities for them.
Jim Keene , several years ago, declared a de facto homeless shelter: Is that
a bad thing. This city
is becoming more and more elitist, where is our compassion, putting ourselves in
another's
foot prints?
Can't you as a whole, being representative of all of us, help this lady and find her a safe
place.
This letter written by a man from Sunnyvale.
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jane Parks-McKay <janerparksmckay@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 13, 2018 12:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
We are very concerned about the state of the homeless in Palo Alto and other areas. My late Mom used to tell me
during the depression, there was a whole different mindset about people and their compassion toward others. Respect
and mutual empathy reigned and instead of looking at those who fall on hard times as being pariah’s, people would help
others.
I’m a former reporter who did a series on homelessness in Santa Cruz County. One of the things I learned in my
interviews and research was that so MANY in that predicament are like you and me, something catastrophic happens
such as a medical event, and things spiral downwards.
I interviewed so many wonderful people who had once been homeowners, employed and had families.
I also learned that this could happen to any of us and all it takes is one thing to change things.
I’m telling this story because I know there must be another way of treating the homeless in Palo Alto. It is not a badge of
honor to “clean out” the homeless population and deny the last thing we can: shelter to those who have fallen on hard
times. I also learned that around 10% of those who are homeless at least at that point were mentally ill, many turned on
the street when institutions changed their policies and they were “too much” for a family to take care of.
Whatever is decided to deal with this issue, can we instill compassion and empathy and start thinking of outside the box.
We live on the ocean cliffs above Capitola and we see a variety of situations in this affluent area. We have seen
homeless park cars, or campers, we have seen people stow their belongings in the brush to come back and sleep in the
ivy. None have disturbed us and I would never think about reporting them to authorities or asking them to leave unless
necessary. Where would they go? In cases like this, what I have done is offer something to tide them over whether it be
food but mostly a kind encouraging word. I have also asked them if they know about the many resources that are
available to them and in one case, when we saw a wheelchair man who was an ailing senior, I called the homeless
services center who went down and did a welfare case, or to call the authorities.
The bottom line of course is there are many ways of dealing with a situation. I encourage your lovely City (of which I am
personally connected to), to think outside the box and not resort to knee‐jerk reactions such as “not in my backyard”,
etc. There are salutations and while they may not be perfect ones, don’t you think if you were in their shoes, what
would you want?
Warmly,
Jane Parks‐McKay
4715 Opal Cliff Drive
Santa Cruz,CA 95062
(831) 475–0588
janerparksmckay@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jessica Yang <jessyang325@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 14, 2018 11:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:My son almost got hit when biking on Ross Rd a couple of weeks ago!!!
Dear City Council,
As a very concerned resident, I must bring this issue to your attention. The so called "bike boulevard" project on Ross Rd does nothing, but makes biking more dangerous!
My son bikes to JLS every day on Ross Rd since 6th grade. Before the construction began early this year, he
had enjoyed the biking experience very much.
However, now, Ross Rd is so narrow. He has to bike in front of cars instead on the side. He just told me he
almost got hit by a car a couple of weeks ago. The car was soooo close to him. He was very scared. Now, he
hates biking to school, especially in the morning rush hour!
I demand the city to stop the construction on Ross and reverse the street back to its original condition! The 'bike boulevard" is the most ridiculous and stupid project I have ever seen. It not only wastes tax payers money,
but also SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE the chance of traffic accidents. Kids are forced into traffic when biking
to school everyday. If an accident happens, the city should take full responsibility.
There have been 910 people signed the petition on Change.org to stop the project. Now, you know how much residents hate the project. STOP IT NOW!
Sincerely,
Jessica Yang a resident on Sutter Ave.
408-802-1760
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Yanqing Guan <guanyanqing@hotmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 13, 2018 5:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please stop all the constructions on Ross road and other areas of Palo Alto streets
Hi City Council,
We live very close to Ross road. After the construction on Ross road, I found it is more dangerous when driving
or biking on it. My daughter bikes on Ross to JLS everyday. She said she felt dangerous when passing the
planter areas which stick out to the road because planter areas make the road narrower than before,
especially when a car needs to pass at the same time. She has the same dangerous feeling when she passes
the roundabout on the intersection of Ross and East Meadow because of the narrower road. As I know, there
are another 10 intersections will be changed as roundabout in Palo Alto. Please stop the constructions as soon
as possible. This 8+ million project doesn't make "the traffic calming", instead it increases the danger of
accidents on the roads. Please use our tax money wisely.
Thanks,
Yanqing
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:32 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nicole Kathleen Hemenway <nkhem@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 10:27 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please suspend the De Facto Homeless Shelter Ban
To the Palo Alto City Council:
My name is Nicole Hemenway. I was born in Stanford Hospital and grew up in a Palo Alto home that my family
owns. I attended Palo Alto's public schools until I left the area to attend UC Berkeley, and now I work as a
software engineer at an edtech startup in downtown Palo Alto. On the side, I volunteer my time in a
leadership capacity to a local ballot initiative campaign that I believe deeply in ‐ the Campaign to Recall Judge
Persky.
I find it very saddening that we as a community are enforcing the de facto homeless shelter ban at Cubberley
that further disenfranchises some of the most disenfranchised members of our community. I'm
particularly ashamed to be a relatively powerful member of this community, and that in my ignorance to this
issue and thus silence about it, I feel I have been complicit in our city's attempts at pushing out our homeless
population.
Rather than focusing efforts on pushing these homeless community members out of our community, we
should be focusing efforts on creating attractive alternatives to camping out at Cubberley that would actually
help the homeless regain their footing. However, as long as camping out at Cubberley is the best viable option
for many in our community due to our failure to provide them adequate support and resources, we cannot
conscionably treat banning them from camping at Cubberley as part of our solution to our community's
problem with homelessness. The money that we have set aside to helping them is clearly not enough or
has not been wisely spent, as evidenced by the fact that homeless people have continued to try to camp out
at Cubberley.
Palo Alto needs to be a city that looks out for everyone in our community ‐ not just wealthy homeowners,
which is who this ban is meant to appease. While homeowners may literally own parts of the city, please do
not allow them to own city government, to the detriment of the most marginalized members of our
community.
I urge you to suspend the de facto homeless shelter ban at Cubberley, and I hope to see aggressive moves on
the part of City Council to allot resources to lifting up our homeless population rather than pushing them out.
Respectfully,
Nicole Hemenway
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:04 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 15, 2018 12:58 AM
To:Stephanie Munoz
Cc:Filseth, Eric (Internal); M. Gallagher; roberta ahlquist; Ruth Chippendale; WILPF
Peninsula Palo Alto; Council, City
Subject:Re: car light parking.
I only read the first sentence or so (I'll read it all late) but I must disagree, Dear Stephanie, with your
agreement with Deputy Mayor Filseth. The NIMBY about car camping is just another form of selfish
hoarding.
The approach should not be deciding whose space is whose, but how to share and make it work best
for all.
If a person really wanted to have the people who park on his/her street to go elsewhere--- get behind
(or start) a campaign to make City parking garages available, and develop a Safe Parking Lot at
Baylands or look for other good spots.
For once, Palo Alto--- please stop finding ways and reasons and rights to say "NO," and look for ways
to find room for all.
Don't buy the Scarcity Doctrine so popular with Big Energy, Big Armaments, and Big Finance. There
really IS enough land, energy, and money for all. We just have to rearrange a few things. Some things
are already in the works: the huge wave of conversion to renewables in spite or a complete lack of
government support, the rise of decentralize currencies like bitcoin, the legalization of weed in state
after state because it makes sense-- despite an 87 period of having greedy, puritanical, racists pull the
wool over our eyes.
The pivoting of Palo Alto from homeless criminalization to homeless relief will be a milestone in the
moral history of Palo Alto.
Stop condemning where the poor park (a REAL waste of time and VERY un Christ-like), and get busy
looking for better locations for all concerned.
It would be the modern equivalent of "Instead of cursing the darkness, light a single candle."
Chuck
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Dear Vice mayor Filseth:
Nobody could disagree with you about antagonism raised by dumping extraneous parking on a neighborhood street. I have often thought that the numerous objections to poor people in a
neighborhood are really objections to the extra cars competing for free parking. But why can't you
issue neighborhood parking permits? Either paid or free, just as you like. (I believe also that it's
appropriate to permit RVs to park on El Camino, but it should be permit parking and they should pay
for the permits, enough to support at least a waste collection station either in Palo Alto or elsewhere). If the parking places were all taken, and the newcomers weren't issued permits, why
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:04 AM
2
would they be a problem? If new garages are going to be built somewhere, why couldn't cars also
rent space during the night, and go away in the morning so that workers' cars could be garaged?
It's true that poor people have almost as many cars as wealthy ones, but there is one large, and growing population that do not; it is the seniors, who no longer need to drive to work, often have their
driver's license taken away, and have trouble paying for the maintenance of the car: license, smog,
insurance, fuel, repairs. Why doesn't Palo Alto solicit a development of low income social security
recipients: retirees and SSI, to rent bedroom suites in an attractive hotel, beautifully landscaped, with some amenities in common, such as a pool, computer room or gym., and, most essential, a van to take residents over to the bus or train. Start with the many long waiting lists of would-be tenants; find
out who do not have cars or would be willing to go without one. It could be owned by PAHC, but I'd
like to see it privately owned, with an affordable rent ($600. because the lowest social security check
is $900.) It would be rent controlled. The bedrooms would be SROs--200 square feet, so there could be twice as many people housed as in studios, which are 400-500 square feet. The proposed Wilton Court development is, I believe, 60 studios, so in the same enclosed space you could house
twice as many.
You created a new company, I think, but the City of Palo Alto didn't indicate any space where housing for your employees could go. Not your fault, not your responsibility. But now you're on the
city council and it is your responsibility. I think giant companies should build housing nearby for their
workers, just as I think the school district should build teacher housing. It seems to me a practical
idea to stabilize labor costs, but realistically, if the companies thought so, they would have done it on
their own. However, a partial solution would be to build a hotel for social security and disabled persons who don't drive, or at least are willing to live without a car nearby, and have a 24 hour bus
or van service. There'd have to be 250 or three hundred to be economically feasible, but that's
comparable to 101 Alma, which has only a hundred units, but two hundred bedrooms, nearly three
times the area, and that hasn't lowered property values, has it? Many older people would move out
of their large homes in exchange for the convenience, freeing them for families. Different authorities work at manipulating people into leaving their cars; I think it would be nice it you gave us some
positive incentive not to drive.
Stephanie Munoz
--
Chuck
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:marionparr@gmail.com on behalf of Marion Parr <marion@parrcarr.com>
Sent:Friday, April 13, 2018 11:34 AM
To:DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal);
Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Comp Plan encourages cottage clusters: 850 Boyce project will kill its cottage
cluster
Dear Madame Mayor Kniss, Mr Vice Mayor Filseth, and Palo Alto City Council members Tom DuBois, Adrian
Fine, Karen Holman, Lydia Kou, Greg Scharff, Greg Tanaka and Cory Wohlbach,
I've been following the saga on the proposed remodel of 850 Boyce and the cottage cluster it's inside. I'm emailing
comments you as the hearings make it apparent that while the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan strongly encourages
the retention of cottage clusters, the City of Palo Alto hasn't put any guidelines in place about how to do that. So the
proposed 850 Boyce project is being designed with guidelines for stand-alone projects, which puts it completely out-of-scale with the other cottages in the cluster of which it is 25% of the whole. Allowing the current implementation of the 850
Boyce project will kill the cluster it is in, which is opposite the goal of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
There is an understated yet intentional architectural design of cottage clusters in Palo Alto. For the 850 Boyce cottage
cluster in particular, it’s been interesting to watch the two remodels that have already occurred there, and to see how those remodels have fit within the perspective of the whole piece of the cluster. The current cottage cluster including 850
Boyce Avenue, looks like this.
When I read that a third cottage in the cluster was going to be remodeled, I was curious to see how that remodel was
going to fit in. When I saw the drawing, I was surprised that the design was so much bigger than the other cottages
in the cluster and wondered how it would be modified to fit within the cottage cluster. But, when I saw the 850
Boyce Ave model (to scale model pictured below, 850 Boyce is the two story house) it was obvious that the 850 Boyce
Ave proposed project is out-of-scale for the cottage cluster, and will totally overwhelm the cluster. So I decided to come and listen to the Directors hearings to find out why.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:53 AM
2
At the Directors hearings, I learned that the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan “recognize(s) the contribution of cottage
cluster housing” and wants to “retain and encourage this type of development.” (Policy L-3-3) Part of the
definition of cottage clusters is that they are “arranged around a common lawn or green area” (page 287, Comp
Plan). Given those statements of policy, it’s been a contradiction to sit at the Directors meetings and look at the model, which shows a house far larger than the other cottages, looms over the other structures, and ignores the goal of being
arranged around a common area or lawn. It’s already been demonstrated that remodels can be effectively and sensitively completed in this cottage cluster, as the back two cottages have already been remodeled, and in both cases, those parts
don't overwhelm the whole, and gather around the common area. But in looking at the model, the proposed 850 Boyce project is so large and out-of-scale, ignoring the common area, that it threatens to overwhelm the cottage cluster
completely. Allowing one part of the cottage cluster to overtake and overwhelm the whole cluster will both kill the
cluster, and is antithetical to Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Policy to retain and encourage cottage clusters. As noted earlier, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value of cottage clusters and wants to retain and encourage cottage cluster development, which is a great first step. From the prior meetings about this project, it doesn't
sound like the Comp Plan has spelled out how to retain cottage clusters, which would be the next step. If Palo Alto hasn't formulated guidelines on how to retain cottage clusters, it would be a mistake to shoehorn the out-of-scale
design of 850 Boyce Ave into this existing cottage cluster using rules that don’t apply for cottage clusters.
If there are no existing guidelines on how to build within a cottage cluster, the Planning Department and/or the
City of Palo Alto has the opportunity to take the time to create the guidelines and rules that make clear how to
retain and encourage cottage clusters, as per the Comp Plan. Creating those guidelines would help the applicant be able to meet the requirements of the Comp Plan and fit their project within the whole of the cottage cluster. Please don't
penalize this existing cottage cluster, and try to jam in an overly large project, just because the City of Palo Alto
hasn’t yet taken the time to create the guidelines to meet its own goal of retaining cottage clusters. If you allow
this project as design, the proposed 850 Boyce project will kill this cottage cluster.
Thank you for receiving my input. Marion Parr
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:35 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Laurie Barrett, PhD <lbarrettphd@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 17, 2018 12:38 PM
To:Transportation; Council, City
Subject:Re: Middlefield Road Corridor
City of Palo Alto Transportation Department and City Council:
Once again, I am communicating my serious concern about the traffic accidents at the corner of Middlefield and Forest. Critical accidents at this site have become a monthly occurrence. In fact, over the past 10 months, I have
documented these accidents:
7/19/17 12:50 pm
8/16/17 8:30 am 10/24/17 11:15 am
10/24/17 2 pm (yes, 2 accidents in the same day)
11/7/17 12:40 pm
2/22/18 8:45 am
3/22/18 9:50 am 4/17/18 12:25 pm
I am in my office 6 hours a day, 3 days a week. I can only imagine the many more accidents that occur the other
hours outside of those 18 hours/week. I urge the transportation department to do something about this before
another preventable serious injury - or death - occurs. Eight accidents in 10 months seems excessive by
any measure.
I am sending this email to the transportation department as well as the city council, who may not be aware of
this high-risk intersection. I will also be sending the information to the local newspapers.
Laurie Barrett, PhD
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:34 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Erica Brand <erica.w.brand@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 17, 2018 9:53 AM
To:Karen Hendricks
Cc:Council, City; Berkson, Jerry; Paly Principal; Tanaka, Greg; Judd Volino; DuBois, Tom;
Adam Brand; Mello, Joshuah
Subject:Re: PAUSD to grant Easement for City of Palo Alto to begin safety improvements at
where Churchill intersects Castilleja Ave.
(minus the Police and the Palo Alto Weekly)
Dear Ms. Hendricks,
Please advise the best way for me to follow up with Ken Dauber and Todd Collins.
Will you please send an introduction?
Thank you, Erica Brand
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Erica Brand <erica.w.brand@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Karen.
I am correcting Joshuah Mello's email address in the cc chain, and adding a link to this
relevant article in the Palo Alto High School Magazine Verde.
http://verdemagazine.com/cycles-of-change-city-responds-to-bike-safety-concerns
The article describes the Sept. 2016 accident at the same spot and includes the following
quotation, which resonates with my family:
"However, even more shocking to Chu was that, following the accident, no permanent
measures were taken to improve the safety of the intersection."
Looking forward to working together to find safer solutions for that busy intersection.
Best Regards, Erica Brand On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Karen Hendricks <khendricks@pausd.org> wrote:
Hi Erica,
Thanks so much for contacting me. I was terribly sorry to hear about this accident in February, and your daughter’s
injuries. I can only imagine how scary and impactful this was for her and for your family.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:34 PM
2
Please know that I’ll review your email thoroughly upon my return to the office this week, and will also share it with
Trustees Ken Dauber and Todd Collins, who are the Board Members assigned to the School / City Liaison Committee.
Sincerely Yours,
Karen
Karen Hendricks
Interim Superintendent
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
25 CHURCHILL AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94306
(650) 329-3983
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE TO RECIPIENT(S): This e-mail communication and any attachment(s) may contain information
that is confidential and/or privileged by law and is meant solely for the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized use, review, duplication, disclosure or interception of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you received this e-mail in error please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:34 PM
3
From: Erica Brand [mailto:erica.w.brand@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 6:06 PM
To: Karen Hendricks <khendricks@pausd.org>
Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; pd@cityofpaloalto.org; Jerry Berkson <jberkson@pausd.org>; Paly Principal
<palyprincipal@pausd.org>; editor@paweekly.com; greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org;
joshua.mello@cityofpaloalto.org; Judd Volino <kazalino@kazalino.com>; tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org; Adam Brand
<adamdbrand@gmail.com>
Subject: PAUSD to grant Easement for City of Palo Alto to begin safety improvements at where Churchill intersects
Castilleja Ave.
Dear Superintendent Hendricks,
On Feb 12, 2018, my daughter was hit by a car in the crosswalk at the intersection at Churchill and
Castilleja Ave, immediately south of the Paly football field.
This intersection has been dangerous for a long time. I participated in meetings trying to find a solution in Oct
2016 after another student was hit by a car, and I was left with the understanding that a crossing guard was
not possible, but that the City Council would implement specific planned improvements.
My daughter suffered road rash, a badly sprained tendon in her ankle, and many cuts and bruises. Her
accident could have been far worse, but fortunately when her head hit the ground her helmet protected her head. She cracked a section of that helmet all the way through. My daughter spent 3 hours at Stanford ER,
and we have been in and out of doctor’s offices ever since. The accident has had severe effects on her
school performance— you know how much homework a Paly sophomore needs to do—and it was incredibly scary.
Actions are needed to make this intersection safer for the students who face a high level of traffic, often with no break in the flow of cars. Presently the signage and physical setup does not offer sufficient protection of the students. There have been many discussions and proposals on how to make this busy intersection more
safe for the students and commuters who use it daily, including:
Installing a raised crosswalk, with flashing lights
Installing a traffic light
Hiring a crossing guard
Blocking traffic between Castilleja and Alma on Churchill
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:34 PM
4
Please see the plans, shared with me by Councilman Dubois’s office, that have been approved since Jan
2015. Please see a link to a descriptive slideset about the intersection.
My understanding is that the next step is for PAUSD to grant an easement [for] the CIty of Palo Alto.
Is that correct?
Can it be done by April 30? If not then, when?
If that is not the correct step, please clarify what needs to happen next.
How can I help? Let’s work together to fix this before anyone else is hurt.
Best Regards, Erica Brand
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:30 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joe Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 4:41 PM
To:James Colton; Council, City
Subject:Re: SB1 proposal and Arastradero Plan
Dear Council members,
I concur with most of what Jim Colton has said below. However, if
the Arastradero Road is working as designed, please understand
that that means hour-long traffic jams at least 3-4 times each
workday, year around. Extending from ECR to the Foothill
Expressway. What used to take me roughly 90 seconds or so to
come from ECR to my home, now can take nine minutes. And that
is only 3/4 mile. Most people avoid making left turns onto
Arastradero as, at times, it can be much less safe than before the
new striping was implemented, as cars are generally riding in one
lane on each side of the roadway, whereas before drivers had two.
In all, most people are extremely unhappy with what has happened
to Arastradero. A new neighborhood review before concrete is
added would be worthwhile, to avoid another Ross Road-type
situation, as Jim Colton has suggested below.
Joe Hirsch
Georgia Avenue
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Colton
Sent: Apr 16, 2018 3:06 PM To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: SB1 proposal and Arastradero Plan
Dear City Council,
On the consent calendar for this evening, there is an item that includes an SB1 proposal for funds for
infrastructure improvement that is coupled with approval of the plan for Arastradero improvement. Since the SB1
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:30 PM
2
funds don't have to be used for Arastradero, these two items should be separated. In particular I believe there we
should give Arastradero more consideration before proceeding with the plan for the following reasons:
City budget is overspent already. Arastradero should be considered with all other needs of the city like Fire and Police. Is this a need or a want?
Do we need to spend over $10m on hardscape for a system that is already working the way it was designed? With the current painted system, bikes are safe and we have some flexibility if cars need to turn
or pull over in emergencies.
The aggressive construction on Ross Road has resulted in almost 1000 signatures to a petition to change the
design, more than any other issue has produced. Do we want to have another Ross Road?
Please separate the SB1 proposal from the Arastradero project.
Jim Colton Georgia Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Julia Nelson-Gal <julianelsongal@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 8:31 AM
To:Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:Re: The new roundabout.
I apologize for the typos in my previous email, I am speaking into my phone as I walk my dog on Moreno.
I just ran into this staff member, Rosie, doing her job, as I was sending this mail.
Now that’s commitment!
Thanks for all you do for our community, Julie
Julia Nelson-Gal
Julianelsongal.com
> On Apr 12, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Julia Nelson-Gal <julianelsongal@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:44 AM
2
> Greetings,
> > Thank you for creating the Ross Road safe routes to school, especially the two roundabouts. It’s so nice to not have to
stop at Every four-way stop intersection or to wait for long periods of time will the cyclists go by. It keeps everything
moving and clearly safer. >
> Thanks again,
> Julia Nelson-Gal > 890 Marshall Dr.,
> Palo Alto, CA
> > Julianelsongal.com
>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Zhang, Wei (FHWA) <Wei.Zhang@dot.gov>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 8:00 AM
To:jaquette@gmail.com; Council, City; Mello, Joshuah
Cc:De Geus, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal; Star-Lack, Sylvia; Kochevar, Ken (FHWA)
Subject:RE: Traffic analysis data
All:
When I was contacted about this, my impression was that I was just asked to do an unbiased curtesy third party review
of the small traffic circle recently done in the City of Palo Alto, since safety is the common goal. It was never my intent to
get involved in a dispute like this. Official procedures need to be followed for any professional review in this nature,
which is beyond technical. I am copying Ken Kochevar, our California Division Safety Engineer.
I will say that the Bicycle Boulevard initiative is a good thing, and will eventually deliver a safer route network for cyclists
and encourage more people to ride bikes to work/school, which will help build healthy community and reduce car
traffic/pollution. The traffic demand at the intersection is probably in the median range of local roads. There is plenty of
room to accommodate all modes of road users (cars, bikes, pedestrians, etc.).
Wei
From: George Jaquette [mailto:jaquette@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:27 AM
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: De Geus, Robert <Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Gaines,
Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Zhang, Wei (FHWA) <Wei.Zhang@dot.gov>; Star‐Lack, Sylvia <Sylvia.Star‐
Lack@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Traffic analysis data
Josh- On Friday it will have been four weeks since I requested the traffic analysis data for the intersection at East
Meadow Road and Ross Road, in writing and in person, required under contract from Alta Design. Specifically,
I asked you to provide data that was due from your former employer (under contract). To be precise, that data
is:
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 coW'I.t 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 | 4/16/2018 9:44 AM
2
My understanding from the California Public Records Act is that you should have provided this information to
me within ten business days. If you do not intend to provide this data, you must have a legal reason to support
your decision. Please let me know why you have not provided this data to me;.
My further understanding is that the outside expert analysis and review that was announced publicly two weeks
ago by Mr. De Gues (March 30th) is pending this same data. We are fortunate that an expert like Dr. Wei
Zhang from the Federal Highway Administration is willing to provide his input, and it is disappointing that you
cannot provide him the traffic analysis data and the engineering design from the newly built construction so that he can help us address the safety issues that have resulted from this design. Since we all agree that safety is the
primary issue, and research shows that bicycle accidents increase when a small mini-roundabout at low traffic
speeds replaces an intersection with four stop signs, this truly is a matter of urgency. You are on record as
believing that this mini-roundabout with a raised island conforms to engineering design standards (against all
printed guidelines), where many parents (856 and counting) believe it is dangerous -- it is critical that this data be shared as soon as possible. Please let me know when this data will be made available to me and to the
FHWA expert, or explain the delay.
My children ride through this intersection twice every day, and my concern and my interest have not faded in
the least with the announcement that we are slowing down further construction. I care a great deal about the dangerous interaction between cars and bikes at the intersection of East Meadow and Ross Roads.
Since the new construction (concrete experiment that does NOT conform to mini-roundabout guidelines) at
Moreno and Ross is continuing, I expect you will find another 800 unhappy Ohlone parents with this new
danger to their commuting children (unsafe experiments masquerading as mini-roundabouts). The city council WILL hear residents disappointment, now or at the next election. Choose to be on the right side of that vote
(stop digging, redesign these unsafe intersections), and ensure our children are safe riding their bikes to school
every day. 44% of 12,000 kids is 5,000 kids on bikes every day. Do NOT let the parents of Palo Alto down.
So really, when can we get the data?
George
--
George Jaquette
email: jaquette@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/18/2018 12:20 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:
I was quite upset when I read about this lady, and her plight, being evicted
from She must not have family, or any other place to go.
Please would one of you check on her, and find a solution. Do we have a
homeless shelter? I know some churches do take people in at night.
Thank you,
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:01 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sara Khan <sbkhan25@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 14, 2018 11:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road Bike Blvd: So much more dangerous for everyone - please stop!
Dear Council,
I grew up on Ross Road, where my parents continue to reside, and now have a house of my own in midtown.
It is truly unfathomable how much more dangerous Ross Road has become for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians
alike with what is already in place as part of the "bike boulevard".
Among other things:
1. It has become difficult and dangerous to back out of my parent's driveway due to a huge bump out on corner
which now makes the street too narrow and affects visibility, increasing the chance of a collision. We used to be
able to back up without entering traffic lane going in the opposite direction. That is no longer possible.
2. Our neighbors have a flag lot behind my parents home and the other day came knocking to ask if we could park our van further further down the street as they could no longer safely back out of their own drivewayand
were trying to increase visibility for themselves.
3. We now have to weave around and in-between barriers whether driving or biking.
4. It is confusing and unclear where autos and bikes merge and unmerge.
5. In some sections, the road has been narrowed to such a degree that it is impossible for two cars going in opposite directions to safely pass one another.
6. In some sections of the road, there are four parallel bumps (two in each lane) while in others there are three,
in which case I end up with one car tire on a bump and the other in the cutout for cyclists and can't help but feel
there is something wrong with this scenario.
7. I have a subcompact SUV and the round-about at Ross and Moreno feels much too narrow. 8. They have installed sign poles directly in the walkway so you cannot get a wheelchair/walker/large buggy
past without going off the sidewalk or into neighboring bushes. Is this legal?
I find myself avoiding Ross at all costs now, coming down Louis now to the extent I can. On a somewhat
related note, yesterday, I was at the corner of Clara and Ross where construction was in progress and needed to turn left but could not figure out how to do so safely. I finally had to roll down my window and ask one of the
workers.
Any safety benefits of slowing down traffic have been more than offset by the unsafe conditions created by the
design of this particular boulevard. The simple fact that one has to ponder how to navigate the road tells you there is something inherently wrong.
Please stop the construction, rethink, redesign and reverse as needed. This is our community, our home, our tax
dollars and our lives.
Finally, I am greatly disappointed that the only notice we ever received from the city of the boulevard was a
postcard announcing the implementation roll-out. How did that happen?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Alpa Shah <shah_alpa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 15, 2018 11:38 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road Project
Alpa Shah
800 Sycamore Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303
April 15, 2018
RE: Ross Road Roundabouts Projects
To the City of Palo Alto:
I want to voice my opinion on this matter due to the safety hazards the Ross Road project has created for the children in
our community. I am disappointed that the city approved this project without informing and involving the neighbors on or off Louis Road, or taking into consideration the number of people it impacts.
Louis Road is already an unsafe route - there are too many reckless drivers who speed, run through stop signs, and make
illegal u-turns by Palo Verde. Now, there will be more cars on this road, as the traffic moves over from Ross Road to avoid the roundabouts. Who decided it was a good idea to move more traffic to a road that has two elementary schools on
or one block from the road?
Bicyclists on Ross Road have to go into traffic consisting of aggressive drivers to go around the roundabouts. I have seen drivers become even more frustrated and impatient when they are slowed down by bicyclists. This new construction is a
recipe for disaster. As my friend George Jaquette has pointed out, there is research to prove the hazards created by such a
road construction.
I am all for creating a safe environment for bicyclists. I have two kids - one going to JLS and the other at Palo Verde - and
they both ride their bikes to and from school and to the Eichler Swim & Tennis facility.
There are many, many families extremely upset about this project. Please take the time to read these letters, whether through email, direct mail, or social media, and consider making changes to make this city a more safe place for all
families; not just the few people who voiced their opinions to make changes on Ross Road before the project began.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Alpa Shah
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:32 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:ForestLight <forest129@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 6:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SB1 and the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project
To the Honorable Mayor Kniss and City Council Members: We are writing you in support of including the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project in the SB1 funds for infrastructure improvement so that the hardscape portion of the project can finally be completed.
For the past fourteen years, the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project in its various phases has received unanimous approval from every City Council who reviewed it. The performance measures for the trial have been met. However, the safety features that were built into the design will not be fully realized until the hardscape is in place. The primary goal of the project - to create a safer environment for our school children to walk and bike to eleven public and private corridor schools and for other road users– will not be achieved until the hardscape is in place. The current striping was intended as a paint trial to see if the city could maintain road operations with a lane reduction. The trial was successful maintaining point-to-point travel times. But the safety improvements have not been implemented yet.
The assumption that the current configuration is safe for bicycles (or cars, for that matter) is not born out by the continuing collisions that occur on the corridor. I don’t think you could find a traffic engineer who would tell you that a street without a hardscaped median is safer that one with a hardscaped median. Further, it ignores the fact that bike lanes completely disappear on the approaches to the dangerous El Camino intersection. It also ignores the signalization and lane capacity improvements at Terman that are included in the hardscape implementation which will improve road operations. Finally, it ignores the new off-road multi-use paths that will enable wrong-way riders from land-locked neighborhoods south of Arastradero to get safely off the street. We ride bikes regularly and walk and drive on the corridor frequently. It is painfully apparent that the previously approved improvements are acutely
needed. Many citizens like me have worked hard with the City for fourteen years to create the best possible plan to balance the needs of all street users. This process has as required an enormous commitment of time, careful research, resources and energy. Please follow though on the promises made fourteen years ago and those made steadily thereafter. A nexus study was done, multiple phases of striping trial were implemented and reviewed. Citizens (including us) have attended countless community meetings and public hearings. We strongly believe the City is obligated to follow through on the commitments made related to this project.. In addition, the Corridor factors into the City’s Safe Routes to School goal network of bike and pedestrian routes and helps in making the City a premiere bike friendly environment.
It is imperative that the job be finished as designed…..and it needs to be finished now…for the safety of our children and all Palo Altans Please don’t leave the project hanging. Please approve the funding to finish this important project that implements the vision of our Comprehensive Plan without any further delay. Thank you. Michael & Judith Maurier
Fairmede Ave., Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 11, 2018 7:00 PM
To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu;
sdremann@paweekly.com; Jonsen, Robert; HRC; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; Council, City;
Binder, Andrew; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; citycouncil@menlopark.org;
council@redwoodcity.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org
Subject:See what happens when police inappropriately turn off body worn cameras
http://sfpublicdefender.org/news/2018/01/man-acquitted-after-officer-turns-off-body-cam/
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rita Chang <ritachang1@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 15, 2018 4:01 PM
To:Council, City; Tom DuBois; liza.kolbasov@gregtanaka.org
Subject:Solving Palo Alto traffic snarls
Attachments:PA-traffic-improvement-ideas.pdf
Dear PA City Council member:
I'm writing to let you know of the many opportunities to improve the experiences of people who navigate Palo
Alto by car. I'm certain that these people (residents and non-residents) are enduring many time-wasting and frustrating
moments so your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Please see the attached. I would be more than happy to discuss with you in person. Many thanks.
Rita
415 323 8244
Rita Chang
686 Georgia Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
415 323 8244
April 15, 2018
Dear City Council member:
I'm writing to let you know there are many opportunities to improve the experiences of
people who navigate Palo Alto by car.
I'm certain that these people (residents and non-residents) are enduring many time-
wasting and frustrating moments so your attention to this matter would be greatly
appreciated.
1 - Lights at train tracks should reset after train passes
The number one, and most frustrating experience for those of us who have to cross the
Caltrain tracks, is that the lights do not recalibrate after the train crossing gates are
lifted. That is, after the train the lights continue favor Alma, and do not make any
adjustments for the As you can imagine, this causes significant backup during commute
hours. Then, to make things worse, the stoplight is green for ta fixed time, so not
enough cars can pass through to relieve the congestion. Can you please fix this.
2 - Too many "dumb" lights
The other issue I would like to bring to your attention is that during periods of light traffic,
there seems to be many "dumb" stoplights. That is, there are times when intersection
comes to a standstill because the waiting cars cannot move based on stoplights that
seem to be on some irrational timer. As a result, cars are waiting for prolonged periods
at an intersection where there is an absence of cross-traffic. This of course wastes
people's time and burns fuel unnecessarily.
In particular, on weekends the light on Waverly near JLS seems to be fixed on a timer.
So even though there are no pedestrians or vehicles trying to cross East Meadow, the
traffic on East Meadow is forced crossing Waverly at the command of the stoplight.
3 - no more roundabouts!
I haven't been attending the meetings about this misguided project but it seems like the
city is trying to fix problems where there is none with the roundabout on Ross and East
Meadow. This has become a dangerous intersection for cyclists and the narrow
passage has caused damage to my car, albeit minor. This was not smart, as I'm sure
you've heard many times.
4 - too many unnecessary stop signs
There are stop signs that are placed throughout Palo Alto streets that seem to benefit a
few residents at the expense of many. To give you an example, please tell me the
purpose of the stop signs at Georgia Street and Crosby Place. The latter is a cul de sac
that at most probably have no more than 15 people a day coming and going, if even
that. Many many more people are crossing Georgia! Did the residents of Crosby ask for
the stop sign? A yield sign on that street would be infinitely more appropriate. The same
goes for another route I frequently travel. Heading southeast on Wilkie Way towards
West Charleston, I encounter too many stop signs that seem unjustified -- again, how
appropriate is requiring the Wilkie Way traffic to stop for the lesser dead end streets?
Seems like the traffic should be managed in a way to favor Wilkie Way which is more of
a thoroughfare than these side streets like Tennessee Lane that are dead end. Again, I
would like to ask what is the reasoning behind these stop signs?
5 - Miranda/Foothills/Arastadero
Please find a solution for managing the traffic where Arastadero and Foothills and
Miranda Ave meet. The city needs to put a right-turn-only lane to serve Miranda
exclusively and direct the right-turners to Foothills into a later lane. This would relieve a
lot of the backup in this area.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sharleen Fiddaman <sf@sharleenfiddaman.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:stop roundabouts
Council Members,
Please terminate the proposed plan for roundabouts in our neighborhoods. They are great for major wide intersections as in England, but not here. In our narrow city streets they are a hazard to the safety of bicyclist
and cars. A 4-way stop is far more effective!
There is no reason for one on Bryant and N. California Ave. as there is almost no traffic, it eliminates precious
parking spaces, and frankly they are ugly! Drive the area to see for yourself.
Sharleen Fiddaman
Webster and N. California Ave., Palo Alto
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rod Lehman <rod.lehman@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 11, 2018 2:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Stop the Construction of New Dangerous Intersections.
Dear City Council.
Kids have been hurt already on the stretch of Ross Road with new concrete bulbouts. Research shows that small
roundabouts at low-speed intersections increase bicycle accidents. These changes are making the streets of Palo
Alto dangerous for children. 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 his lack of response.
Many of also are concerned about the unsafe construction practices being used by Granite on these
projects. We have taken pictures and are filing complaints with the state board of contractors.
These roundabout and bulbout construction projects are 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 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.
Rod Lehman
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:31 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keri Wagner <keriwagner@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 4:54 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keri Wagner
Subject:Support for Charleston/Arastradero plan
Dear Council Members —
I urge you to support the final implementation of the Charleston/Arastradero safety improvements. Even though the
current plan only uses paint, bicycle and pedestrian safety has been demonstrably improved since the trial was
implemented years ago. Personally, I am comfortable biking down Arastradero now and I would not consider it when
the road was a 4‐lane thoroughfare. The turn lanes have markedly improved safety for drivers and residents.
The project has proven itself to be viable and increase safety. It’s time to finish the improvements. South Palo Alto has
been waiting for many years to finish this construction.
Thank you for the work you’re doing to improve safety for our pedestrians, cyclists, and car users.
Keri Wagner
311 Edlee Ave
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:George Jaquette <jaquette@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 13, 2018 12:00 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Mello, Joshuah; De Geus, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal
Subject:The Ross Road petition is over 900 signatures, many comments worth reading
Attachments:RoundaboutPetitionP1.png; RoundaboutPetitionP2.png
Gregory, Tom, Eric, Adrian, Karen, Liz, Lydia, Greg & Cory- First, thank you for hitting pause on construction while the city seeks outside input on the designs being implemented. It is clear that many of us were surprised and disappointed by these investments, and it will be
useful to have independent analysis performed.
I have met a couple of you in person about this project, and understand that you hear plenty of positive feedback from the bicycling community on the changes. I also understand that many of the conversations on NextDoor are not viewable by all members of the city council, nor to most of the city employees charged with
implementing the plan. Consequently I have taken a screenshot of the comments on the petition and I have
attached them to this email so you can all see the community's comments.
https://www.change.org/p/city-council-cityofpaloalto-org-stop-the-traffic-calming-implementation-on-
ross-road-in-palo-alto
We look forward to an expeditious review by an independent outside adviser, and we hope to revisit the design
decisions made by Alta Design.
Thanks again for pausing the construction. It is a pity that they are building an even smaller version of this same design at Moreno and Ross Road, but at least fewer kids ride through that intersection.
George
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 3:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara <bgoodie@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 2:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Today' POST pc. about woman sleep. in car
You folks need to deal with the homeless issue...consider the city of Santa Barbara...they have had a program
in place that has been adopted by other municipalities ...Barbara Goodwin, (650) 968‐6836
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/18/2018 12:22 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:49 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Penny Ellson; Nadia Naik
Subject:Traffic study SHOULD NOT be used for grade crossing analysis
Attachments:CPA 2013-12 Hexagon City of Palo Alto Transportation Model Validation Memo.pdf
We would reiterate that the city should not use a traffic model that has failed multiple validation tests for its appropriateness in predicting the usage of local roads.
The Mott Macdonald study used the city traffic model that had been developed by Hexagon in 2013. Hexagon
tested the model. It failed the test for whether the model could be used to predict traffic flows on specific streets
(see analysis attached)
Mott Macdonald also did similar tests. The model failed again. The consultant inexplicably decided to then use
the model to show changes in traffic patterns, even though it had decided it could not use the model to predict
the use of roads today. This snippet is from their report (the comments and highlighting are mine)
We would argue that the changes in traffic patterns in the scenarios themselves also are a type of validation test
- which the model again fails. **The model does not understand why anyone would take Churchill unless they live on the street.
**The model believes incorrectly that residents take Alma to be able to shortcut onto Middlefield via Palo Alto
Avenue.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/18/2018 12:22 PM
2
**The model believes that Alma is only used as a very local road and that longer north-south trips will use other
roads.
It should not be rocket science to understand that if the model does not get why drivers use these roads, it will
not be able to predict how their behavior changes if these crossings are altered.
Why does the model fail validation tests? The answer is largely that it is not designed for small scale prediction
on the level of Palo Alto city streets. Important factors like safety of turn movements are not considered.
We would highly recommend that the city do its own analysis and survey residents and employees about why
they use the existing crossings and what they would do if the crossings were closed (permanently or effectively
from higher train traffic).
We also think a study of accidents on Alma at all crossings (rail and otherwise) would help clarify the current
issues with turns on and off of Alma. Our work has shown there are more accidents near grade separated
crossings than at grade crossings today. In addition, the additional traffic on Alma is making safe turns in and
out of Old Palo Alto much more difficult and less safe.
Regards
Elizabeth
Technical Memorandum (Revised)
Date: December 11, 2013
To: Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official
From: Jill Hough
Subject: Palo Alto Model Validation - Documentation
Introduction
The purpose of this memo is to present the 2013 model validation and 2035 forecast result of the Palo Alto Transportation Model (PATM). The PATM was developed as a transportation planning tool to assist City
staff in evaluating traffic impacts of land use proposals and transportation improvement projects; as well as a tool for testing and evaluating a Comprehensive Plan Update. Hexagon was charged with developing the
PATM using the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) countywide model and focusing on the Palo Alto area.
Refinements to the VTA model were made to the network and land uses within Palo Alto, and the model was validated against 2013 traffic counts. The scope of work that was developed for this assignment
consisted of the following tasks:
(1) 2013 Model Validation. Although the original PATM had been validated to year 2005 traffic counts,
the previous validation was not easily aligned to the VTA travel demand model and often resulted in diverging model results that were not easy to explain.
(2) Documentation: Technical documentation of the Palo Alto Model was prepared consisting of VTA’s documentation of the Countywide models and this Technical Memorandum that documents the land use
assumptions and the model validation. A future memorandum will be prepared, presenting future forecasting results, and the year 2035 intersection level of service results.
2013 and 2035 Land Use Consolidation
The 2013 and 2035 estimates of households and numbers of jobs for the zones within the City of Palo Alto were developed by city staff. The land use data were then transferred to a set of variables that are used as input into the PATM.
2013 Residential Data
City staff developed the estimates of year 2010 single-family and multi-family units for each traffic zone
within the city. The zonal household data were extrapolated to estimate household population, total population, employed residents, and households by four income categories using shares
and factors derived from the ABAG data. The total base year 2013 citywide residential data are summarized and compared to the VTA 2010 data in Table 1 below. Although different years are being
compared, there were not a significant number of approved projects between 2010 and 2013.
City of Palo Alto Model Validation and Forecasting Results December 11, 2013
2 | Page
Table 1
Year 2010 Residential Data
Land Use Variable VTA/ABAG
City of Palo
Alto Delta
Single‐Family Households 17,909 17,950 41
Multi‐Family Households 12,367 13,975 1,608
Total Households 30,276 31,925 1,649
Household Population 69,249 73,392 4,143
Total Population 76,331 82,407 6,076
Households in Income Quartile 1 9,210 9,358 148
Households in Income Quartile 2 4,802 5,226 424
Households in Income Quartile 3 5,596 6,014 418
Households in Income Quartile 4 10,675 11,327 652
Employed Residents 32,486 37,942 5,456
Note: "VTA/ABAG refers to the ABAG Socio‐economic projections for City of
Palo Alto and relates to year 2010. "City of Palo Alto" refers to City of Palo
Alto's local planning database as of 2013.
2013 Employment-Based Data
The City of Palo Alto maintains a zone-based land use data set for the traffic analysis zones (taz’s) within the City and sphere of influence that includes employment-based land uses. The LEHD was the primary
source for the employment data. The total base year 2010 VTA and Citywide employment data are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Year 2010 Employment Data
Land Use Variable VTA/ABAG
City of Palo
Alto Delta
Total Employment 90,886 88,865 ‐2,021
Agriculture Employment 276 23 ‐253
Manufacturing Employment 19,327 8,144 ‐11,183
Retail Employment 9,631 9,897 266
Wholesale Employment 4,007 982 ‐3,025
Services Employment 47,733 31,974 ‐15,759
Other Employment 9,912 37,844 27,932
Note: "VTA/ABAG refers to the ABAG Socio‐economic projections for City of
Palo Alto and relates to year 2010. "City of Palo Alto" refers to City of Palo
Alto's local planning database as of 2013.
Highway Model Validation
Highway assignment validation is the process in which the traffic volumes estimated by the model are compared with observed traffic count data. Traffic counts were collected at various intersections throughout the city, as shown on Figure 1. The 2013 model validation presented in this memo provides two levels of checks: system-level validation of the peak hour volumes by facility type (freeways, expressways, arterials and collectors), and a validation of peak-hour traffic at six screen line locations.
City of Palo Alto Model Validation and Forecasting Results December 11, 2013
4 | Page
System Level Validation Targets
For the system-level validation, criteria were used from FHWA recommendations that were also
used by VTA. Criteria were used for both overall volumes and volumes stratified by facility type. The following highway assignment validation goals were established:
• Freeways: less than 7 percent error compared to observed counts. Examples include I-280 and US
101.
• Expressway: less than 10 percent error compared to observed counts. Examples include Foothill
Expressway and Oregon Expressway.
• Arterials: less than 10 percent error compared to observed counts. Examples include El Camino Real,
Alma Ave, Churchill Ave, Middlefield Rd, Page Mill Rd, E Bayshore Rd, Embarcadero Rd, Quarry Rd, Arboretum Rd, University Ave, Arastradero Ave.
• Collectors: less than 25 percent error compared to observed counts. Examples include California Ave, W Bayshore Rd, Meadow Dr, Loma Verde Ave.
• All Facility Types: less than 5 percent error compared to observed counts
Screen Line Validation Targets
Screen lines are imaginary lines that cut through a set of parallel roadways, intercepting travel across
them. The purpose of using a set of screen lines is to provide a systematic comparison of model estimated versus observed travel through different parts of the city, regardless of the individual route choice. A total
of three screen lines were used to validate the PATM. Each screen line was evaluated by direction, for a total of 6 metrics.
The locations of the screen lines are shown on Figure 2. A typical goal is for model estimated traffic
volumes to be within 10 to20 percent of the traffic counts on each screen line. Development of the highway model validation is an iterative process where the model results (by facility type and at the screen lines)
are compared to the traffic counts after each model run. Analysis of the results leads to making further adjustments until most or all of the validation target values are achieved.
During the model validation process, adjustments are typically made to the roadway’s speed and capacity
assumptions, the location of centroid connectors, trip rates, and peak-hour factors. The starting point for the PATM validation was the 2010 VTA model. During the validation process the following adjustments
were made:
Several local roadways were added to the transportation network,
the time-of-day factors for the peak AM and peak PM periods were increased in order to capture local traffic patterns in Palo Alto,
The free-flow speed and capacity assumptions were changed to better reflect traffic operating
conditions, and
The Akcelic travel time functions were used to calculate the travel times on the links for successive iterations during the highway assignment process.
During the model validation, it appeared that the PATM overestimated traffic on some facilities and underestimated traffic on other facilities. The underestimated traffic was more significant in magnitude than
the overestimated traffic. A possible explanation for the initial model volumes being lower than the count volumes is that when the model was initially developed and validated against earlier count data throughout
the County by VTA, there may have been more peak spreading occurring than is characteristic of Palo Alto -- or peak spreading may be more pervasive in other parts of Santa Clara County than in Palo Alto. This
tendency for underestimated trips is dealt with primarily through adjusting the peak-hour factors between
City of Palo Alto Model Validation and Forecasting Results December 11, 2013
6 | Page
counties and super districts. This process applies increased proportions of trips, by trip purposes, that are occurring within the AM and PM four-hour windows.
AM and PM Peak Hour Validation Results
System wide highway validation results for the AM and PM peak 4-hour traffic assignments are summarized in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. The peak 4-hour model volumes are compared to the counts, stratified by facility type.
Table 3
Comparison of AM Peak 4-Hour Counts and
Model Volumes by Facility Type
Facility
Count
Volume
Model
Volume Difference Target
Freeways 377,558 365,821 3% +/‐ 7 %
Expressways 68,752 90,603 ‐24% +/‐ 10 %
Arterials 201,251 202,592 ‐1% +/‐ 15 %
Collectors 22,680 24,945 ‐9% +/‐ 25 %
Table 4
Comparison of PM Peak 4-Hour Counts and
Model Volumes by Facility Type
Facility
Count
Volume
Model
Volume Difference Target
Freeways 413,943 409,425 1% +/‐ 7 %
Expressways 91,881 117,946 ‐22% +/‐ 10 %
Arterials 295,675 287,402 3% +/‐ 15 %
Collectors 38,854 38,758 0% +/‐ 25 %
The tables show that the validation targets were met for all facilities except expressways, during both the AM and PM Peak 4-hour periods. Even though the expressway validation target was not met, the
validation for the other facility types were actually much tighter than the target values, suggesting that the overall validation is reasonably acceptable. Also, the expressway facilities account for a fairly limited
portion of the roadway system in Palo Alto. The screen line validation results are presented in Tables 5 and 6 for the AM and PM peak 4 hour periods, respectively.
The screen line validation shows that the model matches the 30% target at 5 of the 6 screen lines (3 of 3 in the AM and 2 of 3 in the PM).
Table 5
Comparison of Counts and Model Estimated Volumes at Screen Lines ‐ AM
Screenline Name Numeric Percent
North of Stanford Ave/California Ave 86,708 93,153 ‐6445 ‐6.9% Yes
West of Route 101 20,928 28,286 ‐7358 ‐26.0% Yes
West of Alma Ave 18,656 14,521 4135 28.5% Yes
Total 126,292 135,960 ‐9668 ‐7.1% Yes
Target Met
Model
Volume
Count
Volume
Difference
City of Palo Alto Model Validation and Forecasting Results December 11, 2013
7 | Page
Table 6
Comparison of Counts and Model Estimated Volumes at Screen Lines ‐ PM
Screenline Name Numeric Percent
North of Stanford Ave/California Ave 104,187 110,333 ‐6146 ‐5.6% Yes
West of Route 101 33,070 24,703 8367 33.9% no
West of Alma Ave 21,688 22,514 ‐826 ‐3.7% Yes
Total 158,945 157,550 1395 0.9% Yes
Target Met
Model
Volume
Count
Volume
Difference
These comparisons show that the volumes at 1 of the 3 (33%) screen lines in the AM and 2 out of 3 (67%)
screen lines in the PM are within 10% of the screen line counts.
Highway validation results for the AM and PM peak 4-hour traffic assignments for several local roadway
corridors are presented in Table 7. The peak hour model volumes are compared to the VTA model results.
City of Palo Alto Model Validation and Forecasting Results December 11, 2013
8 | Page
Table 7
Model Volume Comparisons on Local Streets (City of Palo Alto and VTA Models)
Roadway Segment
University Avenue between Bryant St and Waverly St 1716 908 591 1955 828 734
between Waverly St and Middlefield Rd 1647 947 698 1999 913 801
between Middlefield Rd and Chaucer St 1206 1026 776 1774 1044 778
Loma Verde Avenue between Alma St and Middlefield Rd 54 701 123 47 462 172
between Middlefield Rd and Bayshore Rd 55 649 136 95 473 190
Meadow Drive between El Camino Real and Alma St 582 882 1731 743 783 1217
between Alma St and Middlefield Rd 44 977 316 78 850 341
between Middlefield Rd and Fabian Wy 130 585 222 269 420 282
Charleston Road between El Camino Real and Alma St 784 1161 1032 1265 1100 615
between Alma St and Middlefield Rd 1201 960 2303 1632 964 1290
between Middlefield Rd and Fabian Wy 857 1346 1216 761 1231 1319
Stanford Avenue between Junipero Serra Blvd and Peter Courtts Rd 262 773 631 637 684 215
between Peter Coutts Rd and Hanover St 247 670 455 322 754 697
between Hanover St and El Camino Real 314 583 246 539 685 335
Middlefield Road between Everett Ave and Lytton Ave 1497 1437 1640 1913 1636 1666
between Lytton Ave and University Ave 1535 1044 638 1934 1314 912
between University Ave and Hamilton Ave 939 877 749 1667 1212 891
between Colorado Ave and Loma Verde Ave 320 1394 296 813 1575 1077
between Loma Verde Ave and Meadow Dr 385 1451 389 806 1717 1090
between Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd 402 1687 596 884 1941 1208
Bryant Street between Oregon Expwy and N California Ave 1 194 404 13 233 971
between Oregon Expwy and Colorado Ave 1 147 59 88 132 52
Miranda Avenue north of Arastradero Rd 104 628 83 58 691 107
south of Arastradero Rd 13 379 32 13 148 17
Notes: Directional volumes from both models were added together to yield two‐way volumes.
CPA 2013 Raw Model Volumes and VTA Volumes were converted from 4 hour model output to 1 hour volume by applying factors of 2.793 (AM) and 3.584 (PM).
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
VTA Model
Volume
CPA 2013 Count
Volume
CPA 2013 Model
Raw Volume
VTA Model
Volume
CPA 2013 Count
Volume
CPA 2013 Model
Raw Volume
Conclusions
Even though the expressway validation target was not met, there are several reasons why the validation is considered acceptable:
• The validation for the facility types of freeways, arterials, and collectors were actually much tighter and within a significantly lower deviation than the target values,
• The target values by facility type are goals as opposed to requirements and are not based on measurements,
• There are fewer expressway lane miles than arterial lane miles, collector lane miles, or freeway lane miles regarding the roadway system in Palo Alto, and
• For purposes of using the model for actual analysis on projects such as the Comprehensive Plan Update, the model forecasts get adjusted using actual traffic count data.
For these reasons, the PATM validation is considered acceptable as a tool to forecast traffic for analyzing transportation projects and development projects.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 10:02 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Press strong <pressstrong@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 14, 2018 9:50 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com
Cc:Burns, Dennis
Subject:Two Black Men Arrested in Starbucks for Failing to Order in a Timely Fashion
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/footage-two-black-men-handcuffed-starbucks-people-wondering-
133435563.html
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 9:16 AM
To:Sara Cody; Cindy Chavez
Subject:US Kids Dying at alarming rate +Aluminum
by Arlene Goetze, NO Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com Why are US children dying at an alarming rate?
By David Brownstein, MD:BY ANH USA ADMIN ON FEBRUARY 20, 2018INTEGRATIVE
HEALTH NETWORK
A new study published in the January, 2018 edition of the journal Health Affairs compared the mortality rate of children in 19 wealthy Western countries. . .
The U. S. spends more money on health care than any other country on the face of the earth. . . . nearly 20% of
its gross national product on health care.
“The United States has poorer child health outcomes than other wealthy nations despite greater per capita spending on health care for children. While child mortality declined across all countries, mortality in the US has been higher than in peer nations
since the 1980s. From 2001-2010 the risk of death in the US was 76 percent greater for infants and 57 percent
greater for children ages 1–19.”
One of the best indicators is the childhood mortality rate. U.S. children now receive more vaccines than any other children on the planet. Excerpted from Alliance for Natural Health USA <office@anh-usa.org> 4/11/18
Regulators Indifferent to Unsafe Levels of Aluminum in Vaccines
By the World Mercury Project Team
Aluminum in the brain can trigger chronic brain inflammation and a cascading series of other
events that have all the hallmarks of autism and other neurodegenerative conditions.
. . .aluminum currently present in individual vaccines and in the modern vaccine schedule as a whole
are “problematically high.”
Vaccines are complex laboratory creations designed for one seemingly simple purpose: to
stimulate a theoretically protective immune response. However, some vaccines are not as
likely to have their intended effect without an “adjuvant” to amplify the vaccinated
individual’s response. Aluminum salts are the most common type of vaccine adjuvant in
use, despite abundant science establishing aluminum as a neurotoxin.
In 2002, only two childhood vaccines contained aluminum adjuvants, but the aluminum
picture had changed dramatically by 2016, when children received five aluminum-
containing vaccines from birth to age three and at least two more in the teenage years. Two
independent researchers are raising important questions about the wisdom of this ramped-
up use of injected aluminum in young children. In a study in the Journal of Trace Elements
in Medicine and Biology (JTEMB) and a related online article, the researchers methodically
show that current levels of aluminum in vaccines—wrongly termed “safe” by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA)—derive from “outdated information, unwarranted assumptions
and errors.”
…the levels of aluminum currently present in individual vaccines and in the modern
vaccine schedule as a whole are “problematically high.”
Missing science: counting the ways
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:45 AM
2
According to the two researchers, current aluminum amounts in vaccines lack the
rigorous scientific underpinning ordinarily required to make a proper determination of
toxicity and dosing. One of the largest gaffes is that “the entire paradigm to aluminum
dosing in vaccines [was not] determined considering body weight.” The researchers note
that whereas dosage should be expressed in terms of micrograms per kilogram of body
weight per day (and should consider all injected and ingested sources of aluminum on that
day), the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) simply references aluminum
amounts in terms of micrograms per dose. As a result, aluminum amounts do not
appropriately adjust for toxicological differences between adults and children, males and
females or normal-birthweight versus low-birthweight infants.
Unfortunately, the sobering bottom line of this ‘mathematical gerrymandering’ is that ‘we
are almost certainly looking at a global neurotoxicity disaster.’
The JTEMB article describes a number of other startling research omissions that
have done a major disservice to infants and young children who receive aluminum-
containing vaccines. For example:
* Regulators based their inadequate aluminum safety thresholds on studies of adult
mice.
* The mice in question received “poorly absorbed, ingested aluminum” rather than
“highly absorbed injected aluminum,” but the toxicity of ingested doses of other forms of
aluminum has little to do with the toxicity of injected doses of aluminum salts.
* Regulators and scientists relied for decades on a mistaken calculation of the
“provisional tolerable weekly intake,” resulting in “overestimation of safe exposure levels.”
* Dose-related toxicity has been ignored despite routine administration of multiple
aluminum-containing vaccines at a single health care visit.
* Although clearance rates of injected doses of aluminum are “not well
characterized,” other researchers have suggested that vaccine forms of aluminum are not
rapidly eliminated. At least “15% of injected aluminum goes to the brain and stays there.”
* Regulators do not factor this issue of body burden into their equations, even though
“the accumulated aluminum body burden at each vaccination interval will be higher than
an individual aluminum level in a single vaccine.”
Using a more rigorous and extensively justified methodology, the two researchers offer
their own calculations of provisional “safe” levels of aluminum in childhood vaccines. These
calculations unequivocally show that the levels of aluminum currently present in individual
vaccines and in the modern vaccine schedule as a whole are “problematically high.”
Aluminum in the brain can trigger chronic brain inflammation and a cascading
series of other events that have all the hallmarks of autism and other
neurodegenerative conditions.
Why baseline assumptions matter
In a related online commentary by one of the two researchers, the latter makes no bones
about the low credibility of current regulatory thresholds for aluminum—shaped as they
have been by “serious historical missteps,” “unfounded assumptions,” “rationalization,”
“muddy calculations” and “misrepresentations of past science.” Unfortunately, the
sobering bottom line of this “mathematical gerrymandering” is that “we are almost certainly
looking at a global neurotoxicity disaster.” Aluminum in the brain can trigger chronic brain
inflammation and a cascading series of other events that have all the hallmarks of autism
and other neurodegenerative conditions. Is it any surprise, then, that researchers have
confirmed massive aluminum accumulation in the brains of children with autism?
Unfortunately, the types of safety calculation errors and unjustified assumptions
described by the two researchers will sound only too familiar to those who have followed
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:45 AM
3
the lengthy and disturbing saga of neurotoxic ethylmercury in the vaccine preservative
thimerosal. In fact, both thimerosal and aluminum adjuvants have a longstanding role as
“dominating interventional exposures encountered by fetuses, newborns and infants.”
Despite the urgent need to minimize (if not eliminate) the neurotoxic effects of both
substances, regulators appear satisfied to continue propagating errors and misplaced
reassurances.
Sign up for free news and updates from Atty., Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World
Mercury Project. This project works to eliminate/minimize dangers of mercury
in many products.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gary Hammer <garylhammer@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 1:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fix decision to allow Verizon's installation of above-ground equipment
As a Palo Alto resident, I ask you to please reverse the Planning Director's decision to allow Verizon (or any
other cell provider) to install hundreds of pounds of ugly equipment on poles within a few yards of residents’
homes. While antennae must be above ground, anything that can be underground should be undergrounded.
Thank you,
Gary Hammer
861 Sharon Court, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Norton <snorton@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:49 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Fwd: Update: Cell towers in residential neighborhoods
Dear City Council,
Please remove Verizon’s “Cluster 1” project (17PLN-00169) from the Consent Calendar so that Palo
Alto residents may have an opportunity to voice their opinions of Verizon’s plans directly to their
elected representatives.
Also:
1. I believe that the Director’s decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of cheap,
ugly equipment on poles within a few yards of residents’ homes was not correct.
2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible (Palo Alto will be undergrounding its utilities throughout the Cluster 1 neighborhoods, so surely Verizon can
underground its equipment there as well).
3. Please grant approval to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the condition that the
company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground in flush-to-the-ground
vaults with no protuberances.
Thank you,
Stephanie Norton
155 Washington Ave, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andy Gibson <andyawesomegibson@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon Cell Phone Towers
Hello,
Please do not disregard the appeal to consider the Verizon Cell Towers “First Wave” installation plan. They’re going to
install hundreds of pounds of cheap, ugly, and loud equipment right next to residents homes. If more people knew
about this issue it would certainly not pass, but Verizon wants to keep it that way. Even the installation process will be
loud and disruptive to Palo Alto residents. Please do not allow this to happen. You are the only people who can do
something about it.
Thanks for your consideration,
Andrew Gibson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:20 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Verizon’s “Cluster 1” project (17PLN-00169)
Please remove Verizon’s “Cluster 1” project (17PLN-00169) from the Consent Calendar so that Palo Alto residents may have an opportunity to voice their opinions of Verizon’s plans directly to their elected representatives.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:6507992129@mms.att.net
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:48 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Please please remove Verizon's Cluster 1 project from the Consent calendar so that we resudents can express our
opinions directly to our elected representatives. It is wrong and to allow Verizon to install above‐ground devices.
Please only allow them to be placed underground except for the antenna.
Thank you,
Gina Craig
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John D Melnychuk <jmelnychuk@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 1:43 PM
To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Remove Verizon's Cluster 1 project (17PLN-00169) from consent calendar.
Dear Mayor Kniss, Council Members, and members of the Architectural Review Board,
Please, I respectfully ask that Council remove Verizon’s “Cluster 1” project (17PLN-00169) from the
Consent Calendar so that Palo Alto residents may have an opportunity to voice their opinions of
Verizon’s plans directly to you.
Verizon and other for profit telecom companies wish to install their ugly, noisy, industrial profit making
equipment at the cheapest possible cost. Most of the equipment can be installed underground - the
technology is already available. I object to our City not demanding best performance from Verizon
and it’s competitors. We will live with undergroud equipment forever or live with above ground installation of noisy, visually ugly equipment forever.
Please don’t give into industry demands only because City Management would prefer to cave in.
1. I believe the Director’s decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of cheap, ugly equipment on poles within a few yards of residents’ homes was not correct..
2. Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible (Palo Alto will be
undergrounding its utilities throughout the Cluster 1 neighborhoods, so surely Verizon can
underground its equipment there as well.
3. I ask that Council to grant approval to Verizon to install its cell towers only on the condition that the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground in flush-to-the-
ground vaults with no protuberances (this is what sophisticated cities are now requiring of the
telecom industry).
With respect and thanks to you for your public service,
John
John Melnychuk 3707 Lindero Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Thomas <mj_thomas_2000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 2:14 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Verizon cell towers
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to request that you remove Verizon's "Cluster 1" project (17 PLN-00169) from the Consent Calendar so we citizens may
have the opportunity to voice our opinions of Verizon's plans directly to our elected representatives. Also, I believe the Director's decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of ugly equipment on poles near homes is not a correct one!
Please only grant approval to Verizon to install the proposed cell towers only on the condition that the company locate all of its
equipment, except the antenna, underground in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no protuberances. Sincerely, Mary Thomas 249 Santa Rita Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Nancy McGaraghan <chezmcg@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 2:20 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Verizon Towers
Dear Council Members,
I am concerned about the proposed Verizon towers and ask you to remove Verizon’s “Cluster 1” project (17PLN-00169) from the Consent Calendar so that the people of Palo Alto have a chance to voice their objections and recommendations. There is no reason that a city like Palo Alto should be erecting these towers
above ground, especially at a time when we are taking great pains—and subjecting our citizens to daily
disruptions and inconveniences—to underground our own utilities. Verizon should be held to the same
standards. Their towers should be underground with no visible above ground equipment. Let’s not go backwards, in the name of upgrading these services, and live to regret it! The City of Palo Alto has a right to expect better.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Nancy McGaraghan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:J. Robert Taylor <btaylor@taylorproperties.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 2:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Verizon- Cluster #1
Council,
Please removed this item from the Consent Calendar. I am opposed to letting Verizon or any other vendor have wholesale right to erect equipment on City owned utility poles when such equipment should be put
underground. The goal of the city for the last 50 years has been to underground all utilities, to grant this right
to a private company undermines the public policy that the city has spend millions on and as far as I know is
still a goal to be achieved.
Sincerely.
Bob Taylor
480 Marlowe St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Sue Dinwiddie <sued@daise.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 2:39 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:RE: Verizon Cell Towers
Honorable Members of the Palio Alto City Council,
We are strongly opposed to the installation of hundreds of pounds of cheap, ugly Verizon equipment on poles
within few yards of residents’ homes. Equipment should be installed underground, as has been done for the most part for Comcast equipment. Please do not install cell towers unless all equipment except the antenna are placed underground in flush-to-the-ground valts with no protuberances, as is being done now in several cities.
Lastly, it is crucial that you not rule on this matter until you have hear the full appeals by people who oppose
the above-ground installations of Verizon equipment. Thank you for your consideration.
Sue and Ken Dinwiddie
Sue and Ken Dinwiddie
543 Jackson Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Home: 650-325-3033
sued@daise.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:john@kovalfamily.com
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 3:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support of Verizon's Cluster 1 plan
We support this plan. As this is basically what was already approved for AT&T, this seems reasonable. We hope that
Verizon will be allowed to expand with more of these installations to increase coverage in other poorly served areas of
Palo Alto also.
Thanks,
John Koval
492 Tennyson Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Nancy C Lewis <nlewisart@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 4:37 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Verizon, 17PLN-00169
City Council Members,
Please remove Verizon’s “Cluster 1” project (17PLN-00169) from the upcoming Consent Calendar so that Palo
Alto residents may have an opportunity to voice our opinions of Verizon’s plans directly to our elected representatives.
I find the Director of Planning’s decision to allow Verizon to install above-ground equipment on poles within a
few yards of residents’ homes to be unacceptable.
I find cell equipment in any residential neighborhood to be unacceptable.
Verizon’s claims that it cannot underground its equipment are not credible since Palo Alto will be
undergrounding its utilities throughout the Cluster 1 neighborhoods. Verizon should underground its equipment
there as well. If you are going to grant approval to Verizon to install its cell towers, then make it ONLY on the condition that
the company locate all of its equipment, except the antenna, underground in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no
protuberances.
Sincerely, Nancy Lewis
667 Kendall Avenue
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Caroline Hicks <cyhicksmail@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 8:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:take cell tower cluster off calendar
The Verizon proposal to add cell phone tower clusters to Palo alto is dangerous to humans, especially children and pets.
Please take it off your calendar.
Thank you
Caroline Hicks
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Colleen Crangle <crangle@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 10:48 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Verizon's Cluster 1 project
City Council:
I am writing to ask you to remove Verizon’s “Cluster 1” project (17PLN-00169) from the Consent Calendar so
that Palo Alto residents may have an opportunity to voice their opinions of Verizon’s plans directly to their
elected representatives.
I do not support the Director of Planning’s decision to approve Verizon’s applications to install its first wave of
cell towers. I ask in the strongest possible terms that you approve
Verizon's cell towers only on the condition that they locate all of their equipment, except the antenna,
underground in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no protuberances. We deserve the right to keep Palo Alto’s
residential streets aesthetically pleasing.
Sincerely,
Colleen Crangle
60 Kirby Place
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:J. Shi <jian1@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 12, 2018 11:43 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:jfleming@metricus.net
Subject:We are very angry for Verizon try to install tower to our neighborhoods
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I already wrote email to you many times.
I and my family and my neighbours are believing this is wrong for “the Director’s decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of cheap, ugly equipment on poles within a few yards of
residents’ “ We totally against it.
We do not want Verizon’s any methods to install tower at our neighborhoods. Ask Council to not approval to Verizon to install its cell towers install to our neighborhoods.
Feel free to call me if you still have questions.
Jian J. Shi
4010 Villa Vista, Palo Alto, CA 94306
6502519570
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Melinda McGee <melinda_mcgee@hotmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 13, 2018 12:25 AM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Cell towers in residential neighborhoods
Dear Members of the City Council, City Clerk and members of the Architectural Review Board,
I am requesting the removal of Verizon’s “Cluster 1” project (17PLN-00169) from the Consent Calendar so that I may have an opportunity to voice my opinion of Verizon’s plans directly to my
elected representatives.
The Director’s decision to allow Verizon to install hundreds of pounds of cheap, ugly equipment on poles within a few yards of residents’ homes was not correct and unfairly impacts certain Palo Alto
residents. There is no good reason why Verizon cannot underground its equipment.
Do any of you live in the neigborhoods that will be impacted? Would you approve this in your neighborhoods?
Verizon should be allowed to install its cell towers only on the condition that the company locate all of
its equipment, except the antenna, underground in flush-to-the-ground vaults with no protuberances (this is what sophisticated cities are now requiring of the telecom industry).
We need to be heard and not railroaded or ignored in our reasonble request to install the equipment
underground. Not doing so will affect the property values and quality of life of the homes that are
impacted.
We urge you to hear our appeal and that you overturn the Director’s decision. We insist that Verizon
honor Palo Alto’s aesthetics’ and other ordinances by hiding its unsightly equipment underground.
Thank you.
Melinda McGee
3707 Lindero Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Melinda McGee 650-704-6236 melinda_mcgee@hotmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Francesca <dfkautz@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, April 13, 2018 10:06 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:17PLN-00169
Dear City Council,
The Planning and Community Environment Director made a mistake approving 11 cell (there is nothing small
about them) nodes in the Cluster 1 neighborhood on our utility poles. They are aesthetically unpleasing, no matter how hard Verizon tries to cover them up, noisy and impede future under grounding of our utilities. Public safety is a concern in the event of an earthquake or fire and we, Palo Alto taxpayers, are liable, not
Verizon, when that happens.
Please deny Verizon’s project to install 11 cell nodes in the Cluster 1 neighborhood unless it undergrounds the equipment just like Palo Alto is doing all over the city, without fear of people tripping or having trouble pushing strollers (see photos below). And if it refuses, it must use existing utility substations, city, commercial or
industrial buildings for placing their equipment, which does not belong in residential neighborhoods. Verizon is
generating billions in profit every quarter and can afford to do this.
There is concern that once a site is erected, Verizon can then increase its size and noise ad nauseam. It is also known that the primary use of Verizon cells is mobile video and their aim is to boost capacity, not coverage.
Aren’t we getting a Verizon macro tower at 1032 Colorado Avenue and shouldn’t that take care of residents in
the neighborhood who are worried about their cell coverage? Will Sprint and T-Mobile also want to turn our
town into an antenna farm? How will the city assure us residents of the Cluster 1 neighborhood, that we will getunderground utilities just like everyone else in Palo Alto?
We must implement zoning ordinance requirements that no new telecommunications facilities can be located in
residentially zoned areas. We want underground utilities and Verizon’s cell nodes will make that impossible.
The city must protect our residential neighborhoods and preserve the visual character of the community. Verizon should invest in innovative solutions for their cell nodes that don’t impact residential neighborhoods and Palo Alto should be at the forefront of this new technology.
Please overturn the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision.
Thank you,
Francesca Kautz
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
13
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Melody Song <shanghaimelody@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, April 13, 2018 12:30 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Cell Towers next to Residential Homes
Dear City Council,
The United Neighbors of Palo Alto filed an appeal of the Director of Planning’s decision to approve Verizon’s applications
to install 11 cell towers in Palo Alto. I am writing to ask the City Council to remove Verizon’s project (Cluster 1, 17PLN‐
00169) from the Consent Calendar, so that Palo Alto residents will have an opportunity to voice our opinions about this
project directly to our selected officials.
I believe the Planning Director’s decision to allow Verizon to install unsightly and harmful equipment on utility poles next
to residential homes was incorrect. Palo Alto has plans for utility undergrounding throughout its neighborhoods. Verizon
should put all its equipment underground too. Verizon’s plan should only be approved on the condition that the
company locate all its equipment underground. This is what sophisticated cities are now requiring the telecom industry.
And it makes good sense.
Please hear our appeal, overturn the Planning Director’s approval, and require Verizon to put all equipment
underground.
Thank you very much!
Thanks,
Melody Song
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
15
Carnahan, David
From:S Anthony <wushujia00@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 13, 2018 7:32 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Verzon cell tower installations
Please remove Verizon's "Cluster 1" (17PLN-00169) from the consent calendar so that we residents can chime
in. Also, I'm not convinced that Verizon can't go underground.
Thank you,
Marie Anthony
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Adams, Amy E. MD <AdamsA5@sutterhealth.org>
Sent:Saturday, April 14, 2018 2:51 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:verizon cell towers
Members of the Palo Alto City Council‐
I am concerned regarding the plan for numerous additional cell towers in Palo Alto. I wonder if the Verizon “Cluster 1”
project (17PLN‐00169) is on the Consent Calendar. If so, I would encourage you to remove it and allow for council and
citizen discussion. I know many citizens are concerned about this project for various reasons and would like the
opportunity to weigh in.
I am an MD/PhD and have concerns regarding the level of electromagnetic radiation in our day to day environment. In
2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization,
appointed an expert Working Group to review all available evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group
classified cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited
evidence from studies of radiofrequency energy and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent evidence from mechanistic
studies. Basically we don’t yet have enough data over a long enough time span. The energy levels across the
environment now in urban areas are unprecedented.
This Scientific American article linked below describes a study from 2016 that tested the possibility of links between
cancers and chronic exposure to the type of radiation emitted from cell phones and wireless devices. The findings, which
chronicle an unprecedented number of rodents subjected to a lifetime of electromagnetic radiation starting in utero,
present some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at
least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major‐cell‐phone‐radiation‐study‐reignites‐cancer‐questions/
I don’t know yet if E/M causes cancers or other issues in humans, but I think it could, especially at high levels emitted
from towers near residential homes and workplaces. I think decisions about numerous new cell towers deserves
significant thought and there should be a really good reason for it, not just due to a perceived inconvenience of the “I
need every technology fast, instant and now” era we’re in now nor to aid a communications business’ bottom line.
If you would like more info on the topic, I encourage attendance of one or more council members and/or PA staff at the
following event:
Generation Zapped Film Screening in San Jose, April 21, 2018 at 10 AM. The Santa Clara County Medical Association Alliance Foundation (SCCMAFA) invites physicians,
nurses, family and friends to a free screening of the movie Generation Zapped which explores the
health hazards of wireless technology. Considering there are 237 million cell phone users in the U.S., the introduction of driverless car and the Internet of Things, this is a timely topic. A panel will accompany the film to discuss the recent release of the California Department of Public Health recommendations for wireless devices, the recent National Toxicology Program Report on Cell
Phones and Cancer and more.
Generation Zapped Film
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
17
The film showing is on Saturday, April 21 from 10am-12pm at the offices of the SCCMA, 700 Empey
Way, San Jose, near 280 and Winchester.
This event is wheelchair accessible. Please RSVP at 408-288-6691. Or link to- https://form.jotform.com/80934939153162
Amy E. Adams, MD/PhD
Palo Alto Department of Dermatology
Co‐Chair, PAMF Sustainability Committee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/16/2018 9:47 AM
18
Carnahan, David
From:Schwark Satyavolu <schwark@gmail.com> on behalf of Schwark Satyavolu
<schwark@alum.rpi.edu>
Sent:Sunday, April 15, 2018 7:00 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Verizon Cell Towers
Hello,
My name is Ramakrishna Satyavolu, and I am the owner and resident of 655 Hale St., Palo Alto CA 94301. I have heard that cell
equipment is going up in my neighborhood and it is all approved and a done deal. Maybe this was done before I moved into this
neighborhood three years ago, but I really think this seems very rushed and with no opportunity for the residents to voice their
opinions. I for one have a real problem with this, as the cell coverage is just fine in my neighborhood without any further towers (I
am on Verizon), and if any were required, it should be with the health, safety and aesthetics in mind. If this has already been
approved, I would like to categorically state that this does not sound like the right decision. I don't understand even if this was
required, why it cannot go underground like all the other utilities that are being put underground with the work on University
Avenue and beyond. I would like to a) request that this be reconsidered altogether on whether to install this equipment. b) if at the
end of it, it is proven that the neighborhood really even needs these, then that all this be installed underground like most other cities
are requiring.
At the very least, I would like to request that you remove Verizon’s “Cluster 1” project (17PLN‐00169) from the Consent Calendar so
that Palo Alto residents may have an opportunity to voice their opinions of Verizon’s plans directly to their elected representatives.
Sincerely,
Ramakrishna Satyavolu
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2018 2:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roger Pierno <rktroger@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 16, 2018 3:55 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Architectural Review Board
Subject:Approve Wireless Communication Facility Permit Applications
Dear Honorable Counsel Members,
I am writing to urge your approval of current pending and future Wireless Communication Facility Permit
Applications for the Deployment of Small Cell Wireless Communication Equipment on Utility Poles. These local, focused, distributed, low power systems are the best way to improve Palo Alto's dismal cell phone coverage. These systems provide increased capacity and coverage with minimal disruption and minimal
aesthetic impacts while also keeping costs down for the mobile phone provides by not requiring underground
installation; if providers have increased costs they will get passed on to customers.
Thank you for your attention,
Sincerely,
Roger Pierno
1200 College Avenue
Palo Alto
APPENDIX A I COUNC~&rNG Ii c/it /l. It.
[ ] P Before Meeting
[ ~ed at Meeting
Government Code Section 5852.1 Disclosure
The following information consists of estimates that have been provided by the City's municipal
advisor which has been represented by such party to have been provided in good faith:
(A) True Interest Cost of the Certificates: 4.15%
(B) Finance Charge of the Certificates (Sum of all fees/charges paid to third parties):
$258,975.68
(C) Net Proceeds to be Received (net of finance charges, reserves and capitalized interest, if
any): $8,988,349.32
(D) Total Payment Amount Through Maturity: $15,525,240.35
The foregoing estimates constitute good faith estimates only. The principal amount of the
Certificates, the true interest cost of the Certificates, the finance charges thereof, the amount of
proceeds received therefrom and total payment amount with respect thereto may differ from
such good faith estimates due to (a) the actual date of the sale of the Certificates being
different than the date assumed for purposes of such estimates, (b) the actual principal amount
of Certificates sold being different from the estimated amount used for purposes of such
estimates, (c) the actual amortization of the Certificates being different than the amortization
assumed for purposes of such estimates, (d) the actual market interest rates at the time of sale
of the Certificates being different than those estimated for purposes of such estimates, (e)
other market conditions, or (f) alterations in the City's financing plan, or a combination of such
factors. The actual date of sale of the Certificates and the actual principal amount of
Certificates sold will be determined by the City based on the timing of the need for proceeds of
the Certificates and other factors. The actual interest rates borne by the Certificates will depend
on market interest rates at the time of sale thereof. The actual amortization of the Certificates
will also depend, in part, on market interest rates at the time of sale thereof. Market interest
rates are affected by economic and other factors beyond the control of the City.
Road underpass and dramatically improve Palo Alto H.S. student safety without taking any
homes or costing the City a half-billion dollars:
1) Implement a pedestrian/bike underpass at Churchill Avenue for safe Palo Alto H.S.
student transit.
2) Build 2x bike/pedestrian underpasses underneath Embarcadero Road at the
intersections with Kingsley Avenue and entrance of Palo Alto H.S. on existing public
lands, which will dramatically increase student safety and eliminate the 3rd traffic signal
on Embarcadero Road that significantly impede East-West traffic today.
3) Significantly Increase Capacity and Utility of the Embarcadero Grade Separation
a. Broaden underpass to 4 lanes eliminating a huge bottleneck to E-W traffic
b. Remove pedestrian crossing light from Paly H.S. to Town & Country (per above)
c. Implement Left Turn signals from West & East bound Embarcadero to Alma Rd.
NOTE #1: There is a consistent span of open, usable public space on both sides of
Embarcadero Road spanning between 50-100 feet wide in different locations between PA HS
entrance and Kingsley Avenue (see map in appendix).
NOTE #2: Our proposals above intend to increase the capacity of the Embarcadero Road
underpass to accommodate for the lost Eastbound capacity if Churchill Avenue is closed at
the West side. It is not intention our intention to imply that we want to increase the speeds
on Embarcadero Road, nor eliminate any existing stop lights or controls.
#2 -Critical Disadvantages of Full or Hybrid Lowered Road Underpass at Churchill Avenue:
Churchill Avenue is a relatively low capacity intersection that is less than 400 yards away from
an existing major grade separation at Embarcadero Road, and any proposal to create a Road
Underpass at Churchill would have costs and disadvantages that far outweigh the benefits:
1) Financial: There are 36 homes that would be fully claimed and 6 homes that would be
partially claimed by eminent domain in any underpass design given the maximum 6%
decline required on both sides of the railway. At this intersection alone, that would add
at least $200,000,000 for this single underpass before construction has even begun.
Spending a total of $350-400MM for grade separation at a single intersection that is 400
yards from an existing underpass is not an acceptable use of taxpayer funds.
2) Community & Environment: Building an underpass at Churchill would likely require
lowering the Alma Street 22 feet and all the arteries feeding it to the same level. At 6%
maximum grade, that would wipe out an entire neighborhood more than 370 feet in
both directions, make homeless hundreds of residents and school children, kill hundreds
of trees, and constitute a new "concrete jungle" in what is today historic Old Palo Alto
and Southgate neighborhoods. It would also leave Palo Alto H.S. staff parking lot
stranded and possibly impact part of their football field. In a city committed to
increasing housing stock and school infrastructure, this is unacceptable.
3) Construction Impact: Building an underpass at Churchill would require a massive, multi-
year long construction project that would shut down Alma Street. An underpass would
require dropping the elevation of Alma Street and Churchill Avenue roughly 22 feet,
which would utterly shut down all north and southbound traffic and leave all
surrounding communities stranded for years.
NOPA Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation v4.4 -2/12/2018
http://www.northoldpaloalto.org
2
#3 -Critical Disadvantages of Raised Rail Solutions:
We are strongly opposed to raising the train above grade on a berm or structure (ie,
Raised Rail solutions), as it would cause increased visibility of the train within the
neighborhood, reduced privacy for those along the tracks, increased risks for those
living along the tracks in the event of derailment, and an increase in noise. We feel we
should be reducing, not increasing, the impact and visibility of the train on our
community, and this option is in contradiction with that.
#1-Significant Advantages of a Lowered Rail Solution:
The benefits are significant for any grade separation that drives the rail below grade.
1) Construction Impact: A bored tunnel construction would dramatically reduce the
enormous construction impact to our larger community, which would be near
cataclysmic in any Underpass proposal. [Building a 22 foot deep underpass at Alma &
Churchill would shut down traffic for the entire community for years.] There is almost
no price that can be placed on the avoidance of this construction on our community.
2) Financial Benefit: Implementing a bored tunnel solution would open the above ground
right-of-way for various community uses, including a parkway and ped/bike path
spanning Palo Alto, but also provide income generating opportunities like leasing land to
low-income housing developers and an open air farmers' market. Leasing the land for
these purposes would generate significant income to offset the cost of construction.
3) City I Community Benefit: Reclaiming the open space created in a bored tunnel
approach would allow the City to realize several of its stated goals that are otherwise
very difficult to realize given a lack of available open space. These types of objectives
have been proven already in several cities, like NYC that recently reclaimed an elevated
train track to create a public parkway. The City could achieve objectives including:
• Increased low income housing
• Increase pedestrian/bike pathways
• Increased open space
4) Student Safety: This is our chance to get a double win and solve a critical safety issue in
our community -eliminating direct contact between the rail and pedestrians.
In summary, we believe that there are many viable solutions to create acceptable traffic and
safety conditions at the Churchill Avenue intersection, including Lowered Rail, or blocking the
Churchill Avenue crossing while making traffic and pedestrian improvements at Embarcadero
and Churchill. We are, however, adamantly opposed to a Lowered Road I Underpass solution
and Raised Rail given the large and unacceptable detrimental impacts that would create.
Thank you for your consideration of our community's concerns and interests.
Endorsed by the members of the North Old Palo Alto {NOPA) community association
(NOTE: Reference Signature Page for Names & Addresses)
NOPA Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation v4.4 -2/12/2018
http://www.northoldpaloalto.org
3
Figure 1-Existing
Embarcadero Road
Underpass Satellite
Image Demonstrating
the Ample Room
Available for
Renovation and
Improvements
NOPA Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation v4.4-2/12/2018
http://www.northoldpaloalto.org
4
PDF order# Name Address Apt City State 45 Ylnan Li 138 Coleridge Ave Palo Alto CA
Kathleen Judge 180 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 46 Andy Chol 51 O Washington Ave Palo Alto CA
2 Hank Sousa 160 Melville Ave Palo Alto CA 47 Ranee Chol 510 Washington Ave Palo Alto CA
48 Chris Waldo 1625 Madrano Ave Palo Alto CA
3 Andie Read 160 Melville Ave Palo Alto CA 49 Erkay Uzun 1613 Mariposa Ave PaloAHo CA
4 Grace Luo 102 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 50 Patricia F. O'Donnell 725 Cowper Street Palo Alto CA
5 Janice Luo 102 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 51 Edward O'Donnell 725 Copwer Street Palo Alto CA
6 Rosalyn Luo 102 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 52 Kirk Latour 102 Coleridge Ave Palo Alto CA
7 Jason Mallof 118 Churchin Ave Palo Alto CA 53 Sangetha Bollini 890 N California Ave PaloAHo CA
8 Pafam Guk 151 Churchla Ave Palo Alto CA 54 Anand BolUnl 890 N California Ave Palo Alto CA
9 David Fence 159 Churchia Ave Palo Alto CA 55 Mohamad Hadldl 54 Churchll Ave Palo Alto CA
56 Young-jeh Oh 54 ChurchlU Ave Palo Alto CA
10 Rachael Calicut 160 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 57 Jason Stinson 50 Churchill ave Palo Alto CA
11 Matthew Mell 160 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 58 Eduardo Llach 36 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA
12 Chikuo Shen 136 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 59 Carol J. Anderson 86 Chruchill Ave Palo Alto CA
13 Li-hslang Yu Shan 137 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 60 Karen McNay 1520 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
14 Jeffrey Brown 111 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 61 Kevin Carlson 850 E. Greenwich Place Palo Alto CA
15 Kyle Bordeau 1433 Alma street Palo Alto CA 62 Lellani Waldo 1625 Madrano Ave Palo Alto CA
62 Ellf Uzun 1613 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
16 Gltanjall Jain 119 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 63 Aileen Lee 50 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA
17 Monica Tan Brown 111 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 64 Bob Krentler 1437 Alma Palo Alto CA
18 Raymond Ogawa 119 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 65 Felice Shieh 1437 Alma Palo Alto CA
19 Leslie Mallof 118 ChurchlU Ave Palo Alto CA 66 Dayton S. Misheldt 145 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA
20 Samantha Shen 128 Churchla Ave Palo Alto CA 67 Rob Levitsky 1200 Emerson Ave Palo Alto CA
21 David Shen 128 Churchla Ave Palo Alto CA 68 Irene Au 410 Oxford Ave Palo Alto CA
22 Sean Hee 1525 Alma Street Palo Alto CA 69 Bradly Horowitz 410 Oxford Ave Palo Alto CA
70 Manlsh Baldua 1545 Alma Palo Alto CA
23 Lena Hee 1525 Alma Street Palo Alto CA 71 Gordon Thompson 7 45 Newell Rd Palo Alto CA
24 Ben Venfunum 1545 Alma Street Palo Alto CA 72 Marie Thompson 745 Newell Rd Palo Alto CA
25 Tanya Tran 1551 Alma Street Palo Alto CA 73 Mall Yarkln 4090 Ben Lomond Drive Palo Alto CA
26 Mandy Anderson 1554 Alma Street Palo Alto CA 74 AtivZomet 152 Homer Ave Palo Alto CA
27 Brian Holcomb 1555 Alma Street Palo Alto CA 75 William Schmarzo 1550 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA
28 Helen T ombropoulos 105 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 76 Rosemary Knight 2101 O Cornell Street Palo Alto CA
77 Yossef Zomet 146 Stanley Way Palo Alto CA
29 John Todd 143 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 78 Janina Duraj 603 Newell Rd Palo Alto CA
30 Hao-Hua Chu 129 Churchill ave Palo Alto CA 79 Damlel Puduay 604 Newell Rd PaloAHo CA
31 Emily Hung 129 Churchill ave Palo Alto CA 80 Sidney Wilkins 345 Manzanita Ave Palo Alto CA
32 Kerry Yarkln 135 Churchill ave Palo Alto CA 81 Enoch Chol 95 Crescent Drive Palo Alto CA
33 Neva Yarkin 133 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 82 Rachel Croft 1547 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
34 Mary Sylvester 135 Melville Ave Palo Alto CA 83 Javier Gonzales 1547 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
35 Kim Martin 150 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 84 lnyoung Cho 1511 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
85 Qiang Wang 92 Churchltt Ave Palo Alto CA
36 Lance Martin 150 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 86 Xlcohong Wang 92 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA
37 Stephane Moreau 1445 Alma Street Palo Alto CA 87 Rul Zhang 1512 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
38 Gerald Berry 86 ChurchH Ave Palo Alto CA 88 Chandru V 1539 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
39 John W. Day 1560 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA 89 Klran Oak 1539 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
40 Suzanne Degler 1560 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA 90 S. Ladh 1550 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
41 Anne Kramer 1528 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA 91 Fenelia Leighton 1568 Mariposa Palo Alto CA
92 Rebecca Branson 1563 Mariposa Palo Alto CA 42 David Kramer 1528 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA 93 Gall C. Woolley 1685 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
43 Sam Lada 1550 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA 94 Bradford Woolley 1685 Mariposa Palo Alto CA
44 Anisha Patel 1550 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA 95 Bing Zhang 1591 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
96 Gretchen Hollingsworth 1599 Mariposa Ava Palo Alto CA 148 Tim Roper 218 North California Ave Palo Alto CA
97 John Hollingworth 1599 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA 149 Craig Moye 1595 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
98 Janet R. Peacock 1582 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA 150 Cynthia Lea 1150 Welch Road #54 Palo Alto CA
99 Karen McNay 1520 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA 151 Hersha Mlttakanti 1150 Welch Road #521 Palo Alto CA
100 Joan MacDanlels 1521 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 152 Michael Davenport 1170 Welch Road #721 Palo Alto CA
101 Carolyn Schmarzo 1521 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 153 Mark Grundberg 1170 Welch Road #721 Palo Alto CA
102 Dianne MacDanlels 1521 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 154 Leo Chen 1100 Welch Road #622 Palo Alto CA
103 Deborah Fife 1510 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 155 Alex Kasman 1130 Welch Road #331 Palo Alto CA
104 Walter Fu 1536 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 156 Erica Sahlberg 1180 Welch Road #831 Palo Alto CA
105 Joanne Fu 1536 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 157 Rustin Massoud! 1170 Welch Road Palo Alto CA
106 Bradly Brom 1564 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 158 Craig Stauffer 1160 Welch Road Palo Alto CA
107 Jenna Brom 1564 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 15g Megan Stauffer 1160 Welch Road Palo Alto CA
108 Stepanie James 1551 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 160 Christine Roper 218 North California Ave Palo Alto CA
109 Brad Forrol 141 Coleridge Ave Palo Alto CA 161 SaarGur 151 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA
110 Steve Jarvis 1570 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 162 Ben Chol 315MelvilleAve Palo Alto CA
111 Carol Acott 141 Colerdlge Ave Palo Alto CA 163 Jane Harris 230 Sequoia Ave Palo Alto CA
112 Henle Faghanl 1875 Webster Street Palo Alto CA 164 Peter Shambora 1565 Castilleja Ave Palo Alto CA
113 Bahma Koohestanl 1875 Wester Street Palo Alto CA 165 Kevin Leighton 1568 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
114 Emilia Suviala 3488 Janice Way Palo Alto CA 166 David Schnedlar 1671 Castilleja Ave Palo Alto CA
115 Berverty Radin 701 Paul Ave Palo Alto CA 167 Pam Molano 1630 Portola Ave Palo Alto CA
116 Donnie Youngbery 30 Tulip Ln Palo Alto CA 168 Ava Hahn 1620 Escobita Ave Palo Alto CA
117 Rikki Faktou 845 Ramona Ave Palo Alto CA 169 Kata McKenzie 1524 Madrano Ave Palo Alto CA
118 Michael Lin 842 Allara walk Palo Alto CA 170 Christopher Kantarjlev 1530 Portola Ave Palo Alto CA
119 Jennifer Gu 842 Allara walk Palo Alto CA 171 Hslnya Shen 185 Santa Rita Ave Palo Alto CA
120 Jlayang Liu 532 Channing Ave #101 Palo Alto CA 172 Evelyn Chan-Cox 191 Washington Ave Palo Alto CA
121 Rul Zhang 532 Channing Ave #101 Palo Alto CA 173 Robert Rubenstein 1635 Bryant St Palo Alto CA
122 Janette Herceg 2070 Williams Street Palo Alto CA 17 4 Susan Whitehead 112 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA
123 Tyler Vinclguerda 2010 Williams Street Palo Alto CA 175 Bruce Greenwood 1656 Madrono Ave Palo Alto CA
124 Angle Herceg 2311 Princeton Street Palo Alto CA 176 Daniel K. Marshall 538 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA
125 Brain Mabe 54 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 1n Daniel Cox 191 Washington Ave Palo Alto CA
126 Harmut Sadrozlnskl 62 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 178 Rebecca Fox 159 Tennyson Ave Palo Alto CA
127 Shalla Sadrozinskl 62 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 179 Tina Hua 361 Tennyson Ave Palo Alto CA
128 Gina Craig 1904 Emerson Street Palo Alto CA 180 Rasmey Pleak 214 Sequoia Ave Palo Alto CA
129 E. Tom Craig 904 Emerson Streeet Palo Alto CA 181 Zeehan Selha 2031 Park Blvd Palo Alto CA
130 Laaml Von Ruden 468 Channing Ave Palo Alto CA 182 Richard Purkey 167 Tennyson Ave Palo Alto CA
131 John Dhney 537 Jackson Drive Palo Alto CA 183 Thomas Hoffman 1511 MadronoAve Palo Alto CA
132 Ashok Sadrozlnskl 62 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 184 Nancy McGaraghan 200 Coleridge Ave Palo Alto CA
133 Colm Callan 1411 Tasso St. Palo Alto CA 185 John Koval 492 Tennyson Ave Palo Alto CA
134 Julie Callan 1411 Tasso St. Palo Alto CA 186 Christen Conrad 900 Lincoln Ave Palo Alto CA
135 Celeste Bates 1450 Bryant St. Palo Alto CA 187 Niis Thorjussen 333 Santa Rita Ave Palo Alto CA
136 Steven Bates 1450 Bryant St. Palo Alto CA 188 Jacklyn Pen 1592 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
137 Helen Conroe 2310 Middlefield Rd Palo Alto CA 189 Tracy A. Ferrell 1545 Escoblta Ave Palo Alto CA
138 Mark Zucker 2310 Middlefield Rd Palo Alto CA 190 Martha Angell 1681 Castilleja Ave Palo Alto CA
139 K. Fansh Haydel 967 Amarillo Ave Palo Alto CA 191 Tricia Herrick 1510 Portola Ave Palo Alto CA
140 Susan Bush 2538 Ross Rd Palo Alto CA 192 Tom Vlaslc 1540 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
141 Allen Bush 2538 Ross Rd Palo Alto CA 193 Henry Hwong 2361 Bryant St Palo Alto CA
142 Aaron Strauch 967 Amarillo Ave Palo Alto CA 194 Rebecca Friend 170 Lowell Ave Palo Alto CA
143 Teri Llach 36 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 195 Nina Aguilar 1544 Madrano Ave Palo Alto CA
144 Lisa Hwong 2361 Bryant Street Palo Alto CA 196 Laura Tannenwald 3795 Corina Way Palo Alto CA
145 Carole Fonck 350 Oxford Ave Palo Alto CA 197 Ewa Goosell 152 Tennyson Ave Palo Alto CA
146 lnhwa Song 1072 Tanland Drive #203 Palo Alto CA 198 Maya Misner 1330 Greenwood Ave Palo Alto CA
147 Lucia Ugarte 102 Kingsley Ave Palo Alto CA 199 David Lee 1531 El Camino Real Palo Alto CA
200 Geoff Dinaker 2203 S. Ct. Palo Alto CA 252 Arlene Leslie 1650 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
201 Terry Atkinson 2081 Harvard Palo Alto CA 253 Johanna Ehrlich 1550 Castilleja Ave Palo Alto CA
202 Christina Hall 954 Forest Ave Palo Alto CA 254 Virginia Procevlat 1555 Escoblta Ave Palo Alto CA
203 Don Ansbay 2090 Sandalwood Ct. Palo Alto CA 255 Ahmed Hassan 140 Kellogg Ave Palo Alto CA
204 Tina Hua 2056 Emerson St Palo Alto CA 256 Chandru Venkataraman 153g Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
205 Albert Hua 2056 Emerson St Palo Alto CA 257 Amanda Efron 138 Rinconada Ave Palo Alto CA
206 Carolyn Wang 731 Christine Dr Palo Alto CA 258 Doug Murphy-Chutorian 335 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA
207 Vanessa Lui 7 40 Christine Dr Palo Alto CA 259 Kim Randall 2557 Park Blvd #L 110 Palo Alto CA
208 Roberl Herriot 140 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 260 Eileen Fagan 1651 Castilleja Ave Palo Alto CA
209 Dandan Llmetkal 2065AlmaSt Palo Alto CA 261 David Schnedler 1671 Castilleja Ave Palo Alto CA
210 Stephanie He 251 Washington Ave Palo Alto CA 262 Kevin Ohlson 666 Tennyson Ave Palo Alto CA
211 Lian Bl 380 Coleridge Ave Palo Alto CA 263 Carolyn Shea 434 Lowell Ave Palo Alto CA
212 Jlngbo Wu 344 Grant Ave Palo Alto CA 264 Kristina Smith 1144 Cedar Street Palo Alto CA
213 Teresa Moye 1595 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA 265 Richard Soderberg 138 Rlnconada Ave Palo Alto CA
214 Patrick Heron 405 Marlowe St Palo Alto CA 266 Louis Draper 15g5 Park Blvd Palo Alto CA
215 Jeffrey Glenn 2061 Webster St Palo Alto CA 267 Martha McKee 1895 Park Blvd Palo Alto CA
216 Xlaoyun LI 159 Kellogg Ave Palo Alto CA 268 Laura Wagerman 1435Alma St Palo Alto CA
217 Yvonne Lau 776 W. Greenwich Place Palo Alto CA 269 Raj Mashruwala 450 Melville Ave Palo Alto CA
218 Ceiky Ip 776 W. Greenwich Place Palo Alto CA 270 Caroline Japic 1655 El Camino Real Palo Alto CA
219 Amrutha Kattamuri 3189 Berryessa St, Unit #1 Palo Alto CA 271 Carol Weber 1017 Bryant St Palo Alto CA
220 Glenn Orit 2061 Webster St Palo Alto CA 272 Llhyuam Chang 1611 Castilleja Ave Palo Alto CA
221 Westin Patrik 117 Tennyson Ave Palo Alto CA 273 Julie Yoon 1591 Castilleja Ave Palo Alto CA
222 Cassy Christianson 1745 Waverly St. Palo Alto CA 27 4 Alice Jacobs 123 Sherman Ave Palo Alto CA
223 John Shea Jr 434 Lowell Ave Palo Alto CA 275 Helen Waters 1485 Byron St Palo Alto CA
224 Leslie Murphy-Chutorian 335 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 276 Christine Buss 1615 Madrono Ave Palo Alto CA
225 Madhu Rao 1519 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA 277 K.R. Wllsher 1085 Emerson St Palo Alto CA
226 Kat JasonMoreau 1445AlmaSt Palo Alto CA 278 David Hoffman 545 Fulton St Palo Alto CA
227 Olivia Chen 2036 Emerson St Palo Alto CA 279 Susie Hwang 159 Melville Ave Palo Alto CA
228 Chaltanya Hazarey 1743Alma St Palo Alto CA 280 Zoe Sarantis 1646 Portola Ave Palo Alto CA
229 Chun-Hui Yang 358 Fernando Ave Palo Alto CA 281 Shalna Nishimoto 201 Chestnut Ave Palo Alto CA
230 Hlmanl Batra 3167 Alma St Palo Alto CA 282 Juli De Biler 102 ChurchlH Ave Palo Alto CA
231 Frances Lin 2331 Ross Rd Palo Alto CA 283 George Wong 102 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA
232 Paul Machado 363 Stanford Ave Palo Alto CA 284 Kirk Taylor 64 De Soto Dr. Palo Alto CA
233 Mustafa Ozgen 101 MlramonteAve Palo Alto CA 285 Balsy Olson 64 De Soto Dr. Palo Alto CA
234 Jonathan Ehrlich 1550 Castilleja Palo Alto CA 286 Allen Clark 269 Walter Hays Dr. Palo Alto CA
235 Sheri Cox 3091 Ross Road Palo Alto CA 287 Vivian Clark 269 Waller Hays Dr. Palo Alto CA
236 Douglas Carlson 1640 Escobita Ave Palo Alto CA 288 Chris Clark 269 Walter Hays Dr. Palo Alto CA
237 Pradeep Rao 260 Stanford Ave Palo Alto CA 289 Hlrokl Morishige 102 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA
238 Lauren Bonomi 526 Lowell Ave Palo Alto CA 290 Charles Book 102 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA
239 Phyllis Kayten 96 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 291 Biter Bilen 1401 Cowper St. Palo Alto CA
240 Charles Harvie 1655AlmaSt Palo Alto CA 292 Emily Shaw 104Alma St. Palo Alto CA
241 K Patricia Landman 2066 Byron St Palo Alto CA 293 Mary Haugen 105 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA
242 Yen-Kuang Chen 2331 Ross Rd Palo Alto CA 294 Matthew Clark 126 Walter Hays Dr. Palo Alto CA
243 Betim Deva 127 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 295 David Clark 126 Walter Hays Dr. Palo Alto CA
244 Ronald Wilensky 2200 South Ct Palo Alto CA 296 Ryan Mitra 2577 Park Blvd Palo Alto CA
245 Linda Crilly 473 Gary Ct Palo Alto CA 297 Manu Kumar 837 Garland Dr Palo Alto CA
246 Laura Martini 1502A Portola Ave Palo Alto CA 298 Ken Tam 1654 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA
247 Katie Seedman 535 Portola Ave Palo Alto CA 299 Hana Kumar 837 Garland Dr Palo Alto CA
248 Rebecca Eisenberg 2345 Waverley St Palo Alto CA 300 Gargi Mitra Keeling 2080 Marich Way #8 Palo Alto CA
249 Perry Clark 1620 Escobits Palo Alto CA
250 Javld Alasti 880 Lincoln Ave Palo Alto CA
251 Olga Petrova 1584 Mariposa Ave Palo Alto CA