HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180702plCC701-32
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: 7/2/2018
Document dates: 6/13/2018 – 6/20/2018
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 | 6/19/2018 3:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 12:58 PM
To:Lait, Jonathan
Cc:Keene, James; Flaherty, Michelle; Morse, Rosemary; Council, City; Architectural Review
Board
Subject:429 University Building Permit Submital
Attachments:scanmrlait.pdf
Dear Mr. Lait,
Please see letter attached.
Thank you.
Elizabeth Wong
650 814 3051
June 19, 2018
Permit No. 18000-00536
Re: 429 University Ave. Mixed Use Project
To: Mr. Jonathan Lait, Acting Director
City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Development
Dear Mr. Lait:
Thank you for meeting with us on Thursday June 14, 2018, on our project 429 University Ave,
Palo Alto.
BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTALS
Following are our submittal dates for Building Permits:
First Permit Submittal on: March 2, 2018 Target Response Date: April 2, 2018
Second Permit Submittal on: May 25, 2018 Target Response Date: June 8, 2018
Third Permit Submittal to be: June 29, 2018 Target Building Permit Date: July 7, 2018
The architectural construction drawings we left with you on June 14, 2018, is our third plan
checking submittal for building permit. We request your help in meeting the City's performance
metrics for timeliness of reviews.
OPTION 1 -STUDY SESSION
As you may recall, the original and Council approved Option 1 was a schematic design, work in
progress, conceptual plan prepared for an ARB Study Session. Applicant strongly objected to
such Option 1 being recommended to Council over the other options because its design was
unfinished and needed much refinement for it to be buildable.
The construction drawings you have are the result of much refinement to Option 1 to make it
buildable. Some of the refinements we made include changes to comply with newly enacted
2016 California Building Code, existing seismic requirements, accessibility standards as well as
square footage placements, all of which had not been worked out in the original Option 1. In
fact, the drawings for Option 1 did not account for all the 28,547 SF that was approved. As
examples of some of the changes, bathrooms were changed to meet new accessibility
standards; in compliance with seismic requirements, the entire western perimeter of the building
was moved 8" away from the adjacent property.
Many of these changes resulted in small decreases in square footage in the lower floors. To
accommodate these reductions and to make up the total approved square footage, floor space
was put back on the top floor. In order to minimize the appearance of massing, the added
square footage on the top floor is kept away from both University Avenue and Kipling Street,
respecting similar setbacks as shown in the original Option 1. Other changes are small and
June 19, 2018
Permit No. 18000-00536
Re: 429 University Ave. Mixed Use Project
represent fine tuning the interior spaces to make them more useable, such as shifting 170 SF of
the 7,515 SF floor area from the first floor, which represents a small 2% area shift.
DAMAGE TO APPLICANT
We stress the need to meet our timeline and commitments to professionals and construction
third parties. Failure to do so will significantly affect the project and may result in material
damage to the Applicant. We have revised and resubmitted our plans each time in response to
comments from planning, building, urban forestry, utilities, public works and others as required
through the building permitting process and it would be damaging and even unattainable to
require further significant changes at this stage of the building permit process.
BOARD LEVEL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
In the APPROVAL NO. 2017-2 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION FOR 425 AND 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, Applicant is required to return
to the ARB for approval of (1) design treatment of the Western wall (2) landscape details and (3)
exterior building materials. The requested material for such hearing consisting of Western wall
design, Landscape Report and materials board have been delivered to Planning on March 20,
2018. Applicant has also paid for 72 hours of work by Planning at a cost of $13,860 to effect
such ARB hearing.
We hereby request such ARB hearing at the earliest.
Thank you for your attention to this project.
Sincerely,
Peter Ko, AIA
Architect
cc
James Keene
Michelle Flaherty
Rosemary Morse
City Council
ARB
Elizabeth Wong
Applicant
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joseph Charles <jfcharles123@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 06, 2018 2:55 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Parks
Subject:Outrageous Golf Prices at Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
To The City Council Members of Palo Alto:
I just had to send an email to communicate my profound disappointment and disgust at the prices Palo Alto
Municipal Golf Course (aka Baylands Links) is charging to play its course. I have been playing Palo Alto Muni
since 1987 ‐ over 30 years. For 25 years I use to play there 2 to 3 times per week at least basically with the
same foursome. I have competed in several Palo Alto City Championships there. Now, the City Council has
the arrogance and audacity to charge its Bay Area residents $82 to walk 18 holes on a Friday morning (I live in
RWC) (walking price for Bay Area resident on June 8, 2018). $82!!! Your prices are more than double (in some
instances triple) what the green fees used to be.
Are you aware that PA Muni is now more expensive during the week than Stanford Golf Course ($70 ‐ I have
the good fortune of having playing privileges there), Cinnibar ($66 w/ a cart), Shoreline ($35), Crystal Springs
($55 w/ a cart) and SJ Muni ($40 ‐ less than 1/2 the PA price). It is supposed to be a MUNICIPAL golf course
dedicated for the benefit of the general public who live in the community; not a cash cow bent on pandering
to the elitest, non‐golfing, transient tech demographic. For a Bay Area resident, PA Muni is charging almost
$100 to walk (no cart) your course on the weekends. I can play (and will for now) Stanford for $80, Shoreline
for $57, Crystal Springs for $80 (with a cart), and $54 for San Jose Muni. Your prices are elitest and
exclusionary. It certainly seems as though Palo Alto, once again, is pandering to its wealthy constituents at the
expense of its less‐wealthy citizens.
How in good conscience could you sanction the charging of prices that far exceed Stanford Golf Course,
Cinnibar and Crystal Springs ‐ all private facilities. How can you in good conscience charge prices that are
more than double the cost of other area municipal golf courses such as San Jose and Shoreline. Shame on
you. SHAME ON YOU.
Palo Alto Muni (which is what it will always be in the minds of many who still live here including me) should be
ashamed of itself. As the general manger of Palo Alto Muni, I am asking you to take my email to whoever has
decision‐making authority regarding green fees. As much as I want, and have looked forward, to playing PA
Muni again for the last three or four years, I cannot in good conscience play there so long as the City of Palo
Alto insists on charging such outrageous, tone‐deaf, price‐gouging fees.
Today I spoke with the Director of Golf Administration for the City of Palo Alto (sorry I don't remember his
name but he was very nice and very professional) who took the time to discuss all of this with me. He said
some very interesting and telling things such as "we believe our prices are competitive with the best courses
around" and that "we will let the market dictate our prices in the future." As a municipal facility, I do not think
it is appropriate that the citizens of the community should be charged prices that are "competitive" with other
private sector businesses whose fundamental goal is to turn a profit. And the open private market should not
be dictating the prices charged by a municipal facility. The City Golf Director informed me that prices may
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:43 AM
2
change as the market responds going forward. If that is true ‐ that the City may change prices depending on
how the market responds ‐ it is shameful that you decided to charge the highest possible prices to start
off while being open to lowering prices if the market responds negatively as opposed to setting the prices
lower (and more in line with the other courses in the immediate area) with the possibility of raising prices
later if the market reaction warrants it. That's not governing, that's gouging. And please do not tell me about
the $15 million you invested in the course. Palo Alto imposes, what, a 1.25% annual property tax on the
highest appraised homes in the United States.
I previously sent this email to the General manager and Superintendent of PA Muni, Ed Winiecki and Steve
Hoying, and I spoke with your Golf Administration Director. I am asking that this issue be placed on an
upcoming City Council Meeting Agenda, that the City Council will allow me to address this issue to the council
so that the City Council can explain its position and, hopefully, reconsider the prices it is charging for playing
its MUNICIPAL golf course. I look forward to hearing from you.
Joseph F. Charles, Esq.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Megan Swezey Fogarty <meganfogarty@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 07, 2018 9:58 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Greg Scharff; Kniss, Liz (external)
Subject:Please retain the Office of the City Auditor
Dear City Council,
I write to encourage the City Council to consider carefully the budget recommendation to eliminate
staffing for the Office of the City Auditor through outsourcing. While some city functions are
appropriate for outsourcing, city auditing is not. Far better would be to ask every city office to bare a
percentage of cut to meet demands for our financial forecast.
I first became aware of the City Auditor’s important role when working with our libraries. Instead of
cutting a branch, a critical report helped us align staffing with high demand service hours. We were
able to retain services for the community.
Over the years, the Office of the City Auditor has also led to better coordination of street cuts and
street repair, improved contract-processing times, adoption of an employee-ethics policy and
implementation of a whistleblower hotline, improved monitoring of water usage in parks and park
maintenance, establishment of utility risk-management procedures and provisions for purchasing
natural gas and electricity, improved controls over overtime pay, improved ambulance billing
practices, better inventory controls, streamlined planning-permit processes, identification of
information-security control vulnerabilities, improved practices related to workers' compensation
claims to reduce injuries as well as costs to the city, and improved code-enforcement practices to
more quickly deal with eyesore properties -- as well as additional sales and use tax, transient-
occupancy tax and utility tax recoveries.
Why not outsource? For performance auditing there are very few firms that do this work. Creating
contracts would mean consultants coming in and out with predefined work plans and I believe result
in reports of far less quality than in house performance audits done by a professional staff. I believe
we would have far fewer hard-hitting recommendations than we have come to expect and far less
accountability.
Palo Alto citizens put this function in the city charter with good reason. The office not only issues
audits, but also holds the city manager accountable to assess progress and implement
recommendations. This continuity cannot be contracted. The City of Berkeley also has this function –
good practice in our vital college towns!
City services that are fundamental to good governance should not be privatized. We believed that in
1983. Let’s continue this good practice.
Megan Swezey Fogarty
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:43 AM
2
Bryant Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stan Hutchings <stan.hutchings@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 07, 2018 11:49 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Financing garages should be shared among beneficiaries
new parking garages and all infrastructure upgrades should be financed by those stakeholders, and their
employees and customers who benefit, in a way proportional to the benefit, and who have generated the need
for additional parking any other resources. I get very little benefit from new parking garages (I bike rather than
drive), so the cost of garages to me should be small. I want more resources spent on things that benefit me.
Stan Hutchings
285 Rinconada Avenue
Palo Alto 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:41 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 6:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In response to arguments for the proposed Garage projects
Honorable Council Members,
I’d like to add to the discussion about the garages by responding directly to the two main arguments we hear
against Council reconsidering the garage projects. I and others from CFPA started sending letters on the Cal
Ave garage since early 2017 and have had a number of discussions with Council members on this topic.
1) We probably will never have universal consensus on how much parking the city should build so why
question the official plan from the transportation infrastructure planning effort?
Residents partly rely on the Council to ask questions that will help us reach consensus about the need for such
projects. The passage of time has given Council the opportunity to uncover oversights and shed welcome light
on what are could be fatally off‐course garage plans.
As far as we can tell from the planning documents, including the EIR, the garages were not based on studies of
parking demand management or parking alternatives for the area. They were made when building costs were
much lower and when continually adding new parking was thought to be a requirement for growth. The facts
and the outlook before 2014 were much different than they are now in 2018. Since then, building and real
estate costs have exploded, the budget is in severe deficit and there exist available, viable alternatives that are
very cheap in comparison. The current parking demand data points to only a single peak centered around the
weekday lunch hour which itself argues for a much more focused approach than building a garage structure.
2) It is hard to back away from these projects now since local merchants and residents have been promised
a garage from the outset.
On the contrary, Council would be lauded for backing out of the Cal Ave garage plan if it credibly provided a
much better plan to help local merchants and residents in return. This is a good bet since all the benefits from
the available alternatives can be readily brought to bear in less time and scaled far beyond what a garage can
provide.
Stopping the Cal Ave garage allows us to follow our new transportation plans (Comp Plan and SIP) in order to
spend much less money on better, faster, more flexible and cheaper mobility solutions and supporting
infrastructure. Also importantly, these measures can reduce road congestion and GHG emissions. I suggest
that Council simply ask staff what could be done to reduce parking demand on a budget of, say, $0.5 to 1M
over 12 to 24 months to provide targeted mobility solutions for Cal Ave employees and visitors. This is a much
more innovative, inspiring and beneficial approach for our City than the long and grim financial and tax
implications of building huge blocks of parking spaces.
Please reconsider the Cal Ave and Downtown garage projects to help our City spend our tax money wisely to
create a better transportation future.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:41 PM
2
Sincerely,
Bret Andersen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:49 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Coale <david@evcl.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 1:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:EIR for the Cal Ave and Downtown garages
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I would like to connect the dots and summarize what Carbon Free Palo Alto’s position is with respect to the Cal
Ave and Downtown parking garages.
If you look at the carbon emissions of Palo Alto you will see the majority of the GHG the city emits are from
automobile use. The Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) points this out as well and as council members
Fine and Wolbach commented on, during the Earth Day report to council on the 4/16/18 meeting, transportation
is the big peace of the pie we need to address.
One of the Comp Plan’s major goals is to reduce automobile use. This is where the Comp Plan and the SIP are
in complete agreement. Together these two guiding documents represent thousands of hours of community
input, effort and agreement on where the city should be heading and what to support going forward.
If you look at the infrastructure committee work, as far as I can tell, they did not use ether of these important
documents in their determination of what projects the city should consider; and, they did not rank the projects in
any way. Whenever the city is considering spending millions of dollars on infrastructure with huge shortfalls,
you need to make sure these permanent solutions are really needed and comply with the city’s long-term goals.
Every time the city spends money, they are voting for or against sustainability. Some of the projects will
increase GHG emissions and some will reduce them. Let’s make sure we are on the right side of history on
these projects.
What is before you is the EIR for the garages. What is missing from the EIR is an accounting of the induced
congestion and associated GHGs that the garages will bring. What is also missing is the recent success of the
downtown TMA efforts and other alternatives that could make the garages unnecessary (see recent CFPA letters
to council).
While the Cal Ave businesses and the local residents say they want the garage, no one asked them about any
alternatives. The good news is that I think we can skip the garages that might soon be obsolete and the
associated disruption of building them and bring a much cheaper, faster solution to this area without the
additional traffic and GHG emissions. This would be a big win for all.
Please consider the alternatives to these garages so that we can meet our 80% GHG reduction goal by 2030 and
continue to lead in this very important area of climate change leadership.
Sincerely,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:49 PM
2
David Coale
Carbon Free Palo Alto.
PS CFPA is not opposed to the Public Safety Building.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 2:59 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Young, Edwin <eyoung@honolulu.gov>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 1:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Outsourcing of City Auditor Performance Audits
To the Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
It was good news to hear that the City’s Finance Committee rescinded its proposal to outsource performance audits and
chose not to eliminate audit positions in the Office of the City Auditor. In support of this decision, may I relate my own
experiences with outsourced audits.
The U.S. Comptroller General of the United States establishes the auditing standards for governmental auditors. These
standards require government auditors to obtain adequate evidence to support their audit findings and conclusions. For
example, auditors must gather testimonial, documentary, analytical, and physical evidence to support the audit
conclusions and recommendations. Auditor observations may be used to verify the audit results. Auditors must also
have a quality assurance process to ensure the audit results are valid and accurate. Like lawyers, the audit process is
slow, deliberate, meticulous, and time consuming. The evidence used to support the audit results must be sufficient to
pass public and judicial scrutiny, particularly if a court case is involved.
Outsourced performance auditors are often not required to follow the U.S. Comptroller audit standards and often issue
audit reports without going through a rigid quality assurance process. Consequently, the external auditors may seem to
complete their projects faster and may appear more productive.
There are, however, some very serious dangers associated with using external auditors. For example, during my tenure
as a division director in the Naval Audit Service, external auditors issued an audit report that resulted in the termination
of a defense contract. The defense contractor filed a $50 million lawsuit against the Naval Audit Service for wrongful
termination of the defense contract. The Naval Audit Service staff who reviewed the audit work discovered the
evidence and workpapers were inadequate to substantiate the audit results and would not pass court scrutiny. The
Naval Audit Service had to negotiate a very expensive and costly settlement. Should the City Council decide to
outsource the performance audit services, the city should set aside adequate reserves to cover potential litigations and
settlements related to any external audit work that results in lawsuits.
In Hawaii, our research disclosed that outsourced audits often cost more than using in‐house audit staff. More
specifically, outsourced performance audits cost $100,000+ or more per audit. The more complex the audit, the more
expensive the audit. For example, an outsourced simple audit of the airport cost over $100,000 and pointed out
deficiencies related to not complying with state procurement and contracting rules. For a more complex audit, the State
of Hawaii Legislature recently appropriated $1 million for the State Auditor to outsource portions of its audit of the
HART mass transit rail construction project.
Besides being costly if outsourced, outsourced performance audits often are not value added. The airport audit did not
address the causes, significant impacts, or what was needed to rectify the deficiencies. To be value added, in‐house
auditors perform a 360 review of the audit subject (including auditing the worker, middle management, decision maker,
and policy levels, as well as obtaining the perspectives of federal, state, and other entities external to the
organization.) In‐house audit staff go beyond compliance to determine why the auditee is not complying with the rules
and regulations, gather facts and figures to show the significant and material impact of the non‐compliance, and
determine what corrective actions or recommendations are needed. Outsourced performance audits of this nature are
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 2:59 PM
2
very expensive and are of limited value because the external auditor is not familiar with the resources in the
organization.
In closing, “outsourcing” may sound good, but it often is more costly and often not value added.
Edwin Young
Edwin S. W. Young, City Auditor
City and County of Honolulu
From: Young, Edwin
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 9:46 AM
To: 'city.council@cityofpaloalto.org'
Subject: Message from the City Council Home Page
To the Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
I was chagrined to read about the proposed cuts to the Office of the City Auditor. Please allow me to express my
personal opinions.
When I worked as a performance auditor at the City of Palo Alto. Sharon Erickson was recognized for her integrity,
candor, and professionalism as the City Auditor. The newspapers labeled her as the “Most Trusted Individual in City
Government”. The title resulted from her leadership, guidance, and productivity in producing audits that were value
added, impactful, and significantly improved the city operations. Under her leadership, the Office of the City Auditor
won a plethora of national awards and set many national precedents for the auditing profession.
Although the Palo Alto city manager tried to defund and eliminate the Office of the City Auditor, her successors were
successful in protecting the office and its independent and objective audit work. Unfortunately, the current leadership
has not maintained the momentum, vitality, and productivity generated under Sharon Ericksons’ leadership. The
importance of the City Auditor function in Palo Alto is demonstrated by this example. After the Palo Alto Chief
Information Officer (CIO) assured the auditors all corrective actions were taken to protect the city’s personnel, e‐
commerce, and other sensitive databases, the city’s performance auditors were able to penetrate the city’s SAP ERM
(enterprise resource management) system by using default passwords. The auditors were able to access and change
personnel records, personal data, and other important data on city executives. The embarrassing audit results were
suppressed and the final report watered down to avoid disclosing the full significance of the performance audit
results. The current City Auditor’s acquiescence to outsource the city’s performance audits is therefore a major
disappointment, and, in my opinion, reflects badly on her ability to provide the leadership and professionalism set by
Sharon Erickson.
Based on my experiences as the City Auditor for the City and County of Honolulu and based on my past experiences in
the Bay Area, companies that perform outsourced performance audits are costly. Their charges often exceed the cost of
retaining city employees, and some have criticized the companies for not complying with US Comptroller auditing
standards, not being independent or objective, and producing reports that promote political agendas. The outsourced
reports are often critical of government operations, but not value added. Many reports produce mixed results.
The difference between outsourced performance audits and in‐house audits can be illustrated by a recent example. Our
external IT auditors repeatedly advised our city’s information technology department to strengthen its information
security practices. The IT department refused to implement the recommendations and the outsourced performance
auditors had no leverage to ensure the recommendations were implemented. Our in‐house performance auditors
performed follow up cybersecurity audits and reaffirmed the importance of the recommendations. Through the
persistence and perseverance of the city auditors, the IT department reluctantly implemented the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 2:59 PM
3
recommendations. As a result of the city auditors’ efforts, the city was not vulnerable to the recent wave of
ransomware attacks, did not pay any ransoms, and did not have lose any databases.
If the City of Palo Alto auditor’s office (a nationally recognized audit office) is dismantled, the voters will lose an
independent and objective resource needed to ensure the city operations are effective and efficient, and voters will lose
the assurance the city resources are not being wasted or subject to fraud and abuse. Outsourcing the performance
audits should not be pursued without seriously considering the consequences, as rebuilding the lost expertise can have
serious and costly consequences to the city.
Sincerely,
Edwin Young , City Auditor
City and County of Honolulu
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 2:59 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Renata Louwers <renata.k.louwers@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Outsourcing of the City Auditor's Office
Dear City Council members,
On May 15 the Finance Committee voted in a very rushed manner to outsource all staff in the City
Auditor's Office except for the City Auditor herself. On May 23, the Committee took a step back
from that position and recommended keeping the office intact but voted 3‐1 to further study the
possibility of outsourcing. As a former employee in the award‐winning City Auditor's Office in Palo
Alto, I believe outsourcing the office is a bad idea for the reasons described below in the
statement I made at the May 23 Finance Committee meeting.
At the start of the May 23 meeting, City Manager Keene noted that even at the depths of the
recession, Palo Alto did not eliminate any filled positions. And yet, at the peak of prosperity, such
an idea is under consideration with no input whatsoever from the affected employees in that
office. I hope you will recognize the significant experience and credentials of the employees in
that office and consider the impact that your decisions have on their professional careers and
their families.
Thank you for thoughtful consideration and deliberation regarding this topic,
Renata Khoshroo Louwers
My May 23 statement to the Finance Committee:
My name is Renata Khoshroo Louwers and I worked as a performance auditor in the Palo Alto City
Auditor’s office from 2002 through 2008 and then for the City of San Jose Auditor’s Office from
2009 until 2016.
I was deeply disappointed about the rushed Finance Committee vote on May 15 to eliminate five
of the six employees in the City Auditor’s Office and to outsource their work. Before I worked for
Palo Alto, I worked for a firm that provided outsourced performance audit work to multiple
jurisdictions. The work product that such firms produce is no match for the product that comes
from in‐house auditors with deep institutional and programmatic knowledge. A contracted firm’s
goal is to spend as little time onsite as possible and issue a report as quickly as possible at the
highest possible price. The people writing the reports will likely be people who have never been to
Palo Alto before and know little about the City. Such reports will typically focus on “low hanging
fruit” and often will not take account the concerns of City programmatic staff or management.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 2:59 PM
5
Working for Palo Alto was one of the most satisfying jobs I ever had. I had the opportunity to
spend time to truly understand a public service and then make meaningful recommendations
about programs as diverse as libraries, park maintenance, ambulance billing, recreation classes,
and police and fire overtime. You all are well aware that this is a wonderful community with a
constituency that cares deeply about its public services and is highly engaged with regard to
policymaking. It was an honor and a pleasure to work here.
It was also an honor to be a part of the Palo Alto City Auditor’s office. It has historically been an
award winning national model for best practices with regard to public sector performance
auditing. There are some very competent auditors with significant experience on staff in the
Auditor’s Office. To suggest, as was discussed at the May 15 Finance Committee meeting, that they are
the cause of productivity issues – and that this justifies eliminating all staff jobs in the Auditor’s Office ‐ is
unfair when they are not part of the conversation. Perhaps there is another side to the story than what has
thus far been presented publicly.
I would encourage you to reconsider your vote to outsource the five of six positions in the City
Auditor’s Office. This decision was made so quickly with little public notice or input. The
employees who will lose their jobs deserve at least a fair public hearing. The City of Palo Alto has
always prided itself on treating its residents and its employees with respect. Please let it continue
to be that way. Thank you very much for your time.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/13/2018 9:07 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:eswyoung <eswyoung@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:24 PM
To:Sharon Erickson; Council, City
Subject:Re: City Council 6-18-18 agenda item #14 (Auditor's Office)
BRAVO!!!!
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S7 edge.
-------- Original message --------
From: Sharon Erickson <sharon.winslow.erickson@gmail.com>
Date: 6/12/18 5:08 PM (GMT-10:00)
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: City Council 6-18-18 agenda item #14 (Auditor's Office)
Members of the City Council,
Palo Alto voters created Palo Alto's independent Office of the City Auditor in 1983 to serve as an internal
watchdog over city operations. For the last 35 years the Office has provided staff, council members, and the
public with independent, objective performance audits of the efficiency and effectiveness of city
services. Since 2002, it has produced an annual report detailing performance results for all city
programs. Altogether it is an extraordinary body of audit work -- covering everything from libraries to
permitting to overtime use to information security controls.
On May 15th, after only a few minutes of discussion, the Finance Committee voted unanimously to eliminate 5
of the 6 positions in the Office and outsource all audit work. On May 23rd the Committee rescinded that action,
but voted to continue to study the issue.
I ask that on June 18th, as part of your budget discussions, you decline that recommendation from the Finance
Committee, and kill the outsourcing proposal.
The proposal to outsource all audit work to consultants ignores the value of independent in-house auditors who,
unlike consultants, provide continuity of review and oversight. The auditors who would lose their jobs under
this proposal have in-depth knowledge of city programs that would not be easily replaced.
Outsourcing may sound like a good idea, but the city will likely end up with highly-paid consultants who spend
minimal time on site, and who gain only a limited understanding of city programs and services. Consulting
firms issue reports and then leave town. In-house auditors develop expertise in city operations and provide on-
going oversight. That is not something we can afford to lose.
And this is not the time in the history of our city or our country to diminish accountability in government. This
is exactly the right to support institutions like Palo Alto's Office of the City Auditor -- an office that was created
by the voters to ensure honest, open, and efficient city government that works for all of us.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/13/2018 9:07 AM
2
Please decline the Finance Committee's recommendation to study this idea any further.
Thank you,
Sharon Winslow Erickson (Palo Alto City Auditor 2001-2008)
Laguna Way, Palo Alto
ATTACHMENT
Former Palo Alto City Auditor Sharon Erickson. Photo courtesy Sharon Erickson.
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/print/2018/05/23/guest-opinion-eliminating-audit-staff-is-a-stunningly-bad-idea
Uploaded: Wed, May 23, 2018, 9:28 amGuest Opinion: Eliminating audit staff is a stunningly bad ideaFormer city auditor: 'Palo Alto taxpayers who will lose out if the in-house staff is laid off'
by Sharon Erickson
Palo Alto voters created Palo Alto's independent Office of the City Auditor in 1983 to serve as an internal watchdog over city operations. On Tuesday, May 15, after only a few minutes of discussion, the Finance Committee of the City Council voted unanimously to eliminate five of the six positions in the City Auditor's Office and replace them with outsourced services.
This is a stunningly bad idea.
The proposal to outsource all audit work to consultants ignores the value of independent in-house auditors who, unlike consultants, provide continuity of review and oversight. The auditors who would lose their jobs under this proposal have in-depth knowledge of city programs. They have worked extensively with city staff to understand operational problems and find workable solutions.
As Palo Alto's city auditor from 2001-2008, I had the privilege of serving as the public's eyes and ears inside City Hall. Together with my in-house staff, I gained a deep understanding of Palo Alto's operations. This allowed us to write tough but fair reports with the overarching goal of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Palo Alto government. Having an in-house audit staff was crucial to my ability to offer meaningful recommendations for improvement.
It is Palo Alto taxpayers who will lose out if the in-house staff is laid off and the office is reduced to a single person. Losing these auditors will deprive the public of employees who understand the city's operations and who have collectively built institutional memory.
Palo Alto's Office of the City Auditor has had its ups and down over the years, but it has a long history of issuing award-winning and value-added performance and financial audits. Its purpose is to promote honest, efficient, effective and fully accountable city government. The strength of the Office has been its ability to dive deep into the City's operating environment.
Outsourcing may sound like a good idea, but the City will likely end up with highly paid consultants who spend minimal time on site and who gain only a very high-level understanding of City programs and services. Once outsourced, it is unlikely that in-house positions could easily be added back, and here's why: City staff (in any city) rarely like having full-time auditors around. They do come to respect them if the auditors do tough but fair work, but reinstating audit positions in the future would be difficult after the office is broken apart. I believe the wiser and proactive approach is to keep the office we have.
Page 1 of 2Guest Opinion: Eliminating audit staff is a stunningly bad idea | News | Palo Alto Online |
6/12/2018https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/print/2018/05/23/guest-opinion-eliminating-audit-st...
The staff in the Office of the City Auditor are there to provide the public with objective analysis and information needed to make decisions that help create a better future for Palo Alto. The City Charter specifies that the city auditor is hired by the City Council and therefore, is independent of the city manager. This allows the City Auditor's Office to independently review programs and operations overseen by the city manager.
Why should residents care? Recommendations from the Office of the City Auditor to improve operations as varied as police, fire, libraries, revenue collection, recreation programs, street maintenance, city planning, and animal services (among others) have provided accountability and transparency in Palo Alto's programs and finances.
Over the years, these recommendations have directly impacted the delivery of city services -- better coordination of street cuts and street repair, improved contract-processing times, adoption of an employee-ethics policy and implementation of a whistleblower hotline, improved efficiency in library staffing to better align with high-demand times, improved monitoring of water usage in parks and park maintenance, establishment of utility risk-management procedures and provisions for purchasing natural gas and electricity, improved controls over overtime pay, improved ambulance billing practices, better inventory controls, streamlined planning-permit processes, identification of information-security control vulnerabilities, improved practices related to workers' compensation claims to reduce injuries as well as costs to the city, and improved code-enforcement practices to more quickly deal with eyesore properties -- as well as additional sales and use tax, transient-occupancy tax and utility tax recoveries for the city.
The Finance Committee's decision to eliminate five of the six positions in the Office of the City Auditor is pending approval by the City Council on June 18. To maintain and encourage accountability, transparency and continuous improvement in the City of Palo Alto, I urge the City Council not to outsource the City Auditor's staff. I am hopeful that Finance Committee members will reconsider their decision by then and that the City Council will eliminate this proposal from consideration on June 18.
This is not the time, either in the history of our city or our country, to diminish accountability in government.
Sharon Erickson grew up in Palo Alto and served as Palo Alto's city auditor from 2001-2008. Since 2008, she has been the city auditor of San Jose. She can be emailed at sharon.winslow.erickson@gmail.com.
---
Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.
Page 2 of 2Guest Opinion: Eliminating audit staff is a stunningly bad idea | News | Palo Alto Online |
6/12/2018https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/print/2018/05/23/guest-opinion-eliminating-audit-st...
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:RICH STIEBEL <w6apz@comcast.net>
Sent:Saturday, June 16, 2018 9:04 PM
To:lydiakou@lydiakou.emailnb.com; lkou@apr.com; Council, City
Subject:City Budget 061618o
Lydia & Council Members
Thanks for your heads up about the budget hearing. I agree with you that the idea of outsourcing the
Auditor function does not seem to be good. If it goes through, would there be some way of tracking
Audit expenses during the next budget year vs. what the city has been paying for “in house” auditing?
I suspect that some of the real expenses of the external auditor will be buried in added costs to other
city departments because the outside auditor does not know Palo Alto.
The city has a funding gap. Help close the gap by eliminating costly non-needed Ross Road and
Charleston/Arastradero “fixes” which make it difficult for cars to get around and have questionable
positive effects for bikers. Most comments from citizens on the neighborhood reflector are very
negative about these fixes.
Reduce Utility taxes and any other taxes for retired seniors who are on fixed incomes. The city will
have to find a way to pay for what’s needed to run a city without forcing seniors to move out.
Rich Stiebel
840 Talisman Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303-4435
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:40 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 17, 2018 5:49 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:Fw: Please write to Council re $8.7M Midtown road changes/roundabouts
Council Members,
I fully endorse Ms. Marriott's letter below. I'm recovering from pneumonia so don't have much energy
to add my supporting arguments. I put one question to you, for the second time recently : Why can
East P.A build a bridge over HWY 101 for $8 million and we have to spend $18 million?
Richard Placone
Chimalus Drive
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
To: Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2018 3:38 PM
Subject: Please write to Council re $8.7M Midtown road changes/roundabouts
All,
Monday night the city council will approve the fiscal 2019 budget – and also the capital budget for these stupid road
projects – in spite of a funding gap!
Please write to Council (feel free to cut and paste from my letter below) and/or go to the council meeting Monday night
on 6/18 and 6/25. Tell them to stop wasting money on these road “improvements” and say you will vote NO on any tax
measures in November.
…………… PASS IT ON ………..
Thanks,
pat
From: Pat Marriott [mailto:patmarriott@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2018 3:26 PM
To: City Council (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org)
Subject: Midtown bicycle changes
Council Members:
I’ve been following the saga of the road changes in Midtown. I have driven through the impacted streets many times
over the past months.
Councilman Tom DuBois said it best: the city "clearly got this wrong in communication, design and execution."
I’m appalled that you’ve allowed these changes to go on in spite of the many residents who have spoken out against
them for very sound reasons:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:40 AM
2
- The city has a funding gap. Your only solution seems to be to add more taxes. How about saving
money on needless projects like this one, which was first reported at $8.5M, but has suddenly jumped
to $8.7 – and it’s not done yet.
- And now you’re going to spend $400,000 for a safety study?!?!
- This project is unnecessary. There have not been a spate of accidents in the area. There’s been
no traffic analysis. There’s no data to support it.
- The only apology from staff is that they did not confer with residents prior to the changes. No
apologies about the problems caused. I know you don’t manage city staff, but aren’t you supposed to
exercise oversight? Do you know if these Midtown changes meet national design standards? Have
you personally seen a bus or emergency vehicle or truck navigate the roundabouts, or make a turn
on any of the affected streets?
- The Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, adopted in 2012, “includes goals of increasing
bicycle traffic for local and work commute trips by 100% by 2020 by providing improved facilities
along the proposed bicycle network,…” Do you believe that? Are you tracking how many people
bike vs. drive today?
- The plan is 6 years old and the world has changed significantly. Would you invest in a 6-year-old
business plan?
‐ The city manager glibly tells us, “It typically takes about six months to a year for residents to adapt to
significant street changes.” He says we need more education. This is disrespectful and condescending,
discounting our valid concerns. Of course we’ll have to adapt. We have no choice.
- The Comprehensive Plan defines a bicycle boulevard as a “low volume through-street where
bicycles have priority over automobiles, conflicts between bicycles and automobiles are minimized,
….” Putting bikes and cars in the same lane sure doesn’t seem to minimize conflict, as opposed to
giving bikes their own lanes. How many streets must be dedicated to prioritize bikes?
These road changes are a huge waste of money, an opportunity for staff to justify its existence and another vanity
project for Palo Alto, all the while disregarding a majority of residents.
I close with this note from a friend in north Palo Alto who is a long‐time avid cyclist. I asked him his opinion of the
changes in Midtown:
I think merging bikes with cars is a lame idea. Experienced cyclists can handle it ‐ they presumably stay to the right,
they're faster, don't panic with cars and can deal with the deviation, but what about the kids?
I think most of the arguments against the plan (PA Daily Post, Weekly) are good ones, and judging from the bike bulb‐
outs they're adding in my neighborhood, I think they could be dangerous. The focus seems to be on making the drivers
more aware, but both they and cyclists have to change direction to avoid hitting them, not a good plan!
Regarding roundabouts, there are two on my cross street, and lots of drivers haven't a clue what to do. They are so
distracted while trying to navigate them, they don't see either the stop signs or oncoming traffic (including
bikes). Apparently, they can't drive and chew gum at the same time. As if biking (or walking) weren't dangerous enough
already.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:40 AM
3
It’s not too late to do the right thing and shut down this project and all the others planned until you can move
forward on facts.
Pat Marriott Midtown property owner
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 17, 2018 10:50 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James
Subject:Budget Adoption (Item 14)
Budget Adoption
Mayor Kniss and Councilmembers;
After reviewing the budget proposal again this weekend I found some proposed expenditures that
don’t seem justified and ask that they not be adopted at this time.
1) Charleston-Arastadro street modifications have already had a major negative impact on
traffic. Backups during morning and evening rush times are worse, and the proposed median will
require those leaving homes on Arastradero who want to turn out of their driveway and cross what is
going to be a median to go in the opposite direction and either divert onto a residential side street
such as Donald or Georgia, or make a U turn at a street crossing. Both actions are negative traffic
impacts and increase the chances of traffic accidents and having cars hit pedestrians.
2) Similar traffic flow and safety issues are created by traffic impediments such as the roundabout at
Ross and E. Meadow. An intersection that was normal and had few driving or traffic issues now is a
mess as cars and bikes have to squeeze through a narrow roundabout. There have been mny
complaints about this roundabout addition from both nearby residents and people that often pass
through the intersection. The roundabout at Ross and Meadow should be reduced in diameter, or -
better yet - removed.
3) The Budget and Fees Adoption report (ID 9229) lists a reduction in Library Specialist from 12.5 to
11.5 positions reducing total library staff from 48.5 to 47.5 (Packet Page 319). Otherwise staff levels
are the same from 2017 to 2019. Why is this staff position being reduced? Library visits and material
checkouts have grown for the past 4 years, so library usage is increasing. Why less staffing for an
operation that is highly regarded by the community and is well used?
These three items should be removed from final budget approval and reviewed and discussed in
more detail later when council, staff, and the community have done more reviewing of the proposals
and had opportunities to discuss and more fully evaluate these budget (and operating) issues.
Yours truly,
Bob Moss
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Albert Henning <albertkhenning@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 5:25 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Carol Muller
Subject:Fw: Two problems: Improper access to utility pole; damage to property and improper
repair without notification
Dear City Council members,
Attached is a letter to CPAU which I have just sent. I don't appreciate the lack of respect. You should
be aware of it.
Along similar lines: I want to file notice with you all regarding my deep and abiding dissatisfaction with
the termination of the city-wide program to put utilities underground. Utility poles are unsightly; they
reduce property values; and as documented below utility workers cannot seem to respect property
when accessing above-ground utility poles.
Meanwhile, Council continues to treat residents as a piggy-bank through the mechanism of CPAU.
Each year, the City increases CPAU rates. The City also shifts expenses to CPAU (staff members,
and other expenses, as I've observed in the City Manager's budgets), while extracting revenues from
CPAU for the City general fund (roughly 10% of invoiced revenues, termed to me several years ago
by then-Mayor Burt as a 'return on investment').
There is no doubt the City has an ongoing budget problem, due to the legacy obligations related to
retirement benefits for City employees. It is disingenuous, however, to shift expenses on the one
hand, and siphon revenues on the other, in order to deal with this problem.
Compounding the problem: while the shift and siphoning continue, tangible and valuable benefits
such as putting utility lines below ground (a benefit which some City residents have enjoyed
inequitably for years) are denied permanently to residents -- even though such an application of the
'investment returns' seems obvious.
Sincerely,
Al Henning
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Albert Henning <albertkhenning@yahoo.com>
To: UtilitiesCommunications@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: Carol Muller <cblue@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 5:06 PM
Subject: Two problems: Improper access to utility pole; damage to property and improper repair without notification
Hello,
City of Palo Alto I City Clerk's Office I 6/18/2018 9:47 AM
My wife, Carol Muller, and I hereby fi le objection to the manner and execution of access to the utility
pole on our property.
This note is being sent via email. I am presently on 'hold' with your department via phone; I have
been on hold for 35 minutes, and do not expect anyone to pick up the phone, as it is now after 5:00
pm ; yet, your phone automation continues to tell me to stay on hold, and an agent will be with me
shortly.
Our service address is:
~03-
My phone number is -. Carol's is
Supervisor to deal wi~sues.
Issue One:
. We expect a call from a Utilities
While absent from May 26 to June 10, someone accessed the area behind our garage, where a utility
pole is located. No notice was given prior. No note or other formal evidence that a visit had been
made was left.
The area was completely disrupted. Our compost bin was disturbed. Materials and possessions and
tools were moved, but not restored to their original position or condition. Equipment was piled atop
one another, and also not restored to its original location. And , plums from our plum tree (outside of
the area behind the garage) were dislodged from the tree due to inconsiderate behavior near/in the
tree.
Issue Two:
The above incident compounds a previous problem, which we on ly diagnosed in the third week of
May. Namely, some utility's worker, in the process of installing a thick, copper grounding wire along
our back (west) fence, pl unged a shovel into the ground, and in so doing broke a major water feed for
our irrigation. Rather than alert us to their mistake, black electrical tape was wrapped around the 2"
long and 0.5" wide break in the line, in order to 'seal' it. The line was then covered with dirt, and the
anti-weed matting was set back into place. After many months of confusion, regarding unusual water
flow sounds, and un usually high water usage, I finally discovered and repaired the break
permanently.
My enormous concern is the lack of respect for property and property rights. When *any* utility
worker, from the City or otherwise, enters our property, I expect some sort of notification, either
before the fact, or after the fact. If the City and other providers cannot agree, then I will lock both my
driveway gate, and the gate to the area behind our garage where the utility pole is located. That way,
when the locks are broken, I will have clear evidence of entry.
I am also considering adding video surveillance, as it is clear someone in the utility service supply
chain cannot be trusted.
Sincerely,
~PhD
~03
(mobile)
2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 5:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 18, 2018 5:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Auditors - We need them!
Dear City Council Members:
I understand that as part of fixing our budget shortfalls, we are contemplating letting go of 5 of our 6 staff
auditors and out-sourcing the work to cheaper labor. I have read former auditor Sharon Erickson's opinion
piece in the Weekly in May plus I saw her letter to to Council of June 12. I agree whole-heartedly with her
reasoning. We need our in-house auditors for their continuity and investment in the community.
Also letting go of 5 of the 6 auditors? That is a bit draconian. I could see maybe asking every department
across the board to take a hit of 16% cause you think we are hitting the skids, but to target one department and
ask them to reduce by over 80% is ridiculous, and even gives the appearance that the department is being
targeted.
In fact, instead of letting them go, ask them to help us continue to root out inefficiencies and make
recommendations on how the City can better fulfill its mission, by being boots on the ground here and not in
some faraway place with no connection or care for Palo Alto.
Thank you.
Becky Sanders
Item #15
City Council Meeting 6/18/20 18
[X] Placed Before Meeting
[] Received at Meeting
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: June 18, 2018
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15 -Adoption of a Resolution Placing an
Initiative Measure on the November 6, 2018 Ballot to Amend Tit le s
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to limit Health Care Costs That
Hospitals, Medical Clinics and Other Health Care Providers May
Charge Patients and Other Payers
When an initiative measure qualifies to go before the voters, the City Council's
resolution calling for submission of the initiative to the voters must include the exact
form of the question to be voted on at the election, as it is to appear on the ballot. (Cal.
Elec. Code section 10403.) The ballot question must be tru e and impart ial; the wording
must not be likely to create prejudice for or against the proposed measure. (Cal. Elec.
Code sections 10403, 9051.)
On further review, we recommend revisions to the ballot question to include additional
information from the initiative measure, at the same t ime maintaining accuracy and
neutrality. The revised question is as follows (additions shown in underline; deletions in
strikethrough):
Shall the Pa lo Alto Municipal Code be amended to regulate and limit the
type and amount of health care costs that hospitals, medical clinics and
other health care providers in Palo Alto may charge patients or other
payers or other individuals, primary insurers, secondary insurers, and
other payers, excluding government payers?
The resolution with the revised ballot question is attached to this memorandum.
~u
City Attorney
**NOT YET ADOPTED**
Resolution No.
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Submitting to the Voters at the Next General Municipal Election on November 6,
2018 an Initiative Ordinance to Amend Title 5 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Limit Health Care Costs that Hospitals, Medical Clinics and Other Health Care
Providers May Charge Patients and Other Payers
RECITALS
A. An initiative petition to amend the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code to impose
limits on the costs that hospitals, medical clinics and other providers may charge in Palo Alto
(referred to herein as the "Initiative Measure" or "Initiative Petition") has been submitted to
the City in accordance with the requirements of Section 2 of Article VI of the Charter of the City
of Palo Alto.
B. On June 4, 2018, the City Council accepted the Certificate of Sufficiency of the
Initiative Petition issued by the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters and directed staff to
return with a resolution putting the measure on the November 6, 2018 ballot.
C. By Resolution No. adopted on June 18, 2018, the City Council called a
general municipal election for November 6, 2018 ("Election").
D. Pursuant to Section 2 of Article VI of the City Charter, the City Council is required
to submit to the electors of the City of Palo Alto the Initiative Measure at the next general
municipal election which is a regularly scheduled general municipal election on November 6,
2018.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. Initiative Measure Submitted to Voters at General Municipal
Election. A regularly scheduled general municipal election has been called for the City of Palo
Alto to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Under Charter Article VI, the following question
is submitted to the voters at the election:
CITY OF PALO ALTO INITIATIVE MEASURE __ _
Shall the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to regulate and limit the type
and amount of health care costs that hospitals, medical clinics and other health
care providers in Palo Alto may charge patients or other individuals, primary
insurers, secondary insurers, and other payers, excluding government payers?
For the Ordinance
Against the Ordinance
1
Sl:/Elections/ RESO Initiative Measure Placing Limit on Health Care Costs
SECTION 2. Adoption of Measure. The measure to be submitted to the voters is
attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "1" and incorporated by this reference. If a ~aj?rity of
qualified electors voting on such measure shall vote in favor of Ci~y of .Palo ~It~ ~~1!1at1ve
Measure " " it shall be deemed ratified and shall read as provided in Exh1b1t 1 · _,
SECTION 3. Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the
election is hereby given, and the City Clerk Is authorized, instructed and directed to give further
or additional notice of the election in time, form, and manner as required by law.
SECTION 4. Impartial Analysis. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to
transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an
impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the
measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such impartial
analysis to the City Clerk on or before August 21, 2018.
SECTION 5. Ballot Arguments. Arguments in favor of or against the measure
shall be submitted to the City Clerk on or before August 14, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. under Elections
Code section 9286 et seq. If the City Clerk receives more than one argument for and/or against,
the priorities established by Elections Code section 9287 shall control.
SECTION 6. Rebuttal Arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be controlled by the
provisions of Elections Code section 9285. The deadline for filing rebuttal arguments shall be
August 21, 2018, at 5:00 p.m.
SECTION 7. Duties of City Clerk. The Palo Alto City Clerk shall do all things
required by law to effectuate the November 6, 2018, general municipal election, including but
not limited to causing the posting, publication and printing of all notices or other election
materials under the requirements of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the California
Elections and Government Codes.
SECTION 8. Request and Consent to Consolidate. The Council of the City of Palo
Alto requests the governing body of any other political subdivision, or any officers otherwise
authorized by law, to partially or completely consolidate such elections and the City Council
consents to such consolidation. The Council requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara
County to include on the ballots and sample ballots, all qualified measures submitted by the
City Council to be ratified by the qualified electors of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 9. Request for County Services. Under Section 10002 of the California
Elections Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa
Clara County to permit the Registrar of Voters to render services to the City of Palo Alto relating
to the conduct of Palo Alto's General Municipal and Special Elections which are called to be
held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. The services shall be of the type normally performed by
the Registrar of Voters in assisting the clerks of municipalities in the conduct of elections
including but not limited to checking registrations, mailing ballots, hiring election officers and
2
SL:/Electlons/ RESO Initiative Measure Placing Limit on Health Care Costs
arranging for polling places, receiving absentee voter ballot applications, mailing and receiving
absent voter ballots and opening and counting same, providing and distributing election
supplies, and furnishing voting machines.
SECTION 10. Transmittal of Resolution. The City Clerk is hereby directed to submit
a certified copy of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors and Registrar of Voters of the
County of Santa Clara.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
3
Sl:/Elections/ RESO Initiative Measure Placing limit on Health Care Costs
Exhibit 1
PALO ALTO ACCOUNTABLE AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE INITIATIVE
SECTION 1. Chapter 5.40 is added to Title 5 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, governing
Health and Sanitation, to read:
Sec. 5.40.010 Pwpose and intent
It is the purpose and intent of this Chapter to provide for the orderly regulation of hospitals and
other health facilities, as defined in this Chapter, in the interests of the public health, safety and
welfare, by providing certain minimum standards and regulations regarding their operation. The
prices charged to patients and other payers have far-reaching effects on consumers purchasing
health care services and insurance, as well as taxpayers supporting public health and welfare
programs. Investments in quality of care improvements can benefit patients and caregivers, and
ultimately result in lower overall health care costs. For these reasons, and because neither the
State nor federal governments have yet done so, this Chapter seeks to impose reasonable limits
on prices that hospitals and other health facilities may charge and encourages further investment
in health care quality improvements.
Sec. 5.40.020 Defmitions.
For purposes of this Chapter the following terms have the following meanings:
p.I
(a) "Acceptable payment amount" means an amount equal to 115 percent of the sum of
the reasonable cost of direct patient care for a particular patient and the pro rata health
care quality improvement cost, or such amount determined by the Administrative
Services Department pursuant to Section 5.40.030(d).
(b) "Amount reasonably estimated to be paid" means the payment amount specified by
agreement between the hospital, medical clinic, or other provider, and the payer, or, in
the absence of such an agreement, the amount of the bill or invoice for services.
(c) "Health care quality improvement costs" means costs a hospital, medical clinic, or
other provider pays that are necessary to: maintain, access or exchange electronic health
information; support health information technologies; train non-managerial personnel
engaged in direct patient care; and provide patient-centered education and counseling.
Additional costs may qualify as health care quality improvement costs, as authorized
pursuant to Section S.40.030(c).
(d) "Hospital,, means a hospital within the meaning of subdivision (a) of Section 1250 of
the California Health and Safety Code, but does not include: (1) any children's hospital
identified in Section 10727 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code; (2) public
hospitals, as defined in paragraph (25) of subdivision (a) of Section 14105.98 of the
California Welfare and Institutions Code; or (3) hospitals operated by or licensed to the
United States Department ofVeterans Affilirs.
Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative 10/3012017
p.2
(e) "Medical clinic" means a clinic within the definition of Section 1200 of the California
Health and Safety Code, but does not include: (1) a chronic dialysis clinic, as defined by
Section 1204(b )(2) of the California Health and Safety Code; (2) a clinic that provides
services exclusively to children or operates under the license of a children's hospital
identified in Section 10727 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code; (3)
community clinics or free clinics, as defined by Sections 1204(a)(l)(A) and (B) of the
California Health and Safety Code; ( 4) clinics that primarily provide reproductive health
care services, as defined in Section 6215.1 of the California Government Code, or family
planning services, as defined by Section 14503 of the California Welfare and Institutions
Code; (5) a clinic that is licensed to a county, a city, a city and county, the State of
California, the University of California, a local health care district, a local health
authority, or any other political subdivision of the state; or (6) a clinic operated by or
licensed to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.
(f) "Other provider" means any provider organization within the meaning of subdivision
(f) of Section 1375.4 of the California Health and Safety Code, any risk-bearing
organization within the meaning of subdivision (g) of Section 1375.4 of the California
Health and Safety Code, and any outpatient setting within the meaning of Section 1248 of
the California Health and Safety Code. Provided, however, that "other provider" shall
not include: (1) a chronic dialysis clinic. as defined by Section 1204(b)(2) of the
California Health and Safety Code; (2) an organization that provides services exclusively
to children or operates under the license of a children's hospital identified in Section
10727 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code; (3) community clinics or free
clinics, as defined by Sections 1204(a)(l)(A) and (B) of the California Health and Safety
Code; (4) clinics that primarily provide reproductive health care services, as defined in
Section 6215.1 of the California Government Code, or family planning services, as
defined by Section 14503 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code; (S) an
organization owned by, operated by, or licensed to a county, a city, a city and county, the
State of California, the University of California, a local health care district, a local health
authority, or any other political subdivision of the state; or (6) an organization owned by,
operated by or licensed to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.
(g) "Payer" means the person or persons who paid or are financially responsible for
payments for services provided to a particular patient, and may include the patient or
other individuals, primary insurers, secondary insurers, and other entities, provided that
the term does not include Medicare or any other federal, state, county, city, or other local
government payer.
(h) "Pro rata health care quality improvement cosf' means the total health care quality
improvement costs paid by a hospital, medical clinic, or other provider in a fiscal year,
divided by the total number of patients treated by that hospital, medical clinic, or other
provider in the same fiscal year.
(i) "Reasonable cost of direct patient care" means the cost of providing care to a patient
in a fiscal year, as provided for in Section S.40.030(b)(l).
Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative 10/3012017
Sec. S.40.030 Pricing limitations and rebates.
All hospitals, medical clinics, and other providers shall comply with the following requirements:
(a) Comniencing January 1, 2019, a hospital, medical clinic, or other provider shall
annually issue &·rebate and a reduction in billed amount to a payer for all money paid or
billed for services provided to a patient in excess of the acceptable payment amount for
those services, as follows:
p.3
(1) No later than ISO days after the end of its fiscal year, a hospital, medical
clinic, or other provider shall calculate its health care quality improvement costs
and pro rata health care quality improvement cost for the most recently completed
fiscal year.
(2) No later than ISO days after the end of its fiscal year, a hospital, medical
clinic, or other provider shall compile the following information for each patient
to whom it provided care in the most recently completed fiscal year:
(i) patient;
(ii) total amount received from each payer or payers for health care
services provided in the fiscal year, or, if payment has not been made in
full, the amount reasonably estimated to be paid by that payer or those
payers for health care services provided in the fiscal year;
(iii) reasonable cost of direct patient care provided in the fiscal year;
(iv) acceptable payment amount for the fJScal year; and
(v) the amount, if any, by which the total amount identified pursuant to
subparagraph (ii) exceeds the acceptable payment amount
(3) No later than 180 days after the end of its fJScal year, a hospital, medical
clinic, or other provider shall (i) issue a rebate of any amount paid, as described
by subdivision (a)(2)(ii), in excess of the acceptable payment amount, and (ii) for
any amount that has not been paid and for which the amount reasonably estimated
to be paid exceeds the acceptable payment amount, as described by subdivision
(a){2)(ii), reduce the invoice to the acceptable payment amount and reissue the
invoice to the payer.
{4) Where a rebate must be paid or an amount billed but not yet paid must be
reduced pursuant to this section, and more than one payer is responsible, the
hospital, medical clinic, or other provider shall divide and distribute the total
required rebate or reduction in billed amounts among the payers consistent with
the payers' relative obligations to pay for the services. The hospital, medical
clinic, or other provider shall issue the rebate together with interest thereon at the
rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the California Civil
Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative 10/30/2017
p.4
Code, which shall accrue from the date the hospital, medical clinic, or other
provider received payment.
(5) Where, in any fiscal year, the rebate the hospital, medical clinic, or other
provider must issue to a single payer is less than twenty dollars ($20), the
hospital, medical clinic, or other provider need not issue that rebate.
(6) In the event a hospital, medical clinic, or other provider is required to issue a
rebate or reduction in amount billed under this section, no later than 180 days
after the end of its fiscal year the hospital, medical clinic, or other provider shall
pay a fine to the Administrative Services Department for each patient for whom a
rebate or reduction is required in the following amounts: ·
· (i) If rebates or reductions are owed by a hospital, medical clinic, or other
provider for services provided to 50 patients or fewer in the fiscal year, an
amount equal to five percent of the required rebate or reduction, provided
that the fine for each rebate or reduction shall be at least one hundred
dollars ($100), but shall not exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) per
rebate or reduction.
(ii) If rebates or reductions are owed by a hospital, medical clinic, or other
provider for services provided to more than 50 patients in the f15caJ year,
an amount equal to 10 percent of the required rebate or reduction,
provided that the fine for each rebate or reduction shall be at least one
hundred dollars ($100), but shall not exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000)
per rebate or reduction.
(7) In the event a hospital, medical clinic, or other provider fails to issue a rebate
or reduction within the time required by paragraph (3), consistent with Municipal
Code Section 1.08.0lO(d) each subsequent day that the required rebate or
reduction is not issued constitutes a separate violation for which a fine is to be
imposed pursuant to paragraph (6).
(8) Fines collected pursuant to paragraphs (6) and (7) shall be used by the
Administrative Services Department to implement and enforce laws governing
hospitals, medical clinics, and other providers.
(9) Where reimbursement for health care services is subject to the requirements of
Section 1371.Jl(a} of the California Health and Safety Code, nothing in this
Chapter shall affect the reimbursements required by that Section. Further, (i) the
payments received for health eare services that are subject to the reimbursement
requirements of Section 1371.Jl(a) of the California Health and Safety Code shall
not be included in the total amount received, or the total amount reasonably
estimated to be paid, for the fiscal year pursuant to subdivision (a)(2)(ii), and (ii)
the costs associated with providing health care services that are subject to the
reimbursement requirements of Section 1371.3l(a) of the California Health and
Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative 1013012017
p.S
Safety Code shall not be included in the reasonable cost of direct patient care for
the fiscal year pursuant to subdivision (a)(2)(iii).
(b) ( 1) No later than 150 days after the end of its fiscal year, every hospital, medical
clinic, or other provider shall provide to the Administrative Services Department
information identifying the reasonable cost of direct patient care for each patient to whom
services were provided in the fiscal year. The reasonable cost of direct patient care shall
be the reasonable costs directly associated with operating a hospital, medical clinic, or
other provider in Palo Alto and providing care to patients in Palo Alto. The reasonable
cost of direct patient care shall include only (i) salaries, wages, and benefits of non-
managerial hospital, medical clinic, or other provider staff, including all personnel who
furnish direct care to patients, regardless of whether the salaries, wages, or benefits are
paid directly by the hospital, medical clinic, or other provider, or indirectly through an
arrangement with an affiliated or unaffiliated third party, including but not limited to a
governing entity, an independent staffmg agency, a physician group, or a joint venture
between a hospital, medical clinic, or other provider, and a physician group; (ii) staff
training and development; (iii) pharmaceuticals and supplies; (iv) facility costs, including
rent, maintenance, and utilities; (v) laboratory testing; and (vi) depreciation and
amortization of buildings, leasehold improvements, patient supplies, equipment, and
information systems. For purposes of this paragraph, "non-managerial hospital, medical
clinic, or other provider staff' includes all personnel who furnish direct care to patients,
including doctors, nurses, technicians and trainees, social workers, registered dietitians,
environmental service workers, and non-managerial administrative staff, but excludes
managerial staff such as facility administrators. Categories of costs of direct patient care
may be further prescribed by the department through regulation.
(2) Each hospital, medical clinic, or other provider shall maintain and report to
the Administrative Services Department the infonnation described in paragraph
(1) of this subdivision, the information described in paragraph ( 1) of subdivision
(a), and infonnation describing every instance during the period covered by the
submission when the rebate or reduction required under subdivision (a) was not
timely issued in full, and the reasons and circumstances therefor. The information
required to be maintained and the report required to be submitted by this
paragraph shall each be independently audited by a certified public accountant in
accordance with the standards of the Accounting Standards Board of the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and shall include the opinion
of that certified public accountant as to whether the information contained in the
report fully and accurately describes, in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles in the United States, the information required to be
reported.
(3) Bach hospital, medical clinic, or other provider shall annually submit the
report required by paragraph (2) of this subdivision on a schedule, in a format,
and on a form prescribed by the Administrative Services Department, provided
Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative 1013012017
p.6
that the hospital, medical clinic, or other provider shall submit the report no later
than 150 days after the end of its fiscal year.
(4) The chief executive officer or administrator of the hospita~ medical clinic, or
other provider shall personally certify under penalty of perjury that he or she is
satisfied, after review, that all information submitted to the deparbnent pursuant
to paragraph (2) of this subdivision is accurate and complete.
(5) The Administrative Services Department shall annually publish information
showing the number and aggregate amount of rebates provided. as well as the
number and aggregate amount of fines paid, by each hospital, medical clinic, or
other provider. Any information that must be reported to or by the Department
pursuant to this Chapter shall be made available to the public upon request,
consistent with the requirements of the California Public Records Act and any
other applicable law, including limitations on public disclosure in the interest of
personal privacy.
( c) ( 1) A hospital, medical clinic, or other provider may petition the Administrative
Services Deparbnent at any time for a detennination that a cost not specified in Section
5.40.020(c) is a health care quality improvement cost or for a determination that a cost
not specified in Section 5.40.030(b )( 1) is a reasonable cost of direct patient care.
(2) The Administrative Services Department may grant a petition concerning
health care quality improvement costs only upon finding that the hospital, medical
clinic, or other provider has demonstrated:
(i) The cost was spent on activities designed to improve health quality and
increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes in ways that are capable
of being. objectively measured and of producing verifiable results and
achievements;
(ii) The hospital, medical clinic, or other provider actually paid the cost;
and
(iii) The cost was spent on services offered at the hospital, medical clinic,
or other provider to patients.
(3) The Administrative Services Department may grant a petition concerning
reasonable costs of direct patient care only upon fmding that the hospital, medical
clinic, or other provider has demonstrated:
(i) The cost was directly associated with operating a hospita~ medical
clinic, or other provider in Palo Alto and providing care to patients in Palo
Alto and is reasonable in light of market rates for similar goods or
services;
(ii) The hospital, medical clinic, or other provider actually paid the cost;
and
Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Healtb Care Initiative 10/30/2017
(iii) The cost was spent on services offered at the hospital, medical clinic,
or other provider to patients.
(4) The Administrative Services Department may pennit the hospital, medical
clinic, or other provider to apply a cost incurred in one year equally over a period
not to exceed five years upon fmding that the hospita~ medical clinic, or other
provider has demonstrated that the cost is reasonably expected to provide health
care quality improvements or support direct patient care during that period.
(d) (1) A hospital, medical clinic, or other provider may petition the Administrative
Services Department at any time for a detennination that the acceptable payment amount
defined in Section 5.40.020(a) should be increased with respect that hospital, medical
clinic, or other provider.
(2) The Administrative Services Department may grant such a petition only upon finding
that an acceptable payment amount of 115 percent of the sum of the reasonable cost of
direct patient care and the pro rata health care quality improvement cost would be
confiscatory or otherwise unlawful as applied to that hospital, medical clinic, or other
provider.
(3) If the Administrative Services Department grants a petition pursuant to subdivision
(d)(2), it may adjust the number "115" in Section 5.40.020(a) to the lowest whole number
such that the resultant acceptable payment amount would not be unlawful. The
Administrative Services Department shall not increase the acceptable payment amount to
any amount greater than that minimally necessary under California and federal law. Any
variance granted pursuant to subdivision (d) shall be for a period of one fiscal year,
unless the petitioner demonstrates that a variance is likely to be required for subsequent
fiscal years, in which case the Department may grant a variance for up to five years.
(4) In a petition pursuant to subdivision (d),· the burden shall be on the hospita~ medical
clinic, or other provider to (i) prove that an acceptable payment amount of 115 percent of
the sum of the reasonable cost of direct patient care for a particular patient and the pro
rata health care quality improvement cost would be unlawful, and (ii) provide the
Administrative Services Department with all information necessary to detennine the
lowest acceptable payment amount required by law.
Sec. 5.40.040 Implementation and Enforcement
p.7
(a) The Administrative Services Department shall be authorized to coordinate
implementation and enforcement of this Chapter and shall promulgate appropriate
guidelines, regulations or rules for such purposes consistent with this Chapter. Such
guidelines, regulations or rules shall ensure that implementation of this Chapter is
consistent with the requirement of due process imposed by the California and United
States Constitutions and, as necessary, shaJI provide guidance concerning the process for
bringing a petition under this Chapter with the goals of minimizing the burden to the
petitioner and increasing the efficiency of the petition review process. Any guidelines,
Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative 10/3012017
regulations or rules promulgated by the department shall have the force and effect of law.
The City shall appropriate to the Administrative Services Department sufficient funds to
enable the department to implement and enforce this Chapter.
(b) · If a determination of a violation has been made, consistent with the requirements of
due process, and except where prohibited by state or federal law, the department may
request that City agencies or departments revoke or suspend any registration certificates,
permits or licenses held or requested by the violator until such time as the violation is
remedied. All City agencies and departments shall cooperate with revocation or
suspension requests from the department. A violation of this Chapter may also be
grounds for denying a hospital, medical clinic, or other provider a business license under
Municipal Code Section 4.04.140(a)(S).
(c) Violation of this Chapter shall be a misdemeanor. The department, the City
Attorney, any person aggrieved by a violation of this Chapter, any entity a member of
which is aggrieved by a violation of this Chapter, or any other person or entity acting on
behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law, may bring a civil action in
a court of competent jurisdiction against a hospital, medical clinic, or other provider
violating this Chapter, or against the City for de novo review of a determination pursuant
to Section S.40.0JO(c) or (d), and, upon prevailing, shall be entitled to such legal or
equitable relief as may be appropriate including, without limitation, twice the amount of
the required rebate or reduction up to the maximum amount allowable by law and
injunctive retie~ and shall be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.
Provided, however, that any person or entity enforcing this Chapter on behalf of the
public as provided for under applicable state law shall, upon prevailing, be entitled only
to equitable, injunctive or restitutionary relief; and reasonable attorneys• fees and
expenses. Nothing in this Chapter shall be interpreted as restricting, precluding, or
otherwise limiting a separate or concurrent criminal prosecution under the Municipal
Code or state law. Jeopardy shall not attach as a result of any administrative or civil
enforcement action taken pursuant to this Chapter.
Sec. S.40.050 Severability.
The provisions of this Chapter are severable. If any provision of this Chapter or its application is
held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application.
p.8 Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative 10/30/2017
JONES DAY
555 CALIFORNIA STREET. 26TH FLOOR • SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE:+ 1.415.626.3939 • FACSIMILE:+ 1.415.875.5700
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Molly Stump
City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
City Hall, 8th Floor
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
June 15, 2018
DIRECT NUMBER: (41 5) 875-5769
CKIRSCHNER@JONES0AY.COM
Re: "Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative"
Dear Ms. Stump:
On behalf of Stanford Health Care ("SHC") and Palo Alto Medical Foundation
("P AMF"), this letter expresses grave concerns regarding the statement of the question to be
presented to the voters on the above-referenced initiative ("Initiative").
In the Staff Report on this item for the City Council's June 18th meeting, the proposed
resolution for consideration by the City Council includes the following statement of the question
to be submitted to the voters:
Shall the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to regulate and limit health care costs
that hospitals, medical clinics and other health care providers in Palo Alto may charge
patients and other payers?
This question is an inaccurate statement of the issue presented by the Initiative for several
reasons.
1) The Initiative does not regulate health care costs. The costs of health care are determined
by numerous factors, such as the costs for labor, patient care equipment, and
practitioners. The Initiative in no way limits these costs. In fact, the proponents of
substantively identical health care pricing initiatives pending in other cities have
indicated that the Initiative "encourages providers to increase expenditures related to
providing patient care and long-term investments to improve patient care." See Def.'s
Opp. to PL City ofEmeryville's Motion for a Stay Pending Litigation, p. 4:4, Guina v.
Smith, No. RG18887782 (Alameda County Super. Ct. Apr. 30, 2018).
ALKHOBAR • AMSTERDAM • ATLANTA • BEIJING • BOSTON • BRISBANE • BRUSSELS , CHICAGO • CLEVELAND , COLUMBUS , DALLAS
DETROIT• DUBAI• DOSSELDORF • FRANKFURT• HONG KONG• HOUSTON• IRVINE, LONDON• LOS ANGELES, MADRID, MELBOURNE
MEXICO CITY • MIAMI • MILAN • MINNEAPOLIS • MOSCOW , MUNICH • NEW YORK • PARIS • PERTH • PITTSBURGH • RIYADH
SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SAO PAULO • SHANGHAI • SILICON VALLEY • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TAIPEI • TOKYO , WASHINGTON
Molly Stump
June 15, 2018
Page 2
JONES DAY
2) The Initiative also does not regulate charges to insured patients for health care services.
Rather, the Initiative requires "rebates" or reductions in billed amounts charged to private
payers (who in most cases are not patients) in the year after the care has been delivered
based on a complicated formula related to certain categories of revenue less a defined set
of allowable costs. Secs. 5.40.030(a), (b)(l), 5.40.020(a), (c), (i).
3) The Initiative excludes government payers from its scope. Sec. 5.40.020(g). Given the
extremely limited number of individual patients who pay privately for their health care,
rebates under the Initiative would be paid primarily to commercial health insurers.1
4) The Initiative does not require commercial health insurers to pass any rebate that they
receive on to their customers.
To correct these inaccuracies, we propose the following substitute language for the ballot
label for the Initiative:
Shall the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to regulate payments to hospitals,
medical clinics and other health care providers in Palo Alto by requiring a reduction in
billed amounts or rebate to commercial health insurers and other payers, excluding
government payers?
The term "reduction in billed amount" or "rebate" is the language used in the Initiative. Sec.
5.40.030(a).
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. We look forward to attending
the City Council meeting on June 1 gth and to discussing these matters further as appropriate. If
you have any questions in the meantime, please let me know.
Sia:;:L:/J
F.CurtKa~
NAI-1503869170vl
1 The bulk of the rebates owed under the Initiative are unlikely to be paid to individual insured patients,
even if they pay co-pays and deductibles. Each rebate is paid on a pro rata basis and no rebate of less than $20
( calculated on a pro rata basis) is required to be paid. Therefore, most rebates would be paid by the health care
provider to commercial health insurers. See Initiative, Secs. 5.40.020(g), 5.40.030(a)(5).
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/14/2018 4:05 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ng, Judy
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 4:03 PM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Minor, Beth; Sartor,
Mike; Eggleston, Brad; Swanson, Andrew; Wadleigh, James; Hoyt, George; Alaee,
Khashayar; Bobel, Phil; Jonsen, Robert; Lum, Patty; Dueker, Kenneth
Subject:6/18 Council Agenda Questions for Items 8, 9, 10 & 13
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 June 18, 2018 council meeting agenda.
Item 8: Cypress Guard Services Contract Extension – CM Tanaka
Item 9: Approve Three Public Works Contracts for Sludge Hauling and Offsite Treatment
Services – CM Tanaka
Item 10: Contract Amendment C&S Engineers Inc. – CM Tanaka
Item 13: Approval of Contract with Integrated Design 360 – CM Tanaka
Item 8: Cypress Guard Services Contract Extension – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. When is it expected that the city will be able to switch to camera monitoring
of the tracks? What is the progress on this so far? Is the contract expected to be
extended again?
A. 1. The integrated video system installation has been completed and the
monitoring contract with G4S (vendor) has been routed for signature. Once the
contract is fully executed, the monitoring will begin; this will most likely occur by
the end of next week. Ken Dueker and OES will be overseeing the monitoring and
management of G4S. As part of the transition from Track Watch guards to the
integrated video system, there will be a brief period of overlap where both the
cameras and guards are in place. This will allow the City to ensure the integrated
video system is operating as expected and to identify/address any unanticipated
issues while still maintaining coverage at designated crossings. Barring any
unforeseen circumstance, there is no expectation the contract with Cypress will
need to be extended beyond September, which is when the rail corridor will be
monitored solely via cameras.
Q. 2. The extension will cost the city approximately $7,000 more per month than
previously. Why is this necessary?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/14/2018 4:05 PM
2
A. 2. Upon review, staff determined that estimated costs for the continuation
(overlap with camera monitoring) of Trackwatch guard services was
overestimated. A careful review indicates actual FY19 costs, with hourly guard
costs remaining constant, will result in a total cost of $200,000 rather than the
previously projected $330,000.
Item 9: Approve Three Public Works Contracts for Sludge Hauling and Offsite Treatment
Services – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. Why were no proposals received from a single vendor for both? Is this a usual
occurrence?
A. 1. Five of the six proposers only provide one of the two services needed in this
RFP (i.e., EBMUD, Lystek, Denali, Lone Tree, and S&S). It is not unusual for the
potential bidders to provide only hauling or only treatment services. It would be
unusual to have a single vendor that could regularly and competitively provide
both of these two very different services.
Q. 2. Is it cheaper to have one vendor do the entire project?
A. 2. Because no proposals were received from a single vendor, it is unlikely that
a single vendor would be cheaper. The market for these services was tested with
this proposal and no single vendors proposed that option. Given that three
proposals were received for each service, the pricing represents a competitive
market place.
Q. 3. What would happen if this item does not get passed?
A. 3. The sludge dewatering and truck loadout facility is nearing construction
completion, allowing phase‐out of the incinerators. The new facility will allow
Denali Water to remove sludge from the RWQCP and deliver it to Lystek and/or
Synagro for processing. If these three contracts (Denali Lystek and Synagro) are
not approved by Council, we could not retire the incinerators nor reduce
Greenhouse Gasses (GHGs) by 12,000 metric tons per year, as planned. Further,
the new facility startup, testing, and use of the warranty period, would be lost or
delayed. The aging incinerators are at the end of their useful life; delaying their
retirement, by not having haul and treat contracts in place, would put the city at
risk in the event of an incinerator system failure. A prior Council directed staff to
retire the incinerators as soon as possible.
Q. 4. Why are funds for years two through five contingent upon Council approval
of budget for each subsequent year?
A. 4. This is because Council can only approve a budget for a particular year. They
are not authorized to make financial commitments for future years. In all
multiyear contracts, Council must approve the upcoming year’s amount in the
Budget for that particular year.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/14/2018 4:05 PM
3
Item 10: Contract Amendment C&S Engineers Inc. – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. When it is stated that the mud does not meet FAA load‐bearing
requirements, does this mean that the mud is making the airport affirmatively
unsafe for use?
A. 1. The FAA load bearing requirements mean that additional soil strengthening
is needed for the underlying bay mud at the airport to ensure that the new
pavement section meets airplane load requirements and the airport is safe for
aircraft use.
Item 13: Approval of Contract with Integrated Design 360 – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. Will the optional work in Task 7 and Task 9 be necessary in the future? Or is it
just to further promote modern sustainable initiatives?
A. 1. The term of this contract is for one year: July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019.
Task 7 (Sustainability Implementation Plan Support to Development Services)
utilization may be necessary in Fiscal Year 2019. As outlined in Attachment A –
Exhibit A in the staff report, the SIP calls out Development Services Department
actions related to energy, electric vehicles, and water. Staff may need the
expertise of Integrated Design 360 to assist with specific tasks as it relates to the
implementation of the SIP. Staff will evaluate assigning these tasks to the firm in
relation to the resources available to accomplish the department’s Fiscal Year
2019 work plan.
Task 9 (Deconstruction and Source Separation Program Implementation) involves
inspections, outreach/education and reporting that would be necessary in future
years if Council adopts this sustainability and zero waste program.
Q. 2. Why not have a bidding process for companies to compete with this current
agreement?
A. 2. It’s worth noting that professional services are not “bid”; selection of service
providers is based on a number of factors such as qualifications and prior
experience in addition to cost to complete a project. Given Integrated Design
360’s history with the City, the firm is uniquely positioned to continue to develop
and support these programs and initiatives for one additional year. It would be
impractical and cause substantial interference with required city operations if this
contract is not approved. Staff has intentionally structured the new contract with
Integrated Design 360 to end on June 30, 2019. For further explanation, please see
paragraphs 3 and 4 in the discussion section of the staff report.
Thank you,
Judy Ng
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/14/2018 4:05 PM
4
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
Community Outreach Plan
Palo Alto Rail Program Management Services
City of Palo Alto
June 15, 2018
DRAFT
Community Outreach Plan
DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 2
Revision History
Revision Revision date Details Authorized Name Position
0 5/22/2018 Draft Submittal 4/23/2018 Millette Litzinger Project Manager
0 6/15/2018 Draft Submittal 4/23/2018 Rob de Geus City of Palo Alto
Distribution List
# Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name Contact
Community Outreach Plan
DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 3
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto Contract No. 18171057
Prepared by:
Eileen Goodwin, Principal
Apex Strategies
M: (408) 309-1426
E: apexstr@pacbell.net
AECOM
300 Lakeside Drive
Suite 400
Oakland
CA 94612
aecom.com
Prepared in association with:
Community Outreach Plan
DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 4
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Purpose ..................................................................................... 5
A. Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
B. Connecting Palo Alto........................................................................................................................................ 5
C. Project Purpose and Purpose of the Community Outreach Plan ..................................................................... 6
D. Roles ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
E. Community Outreach Plan Goals .................................................................................................................... 6
2. Public Participation and Community Engagement ................................................ 6
A. Community Advisory Panel (CAP) Meetings .................................................................................................... 7
B. Stakeholder Meetings ...................................................................................................................................... 8
C. Community Meetings ....................................................................................................................................... 8
D. City Council Meetings ...................................................................................................................................... 9
E. Outreach Materials, Website and Surveys ....................................................................................................... 9
F. Public Participation and Community Engagement Summary Report ............................................................. 10
Figures
Figure 1. Community Engagement Schedule ................................................................................................................ 7
Community Outreach Plan
DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 5
1. Introduction and Purpose
A.Background
The City of Palo Alto is bisected by the Caltrain corridor which runs in a north-south direction through the length of the
City. While the City enjoys the benefits of rail service, it also has to deal with the impacts of traffic congestion and the
community’s concerns about safety and noise. In addition, the City is preparing for increases in passenger rail service
due to Caltrain’s Electrification Project and the probable California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) Project.
Since 2009, the Palo Alto rail corridor has been the subject of considerable discussion and community focus. The City
has undertaken multiple studies over the years to assess mobility and the impact of the Caltrain corridor and Caltrain
operations have on that mobility. The more recent studies have focused on improving mobility access across the
corridor though grade separating one or more of the at-grade crossings and adding additional pedestrian/bicycle
crossings. These studies have shaped Palo Alto’s rail corridor planning efforts and has been a collaborative process
with involvement and outreach among City staff, City Rail Commission, City Council, local community, adjacent local
jurisdictions, stakeholders, and individuals. The AECOM team will build from the previous studies and will work
collaboratively with City staff and the various stakeholders to continue this coordination, collaboration and outreach
for the successful completion of this project’s next phase. This effort will also include working with the City’s other
consultants on urban design, complete streets and streetscape designs.
Currently there are four multi-modal (vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle) at-grade crossings, three grade separated
multi-modal crossings, and two pedestrian/bicycle crossings of the Caltrain Corridor within the City. The focus of this
project effort will be to identify preferred grade separation solution for the at-grade crossings by the end of 2018 with
Charleston Road and East Meadow Drive being the first priority. This will be an important milestone in moving the
Connecting Palo Alto Program forward.
In order to move this project forward, it is critical that consensus and support be obtained from a large number of
stakeholders. A key factor in obtaining consensus and support of a preferred solution is to develop high quality
graphics and visual simulations that illustrate the issues of the ideas and designs. In addition, understanding Caltrain
operations and criteria is critical in knowing how to work around an operating commuter rail without disrupting its
revenue service. Evaluation needs to carefully consider Caltrain’s operational requirements and how construction will
not impact revenue service. This knowledge and experience will be critical in evaluating viable alternatives as their
operational requirements will be changing in the near future with the addition of electrification and positive train
control (PTC). Grade separation ideas and solutions will need to account for PTC, electrification and HSR design
criteria and constraints especially regarding construction phasing and staging.
Funding is another critical component of the project for identifying financial approaches and models for the design
and construction of grade separations. The City has already started this process with its published Rail Financing
White Paper issued in November 2017 that identified several funding sources that included Santa Clara County
Measure B and California Section 190 funding sources. These funding sources are highly competitive and given the
competitive environment to obtain these funds it is paramount to progress projects quickly to get to the front of the
queue and take advantage of the funding opportunities. While these funding sources will not be enough to construct
the total project, investigation into other funding sources and revenue streams must occur to develop a feasible total
financing plan.
B.Connecting Palo Alto
Connecting Palo Alto is a community based process to address long-standing challenges associated with at-grade
crossings on the Caltrain corridor that runs through the community. This process informs decisions affecting both
community aesthetics and mobility choices for many future generations. Community feedback and collaboration are a
vital part of the decision making process. Engagement activities that inform, educate, gather input and connect
citizens about potential rail design alternatives will help prepare the City for the transit landscape of the future. This
Outreach Plan will be part of the community process.
Community Outreach Plan
DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 6
C.Project Purpose and Purpose of the Community
Outreach Plan
The purpose of the outreach effort is to:
To provide updated, accessible and educational information on the rail corridor grade separation alternatives
process, and to create opportunities and platforms to enhance and encourage community engagement and
participation.
Identify, engage and work with key stakeholders to inform community about historical importance of project,
urgency of timely decisions and need to participate to assist Council to adopt a preferred solution.
D.Roles
The City of Palo Alto is the lead for public involvement and will provide input to help screen the alternatives. The
Caltrain Joint Powers Board owns and operates the rail line and is a partner in the screening effort. The Palo Alto
community and businesses are encouraged to participate as users and neighbors of the proposed grade separations.
E. Community Outreach Plan Goals
The goals for the outreach effort include:
The Community would understand and agree to the problem that the ultimate preferred solution would solve
The Team proposing the ideas, alternatives to study and ultimate solution is the correct group to do so
The process was fair and transparent
The trade-offs were understood and that all parties were acknowledged and considered
The Community would understand the funding constraints and opportunities related to the preferred solution
and other ideas
Community members, businesses and all stakeholders would partner with the Team to gather information and
ideas to develop grade separation ideas that satisfy multiple interests; and
Process would develop partnerships for future funding opportunities.
2. Public Participation and Community
Engagement
The following section summarizes the public participation and community engagement portion of the Grade
Separation Study effort
A discussion of outreach tools, responsibilities, target audiences, and schedule of activities follows. .The graphic
below highlights the various public participation opportunities and community engagement strategies:
Three Stakeholder Meetings (3)
Three Community-wide Meetings (3)
City Council Meetings (3)
Rail Sub-Committee meetings (5)
Community Advisory Panel Meetings (6)
Community Outreach Plan
DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 7
Technical Advisory Committee (as needed and in support of the CAP)
Outreach Materials (mailers, surveys, website)
Figure 1. Community Engagement Schedule
A.Community Advisory Panel (CAP) Meetings
The Project Team will convene a Community Advisory Panel (CAP) of up to a dozen (12) community members to
advise the Project Team on Project ideas and outreach opportunities. City Manager will select the CAP members to
participate. The CAP will have access to the Project Team for all necessary data and background material including
information from other working groups such as but not limited to the Technical Advisory Committee members and
technical members of the project team as appropriate. This group is anticipated to begin meeting in July and would
meet up to six (6) times during the process. Meetings will be held at a time to be determined but expected to be at a
time where support from technical experts can be maximized..
The CAP ideally would:
Be project liaisons
Collaborate with the Project Team in evaluating alternatives
Contribute to the successful delivery of the Preferred Solution
Build an understanding of the project
Regularly attend CAP meetings
Come prepared to the CAP meetings by reading project materials ahead of the meetings when requested
Provide honest feedback
Community Outreach Plan
DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 8
Specific Tasks would include
Receive briefings on technical areas
Receive project updates
Review and suggest edits to Project Outreach materials
Disseminate accurate information
Act as conduits for information to community at large
B.Stakeholder Meetings
Stakeholder meetings will gather comments about the project ideas, including right-of-way issues and constraints.
These meetings will educate community members that may not attend community meetings such as businesses.
These stakeholder meetings will review and gather comments on improvement ideas under consideration that could
impact their operations.
It is important to remember that three community-wide meetings will be held to inform the public and gather
comments, and these forums will provide opportunities for the community to gain additional information and provide
additional comments on the project ideas. These will be complemented by City Council meetings (three) to brief
Council Members and the public and gather comments. The Consultant Team/AECOM staff will attend and present at
the City Council meetings after the three community outreach meetings are completed. It is anticipated that other
interested parties, such as residents and nearby businesses, among others, will get involved as a result of various
community outreach efforts.
The Consultant Team will work with City Staff develop the format, materials and questions for up to three stakeholder
meetings. These meetings could be held with the following established groups: Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce,
Leadership Palo Alto, Palo Alto Real Estate agent group, Stanford University, Palo Alto neighborhood leaders and/or
similar organized groups. The Consultant Team will work with City Staff to best determine the most efficient means to
reach these stakeholders.
C.Community Meetings
Three Community Meetings will be held throughout the process as summarized below. The Community Meetings will
assess desired improvements to address existing constraints; review project ideas; and review solution scenarios
once they are determined. These community meetings are expected to be held in the evenings on weeknights. All
meetings will cover all grade separation ideas under consideration and will not be focused on specific neighborhoods
specific themes such as funding and circulation will also be addressed.
Community Meeting #1 August XX, 2018 6:30 - 8:30 pm: Introduction to Project and initial screening of the
grade separation ideas to alternatives for further study: During this community meeting, participants will have
the opportunity to learn about the Project’s purpose and need and screen various remaining ideas. The Project
Team will show video of existing grade crossing issues such as long gate downtown, traffic back-ups and un-
safe behaviors. The ideas still under consideration will be explained and screened at the meeting. It is hoped
that the screening could be a survey with people logging in responses via cell phone technology that would be
immediately available for view. It is also hoped that the first responders would participate in the meeting to help
inform the public to their view of the various ideas as first responders. The format would include time for the
attendees to interact directly with the Project Team on specific topics such as traffic, bicycle and pedestrian
circulation, funding options, and the environmental process.
Community Meeting #2 October XX, 2018 6:30 -8:30 pm: Continued feedback will be taken on the refined
project ideas. Participants will have an opportunity to comment on each of the remaining project ideas and help
develop pros and cons for each design. Traffic impacts, construction staging and site specific 3-D simulations
will be available for public review. This meeting would also have some portion where a survey is taken to gather
feedback through cell phone technology.
Community Outreach Plan
DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 9
Community Meeting #3 November XX, 2018 6:30 - 8:30 pm: Participants will have the opportunity to learn about
the Study findings/refinements in the preferred solution as well as the next steps in the process including
funding and financing options and ideas for consideration. Refined 3-D visuals will be presented at the meeting.
Comments from each Community Meeting will be summarized and posted on the project web page for review.
D.City Council Meetings
After each of the project’s community outreach meetings the Team will prepare a report for City Council. These City
Council Reports will cover information presented at each respective Community Meeting and provide City Council
Members opportunities to provide comments and receive reports on the community feedback gathered at the
community-wide meetings, through the website surveys and at stakeholder meetings, including the Community
Advisory Panel.
E. Outreach Materials, Website and Surveys
The following outreach materials will be created to inform the community about public participation opportunities:
Project Fact Sheet: A project Fact Sheet will be developed that describes the purpose of the effort, the project
schedule, and opportunities for input from the community. The first version of the project Fact Sheet will be
available in Summer 2018 and updated as project information makes it necessary. It is assumed that two rounds
of updates will be made during the duration of the project as alternatives are developed and screened. The Fact
Sheet will be available for download on the Project web page. In addition, the Fact Sheet will be distributed at
the Community Meetings, City Hall, stakeholder meetings and at any speaking engagement opportunities the
City staffs may attend. A mailed version of the first fact sheet is recommended as on one of the four project
mailings.
Meeting Notices/City event e-blast/Press Releases: Prior to each Community Meeting, meeting notices will be
created to advertise the Community Meetings and also availability of on-line surveys where appropriate. Notices
will be distributed by the project web page, the City’s City Events email, gov-delivery, through each City’s Twitter
and Facebook accounts, NextDoor, the City’s list of elected and appointed officials, and posting on the Friends
of Caltrain blog, CAARD blog, Stanford newspapers, Palo Alto Weekly and other web outlets. Any mailings for
public outreach will be prepared and distributed by the City through their public information office.
Community Meeting Sign-in Sheets and Comment Cards: Comment forms will be available at all Community
Meetings for the community members to provide written comments. Sign-in sheets will be available at all
Community Meetings to help build on the existing email list of interested parties.
Web Page: A project web page hosted on the AECOM website and linked from the City and Caltrain websites.
The existing Connecting Palo Alto Project website branding will be utilized. The site will be available to
interested parties to learn about the project and process, research archived material and to find out about
upcoming meetings. The web pages will be updated regularly as project materials are developed for the
Community Meetings and other audiences.
Two Surveys: At the first and second community meetings the team will ask for in person feedback through cell
phone feedback voting and similar on-line versions could be developed to capture feedback as well. Mailers
would also be sent to send people to the website to take the on-line survey and announce the community
meetings. It should be noted that the on-line surveys will be relatively simple in nature and probably focused on
choosing between some options only, as tallying open-ended questions are beyond the scope of the effort.
Four Direct Project Mailings: The proposed mailers would be 1) mail out of the project fact sheet and reminder
of web page address 2) mail out of push to use on-line survey round one and first community meeting date, 3)
Community Outreach Plan
DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Palo Alto AECOM | Apex Strategies 10
mail out for second on-line survey and second community meeting and 4) Last community meeting date and/or
proposed preferred solution.
Database: Contact information from Community Meeting attendees and web page signups will be compiled into
the existing project database. This database will be utilized to inform the community about upcoming public
participation opportunities and meetings.
Hotline to Project Team: The City phone number going straight to an answering machine will be the first contact
for questions about the project and the City Project Manager will maintain and share a log of these encounters.
The AECOM team can be available to assist with technical information or to review wording of responses.
F. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Support the Technical Advisory Committee
Assemble a Connecting Palo Alto Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), a standing group of agency
representatives. TAC meetings will be held on an as-needed basis at key decision points. The TAC will provide a
forum for engagement with staff from the agencies with special knowledge about the rail corridor. The TAC will
help the Project Team and community identify the technical opportunities and constraints for various alternatives.
The TAC will not, in and of itself, be making any decisions regarding the Connecting Palo Alto program. The
Project Team anticipates that there would be support from some of the TAC members to the proposed
Community Advisory Panel described above along with members of the Consultant Team with specific technical
expertise. It is also anticipated that the TAC would also continue to have separate meetings to discuss technical
issues separate from the CAP.
G. Public Participation and Community
Engagement Summary Report
A brief summary report documenting the public participation and community engagement will be prepared at the end
of this element of the project (first quarter 2019).
1of 3
To:
Josh Mello
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301
CC:
Millette Litzinger, AECOM
John Maher, AECOM
AECOM
300 Lakeside Drive
Suite 400
Oakland
CA 94612
aecom.com
Project name:
Palo Alto Rail Management Service
Project ref:
60577356
From:
Etty Mercurio
Date:
June 12, 2018
Memo
Subject: Narrative Geometry Description for Ideas CAH, CAR, and PAH
The following is based on a conceptual engineering evaluation and is intended for discussion purposes only.
Churchill Avenue Hybrid (CAH)
The Churchill Avenue hybrid idea is for Churchill Avenue to go under railroad and the railroad to be partially raised.
Temporary Railroad Geometry: Temporary tracks to bypass the mainline track and structures during construction are
required. The temporary double tracks will be positioned on the east side of the existing mainline tracks. The tracks swing
east starting at the south end of the Embarcadero Road Underpass, run parallel to the existing tracks and then swing back
west into the existing tracks at the north end of the California Avenue Station and remain at grade level for the entire
alignment. The total temporary track length is 5,475 feet. The temporary tracks are designed with the required safety and
construction clearances and for a maximum speed of 75 mph. The proposed mainline vertical alignments (profiles) are
controlled by the required length of vertical curves, length of tangents between curves and the overall length of the available
mainline track clear for construction.
Permanent Railroad Geometry: From south of the Embarcadero Road Underpass, the permanent track will rise at a grade
of 0.6% on retained fill into a 1,240 feet long vertical curve over Churchill Avenue. This places the top-of-rail 10 feet above
the existing Churchill Ave roadway. It then descends on retained fill at the maximum allowed 1.0% grade to meet the existing
mainline grade north of the California Avenue Station. The existing mainline profile between Embarcadero Road and
California Avenue is at a negative 0.4% grade.
Roadway Geometry: Midway between Castilleja Street and Mariposa Avenue, Churchill Avenue will be lowered at a
maximum grade of 7.4%. After a 330–foot sag curve Churchill will rise at 7.4% and return to the existing grade approximately
300 feet east of Alma Street. The total length of roadway impacted on Churchill Avenue is 665 feet and the roadway will be
lowered a maximum of 15 feet from the existing grade. Mariposa Avenue and Alma Street will also be lowered, 5 feet and 9
feet respectively, to maintain their intersections with Churchill Avenue. The maximum grade on both streets will be 5%. The
total length of roadway impacted on Alma Street will be 610 feet, 310 feet to the north and 300 feet to the south. Mariposa
Avenue will be impacted for 220 feet south of Churchill. The design speed is 35 mph for Alma Street and 25 mph for
Mariposa and Churchill avenues.
Initial Assessment of Potential Impacts: The CAH idea has the following potential impacts.
Memo – Narrative Geometry Description for Ideas CAH, CAR and PAH
Palo Alto Rail Management Service
AECOM
2of 3
The removal of all the existing trees in the buffer between Alma Street and the mainline tracks (east side) to construct
the temporary double tracks and maintain the Caltrain revenue service.
Also to accommodate the temporary double tracks, the width of Alma Street will be temporarily reduced from 45 feet to
25 feet. This will result in temporary loss of traffic lanes and parking.
About 14 residential properties will be significantly impacted, and about 8 residential properties will require driveway
modifications.
Major utility relocations are required along with the addition of a pump station for the lowered roadways.
Elevation of the railroad will have visual impacts.
Churchill Avenue Reverse Hybrid (CAR)
The Churchill Avenue reverse hybrid idea is for Churchill Avenue to go over railroad and the railroad to be partially lowered.
Temporary Railroad Geometry: Temporary double tracks to bypass the mainline track and structures during construction
are the same as described above for the CAH idea.
Permanent Railroad Geometry: From south of the Embarcadero Road Underpass, the permanent tracks will descend in a
trench at a grade of 1.0% into a 1200-foot long vertical curve under Churchill Avenue. This places the top-of-rail 6 feet under
the existing Churchill Avenue roadway. It then rises in a trench at a 1.0% grade to meet the existing mainline grade north of
the California Avenue Station.
Roadway Geometry: Approximately 200 feet east of Mariposa Avenue, Churchill Avenue will be raised at a maximum grade
of 8%. After a 350–foot crest curve Churchill will be lowered at 8.0% and return to the existing grade approximately 400 feet
east of Alma Street. The total length of roadway impacted on Churchill Avenue is 910 feet and the roadway will be raised a
maximum of 22 feet from the existing grade. Mariposa Avenue and Alma Street will also be raised, 14 feet and 22 feet
respectively, to maintain their intersections with Churchill Avenue. The maximum grade on both streets will be 5%. The total
length of roadway impacted on Alma Street will be 1300 feet, 600 feet to the north and 700 feet to the south. Mariposa
Avenue will be impacted for 380 feet south of Churchill. The design speed is 35 mph for Alma Street and 25 mph for
Mariposa and Churchill avenues.
Initial Assessment of Potential Impacts: The CAR idea has the following potential impacts.
The removal of all the existing trees in the buffer between Alma Street and the mainline tracks (east side) to construct
the temporary double tracks and maintain the Caltrain revenue service.
Also to accommodate the temporary double tracks, the width of Alma Street will be temporarily reduced from 45 feet to
25 feet. This will result in temporary loss of traffic lanes and parking.
About 43 residential properties will be significantly impacted, and about 3 residential properties will require driveway
modifications.
Major utility relocations are required along with the addition of a pump station for the lowered railroad in a trench.
Elevation of the roadways will have visual impacts.
Palo Alto Avenue Hybrid (PAH)
The Palo Alto Avenue hybrid idea is for the railroad to go over Palo Alto Avenue and for Palo Alto Avenue to be partially
lowered.
Permanent Railroad Geometry: in order to not impact the historic bridge over San Francisquito Creek, a permanent
railroad alignment will be constructed. An initial evaluation of a westerly alignment indicated impacts to an apartment building
in Menlo Park so an easterly alignment was evaluated. From the north end of the Palo Alto Station platform, the permanent
track will rise at a grade of 1.0% on retained fill or viaduct into 1,550 long vertical curve over San Francisquito Creek. This
Memo – Narrative Geometry Description for Ideas CAH, CAR and PAH
Palo Alto Rail Management Service
AECOM
3of 3
places the top-of-rail 7 feet above the existing grade at the creek. It then descends on retained fill or viaduct at 1.0% grade to
meet the existing grade north of the creek within the City Limits of Menlo Park.
Roadway Geometry: Just east of El Camino Real, Palo Alto will be lowered at a maximum grade of 7.0%. After a 190-foot
sag curve Palo Alto will rise at 7.0% and return to the existing grade approximately 300 feet after Alma Street. The total
length of roadway impacted along Palo A lot is approximately 800 feet and the roadway will be lowered a maximum of 15 feet
from existing grade. Alma Street will also be lowered approximately 7 feet. The maximum grade on Alma Street will be 5%
and the total length impacted will be 140 feet. The design speed is 25 mph for Palo Alto Ave and Alma Street.
Initial Assessment of Potential Impacts: The PAH idea has the following potential impacts.
The removal of all the existing trees in the buffer between Alma Street and the mainline tracks (east side) to construct
the permanent double tracks and maintain the Caltrain revenue service on the existing alignment.
Also to accommodate the permanent double tracks, east side parking on Alma Street may be removed.
The driveway to the Palo Alto Condominiums on Palo Alto Avenue may require modification.
Major utility relocations are required along with the addition of a pump station for the lowered roadways.
Elevation of the railroad will have visual impacts.
The permanent alignment impacts trees within El Palo Alto Park – additional surveys would be required to asses if the
alignment impacts the heritage tree within the park.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 7:12 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Railroad and Train in Palo Alto
Dear City Council of Palo Alto:
This comment is in regards to the railroad and train design.
Palo Alto and its residents will live with the chosen design for at least 100 years ! Discussion of short‐term construction
or financial impacts is not the right place to focus. We need to choose the long‐term solution that will have the LEAST
negative impact on the residents who will live with it for the next 100 years. This means: the least noise, least pollution
(for example, dust and visible trash), least danger, least impact on traffic, least ugliness.
For me, the only solution that meets this criteria is to put the train and its tracks underground. A complete tunnel across
the City of Palo Alto is the best solution: no noise, no pollution, no ugliness, no danger, no impact on traffic, no homeless
camps. This design even creates new land above the tunnel for bike paths, tennis courts, parks, and additional future
crossing locations; it gives Palo Alto the opportunity to unite into a single walkable community, free from the track
barrier that has divided the city for its entire existence.
The next best solution is a deep trench across the entire City of Palo Alto that hides the train from view, contains the
noise and pollution, and prevents pedestrian access/crossings at undesirable locations. This design is a far cry from the
beautiful vision offered by the tunnel, but it is SO must better than the at‐grade / above‐grade solutions.
NO at‐grade or above‐grade solution makes any sense for posterity; these solutions are the noisiest, ugliest, most
polluting, and most dangerous. As Palo Alto encourages more of its residents to live in denser housing near public
transportation (i.e., the railroad), more and more of its residents will be subjected to these negative impacts (noise while
they sleep, ugly views from their windows). In addition, these at‐ and above‐grade solutions will be a yearly drain on City
finances: constant clean up of trash and graffiti in and around the structures, clearing out of homeless and drug‐activity,
and constant vigilance for danger (access and crossings at undesirable locations). They will restrict the City's options for
additional vehicular crossings in the future. And they will occupy (and make unusable) very valuable land that could be
put to better uses. Why are you even considering these awful designs? They should not be on the table for discussion !!
Sincerely,
Carlin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:42 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Gari Gene <talk2gari@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 8:44 AM
To:Council, City; cma_neighborhood@googlegroups.com
Subject:Railroad Designs: why are we comparing apples to oranges?
Dear City Council
The railroad designs that are being discussed are not being held to the same standards.
The costs for all the designs that we consider should be required to include similar benefits, such as safety, beauty,
cleanliness, and efficiency of land use. Otherwise we are comparing apples to oranges. I believe that it is your
responsibility to make this list of basic features that ALL the designs must address and include in their cost estimates.
The at-grade and above-grade solutions are cheaper BECAUSE they do not include safety, beauty, cleanliness, and
efficiency of land use. In fact, they provide danger, ugliness, filth and pollution, noise, and inefficient use of our valuable
land. The cost estimates for the at-grade and above-grade designs should be required to include planning to show how
they can be as-equal-as-possible to the tunnel options over the next 100 years. What does it REALLY cost (over the life of
the design) to build and maintain an above-grade solution when it requires annual cleanup of garbage and graffiti around
the structures, constant clearing out of homeless camps, monitoring for drug-related activities and for pedestrian safety,
and the City's loss of use of the land (which could be used for parks, bike paths, and creation of a walkable Palo Alto)?
I ask the you make a list of basic features and REQUIRE that the costs for all these features be reflected in the
cost estimates for each proposed design.
I realize that some designs simply cannot provide certain features. For example, a tunnel can be quiet whereas an above-
grade design is inherently noisy. In these instances, the design's cost estimate should clearly point this out as a missing
feature.
Gari Gene
231 Whitclem Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:42 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com on behalf of Wolfgang Dueregger
<wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 9:46 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lydia Kou; David Schrom; Filseth, Eric (external); Paul & Karen Machado; Christian
Pease; Tom Dubios; evergreen-park-discuss@yahoogroups.com; Terry Holzemer;
Neilson Buchanan; Holman, Karen
Subject:Palo Alto train tunnel
Dear City Council,
Chicago seems to be doing something that Palo Alto cannot?
https://gizmodo.com/elon-musks-boring-company-wins-bid-to-build-high-speed-1826822962
Please do not hide behind the excuse it is too expensive.
Those among you in City council who still think it is too expensive, think first about financing options (impose
a tax on companies who actually would benefit so much if there employees can zip to work rather than jam
through traffic), rather than not even trying.
As an fyi, Tesla headquarters are on Deer Creek Road.
Palo Alto is the epicenter of Silicon Valley, has one of highest housing prices nationwide and is in the top of per
capita income.
And Palo Alto says, it is too expensive?
I will cost 2-3 billion, yes. Have you ever considered that one could re-purpose the freed up land? Strike a deal
with Caltrain who (I think) owns it.
Do something.
but do not just brush the idea of a city-wide tunnel off the table, because nobody does the hard work.
you have been elected to do so.
Please start your work now in earnest.
thank you.
Wolfgang Dueregger
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:42 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:gmahany@aol.com
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 11:06 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:I respectfully disagree with the tunnel and trench boosters
hello Palo Alto city council members:
I know you will receive the following statement from south Palo Alto residents that want a trench ore city wide tunnel.
"Palo Alto and its residents will live with the chosen design for at least 100 years ! Discussion of short‐term construction
or financial impacts is not the right place to focus. We need to choose the long‐term solution that will have the LEAST
negative impact on the residents who will live with it for the next 100 years. This means: the least noise, least pollution
(for example, dust and visible trash), least danger, least impact on traffic, least ugliness."
This is a good statement and I agree with it, however the rest of their email is pro tunnel or trench as the only acceptable
choice for them. These are the people who do not want to pay for it. They want the feds, state county or other peninsula
citys to pay for it. They seek no coordination with Menlo Park or Mountain View. They disregard rail developments in the
rest of the world for sound abatement. They want none of their skin in the game.
How about Palo Alto having a viaduct/over under architectural design competition.
Gary Mahany
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:42 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Kevin Cheng <chengkevin2012@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 2:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Railroad and Train in Palo Alto
Dear City Council of Palo Alto:
This comment is in regards to the railroad and train design.
Palo Alto and its residents will live with the chosen design for at least 100 years ! Discussion of short‐term construction
or financial impacts is not the right place to focus. We need to choose the long‐term solution that will have the LEAST
negative impact on the residents who will live with it for the next 100 years. This means: the least noise, least pollution
(for example, dust and visible trash), least danger, least impact on traffic, least ugliness.
For me, the only solution that meets this criteria is to put the train and its tracks underground. A complete tunnel across
the City of Palo Alto is the best solution: no noise, no pollution, no ugliness, no danger, no impact on traffic, no homeless
camps. This design even creates new land above the tunnel for bike paths, tennis courts, parks, and additional future
crossing locations; it gives Palo Alto the opportunity to unite into a single walkable community, free from the track
barrier that has divided the city for its entire existence.
The next best solution is a deep trench across the entire City of Palo Alto that hides the train from view, contains the
noise and pollution, and prevents pedestrian access/crossings at undesirable locations. This design is a far cry from the
beautiful vision offered by the tunnel, but it is SO must better than the at‐grade / above‐grade solutions.
NO at‐grade or above‐grade solution makes any sense for posterity; these solutions are the noisiest, ugliest, most
polluting, and most dangerous. As Palo Alto encourages more of its residents to live in denser housing near public
transportation (i.e., the railroad), more and more of its residents will be subjected to these negative impacts (noise while
they sleep, ugly views from their windows). In addition, these at‐ and above‐grade solutions will be a yearly drain on City
finances: constant clean up of trash and graffiti in and around the structures, clearing out of homeless and drug‐activity,
and constant vigilance for danger (access and crossings at undesirable locations). They will restrict the City's options for
additional vehicular crossings in the future. And they will occupy (and make unusable) very valuable land that could be
put to better uses. Why are you even considering these awful designs? They should not be on the table for discussion !!
Sincerely,
Kevin Cheng
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:42 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Sandeep Bahl <sbahl@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 9:19 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shachi Bahl
Subject:Train crossings in Palo Alto
Dear City Council of Palo Alto:
We would like to write to you in regards to the railroad and train design.
Your decision is very important to the city, since Palo Alto and its residents will live with the chosen design for
at least 100 years! Please do not be pressured by short‐term considerations. We need to choose the long‐
term solution that will have the LEAST negative impact on the residents who will live with it for the next 100
years, and also not divide the city. This means: the least noise, least pollution (for example, dust and visible
trash), least danger, least impact on traffic, least ugliness.
The best solution that meets this criteria is to put the train and its tracks underground. A complete tunnel
across the City of Palo Alto is the best solution: no noise, no pollution, no ugliness, no danger, no impact on
traffic, no homeless camps. This design even creates new land above the tunnel for bike paths, tennis courts,
parks, and additional future crossing locations; it gives Palo Alto the opportunity to unite into a single walkable
community, free from the track barrier that has divided the city for its entire existence.
The next best solution is a deep trench across the entire City of Palo Alto that hides the train from view,
contains the noise and pollution, and prevents pedestrian access/crossings at undesirable locations. This
design is a far cry from the beautiful vision offered by the tunnel, but it is SO must better than the at‐grade /
above‐grade solutions.
NO at‐grade or above‐grade solution makes any sense for posterity; these solutions are the noisiest, ugliest,
most polluting, and most dangerous. As Palo Alto encourages more of its residents to live in denser housing
near public transportation (i.e., the railroad), more and more of its residents will be subjected to these
negative impacts (noise while they sleep, ugly views from their windows). In addition, these at‐ and above‐
grade solutions will be a yearly drain on City finances: constant clean up of trash and graffiti in and around the
structures, clearing out of homeless and drug‐activity, and constant vigilance for danger (access and crossings
at undesirable locations). They will restrict the City's options for additional vehicular crossings in the future.
And they will occupy (and make unusable) very valuable land that could be put to better uses. They will also
be distracting for our children studying next to the tracks at Paly.
We urge you to not consider the at‐grade or above‐grade solutions.
Sincerely,
Sandeep and Shachi Bahl
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:42 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah Ju <dsju371@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 9:31 PM
To:Council, City; City Council
Subject:Comments regarding train design
Dear City Council of Palo Alto:
I live in Palo Alto near the Charleston/Alma intersection. I strongly oppose an above‐grade rail design, as above‐grade
crossings are unsightly and would create a massive division between the two neighborhoods across Alma Street.
Our neighborhood will be greatly impacted by the rail design chosen on a daily basis for many decades. We need a long‐
term solution that will have the least negative impacts. The solution must be underground tracks to minimize the train
noise and and visual impact. This would avoid issues of eminent domain and would allow the above ground space to be
better used for pedestrians and bicycles.
In making this decision, as with all decisions, you should ask yourself what design you would choose if your home was
near this location. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Deborah Ju
371 Whitclem Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:42 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Allen Edwards <allen.p.edwards@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 7:24 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Chruchill Crossing
I was pleased to hear that the over/under proposals for Alma and Churchill were voted down by the Rail
Committee. Please support that decision when it comes to the council.
I have done an informal survey of my friends who live in Palo Alto and universally the use of that intersection
is to turn from Churchill west to Alma south. Closing the crossing would be a significant improvement over
what is there now as it would prevent the train from interrupting the signal.
I understand that not everyone feels that way and that there will be winners and losers with any solution but this
one seems easy. There will be winners with the closing of that intersection including the avoiding of the cost,
disruption to traffic flow during construction, and taking of homes that would have accompanied the over under
proposals.
One final note. Clearly improvements to Embarcadero are required. I have heard the excuse that synchronizing
the lights is impossible because of different jurisdictions of the El Camino intersection. It should be possible
for the city to synchronize our signals to information off a camera pointing at one of the signal lights on El
Camino. You don't need to have a data link to synchronize something. You just need the information on when
that signal changes and that should not be that hard to get.
Allen Edwards
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:42 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 9:33 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Railroad Designs
Dear City Council of Palo Alto:
This comment is in regards to the railroad and train design.
Palo Alto and its residents will live with the chosen design for at least 100 years ! Discussion of short‐term construction
or financial impacts is not the right place to focus. We need to choose the long‐term solution that will have the LEAST
negative impact on the residents who will live with it for the next 100 years. This means: the least noise, least pollution
(for example, dust and visible trash), least danger (for example, suicide opportunities and illegal crossings), least impact
on traffic, least ugliness. We should also look for a design that opens up new opportunities for improving our City.
For me, the only design that meets these criteria is to put the train and its tracks underground. A complete tunnel across
the City of Palo Alto is the best solution: no noise, no pollution, no ugliness, no danger, no impact on traffic, no homeless
camps, no visible trash. This design even creates new land above the tunnel for bike paths, tennis courts, parks, and
additional future crossing locations; it gives Palo Alto the opportunity to unite into a single walkable community, free
from the track barrier that has divided the city for its entire existence. The real cost of this tunnel should be REDUCED by
the value of the newly usable land that it creates.
The next best design is a deep trench across the entire City of Palo Alto that hides the train from view, contains the noise
and pollution, and prevents pedestrian access/crossings at undesirable locations. This design is a far cry from the
beautiful vision offered by the tunnel, but it is SO much better than the at‐grade / above‐grade solutions.
NO at‐grade or above‐grade design makes any sense for posterity; these designs are the noisiest, ugliest, most polluting,
and most dangerous. All such structures become grungy and ugly over time; look at the examples in any eastern city! As
Palo Alto encourages more of its residents to live in denser housing near public transportation (i.e., the railroad), more
and more of its residents will be subjected to these negative impacts (noise while they sleep, filthy/graffiti‐covered
views from their windows, homeless camps and drug‐trafficking under the structures). In addition, these at‐ and above‐
grade solutions will be a yearly drain on City finances: constant clean up of trash and graffiti in and around the
structures, clearing out of homeless and drug‐activity, and constant vigilance for danger (access and crossings at
undesirable locations). They will restrict the City's options for additional crossings (both vehicular and pedestrian) in the
future. And they will continue to occupy (and keep unusable) very valuable land that could be put to better uses. These
designs do not offer any improvements or improvement opportunities, and they seriously degrade our City for
generations to come. Why are you/we even considering these awful designs? They should not be on the table for
discussion !!
I would pay additional taxes of $3000 per year (which is .15% of my house's value) for the next 80 years to get the train
out of hearing and out of sight and to have the additional land available for public uses !!!!!
Sincerely,
Carlin Otto
231 Whitclem Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:42 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Ivy Li <ivysun88@hotmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 12:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Railroad and Train in Palo Alto Need Best Solution!!!!! We should do the same
underground the other country could do!!!!!!
Dear City Council of Palo Alto:
This comment is in regards to the railroad and train design.
Palo Alto and its residents will live with the chosen design for at least 100 years ! Discussion of short‐term construction
or financial impacts is not the right place to focus. We need to choose the long‐term solution that will have the LEAST
negative impact on the residents who will live with it for the next 100 years. This means: the least noise, least pollution
(for example, dust and visible trash), least danger, least impact on traffic, least ugliness.
For me, the only solution that meets this criteria is to put the train and its tracks underground. A complete tunnel across
the City of Palo Alto is the best solution: no noise, no pollution, no ugliness, no danger, no impact on traffic, no homeless
camps. This design even creates new land above the tunnel for bike paths, tennis courts, parks, and additional future
crossing locations; it gives Palo Alto the opportunity to unite into a single walkable community, free from the track
barrier that has divided the city for its entire existence.
The next best solution is a deep trench across the entire City of Palo Alto that hides the train from view, contains the
noise and pollution, and prevents pedestrian access/crossings at undesirable locations. This design is a far cry from the
beautiful vision offered by the tunnel, but it is SO must better than the at‐grade / above‐grade solutions.
NO at‐grade or above‐grade solution makes any sense for posterity; these solutions are the noisiest, ugliest, most
polluting, and most dangerous. As Palo Alto encourages more of its residents to live in denser housing near public
transportation (i.e., the railroad), more and more of its residents will be subjected to these negative impacts (noise while
they sleep, ugly views from their windows). In addition, these at‐ and above‐grade solutions will be a yearly drain on City
finances: constant clean up of trash and graffiti in and around the structures, clearing out of homeless and drug‐activity,
and constant vigilance for danger (access and crossings at undesirable locations). They will restrict the City's options for
additional vehicular crossings in the future. And they will occupy (and make unusable) very valuable land that could be
put to better uses. Why are you even considering these awful designs? They should not be on the table for discussion !!
Sincerely,
Ivy
--
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:38 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marilyn mayo <marilynmayo@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 16, 2018 10:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Dear Council Members,
I am totally opposed to closing the Churchill Ave crossing to automobile traffic. Having taught 34 years at Paly, I
recognize the utility of school buses, students & commute traffic using that crossing, especially during the
morning/evening hours. To rely on the proposed enlarged Embarcadero crossing would increase the danger to an
already impacted area. In addition, when Stanford hospital is fully built‐out, the increased traffic demands will only
exacerbate the long wait time & hazard on Embarcadero.
To require removal of homes is problematic; however, to close the Churchill crossing to cars would cause far
more repercussions to the navigation & livability in Palo Alto.
Thanks for your time, Marilyn Mayo 404 Oxford Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:38 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 16, 2018 4:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Dear City Council,
I understand that the rail transportation committee is recommending that the Embarcadero underpass not be widen.
This recommendation is wrong. The argument is that traffic will speed up on Embarcadero, this makes no sense.
Traveling West on Embarcadero is already 2 lanes and adding a lane to the underpass going East will change nothing.
Going East with a widen underpass will speed up the traffic for only the 500 foot distance that is narrowed now. The
Embarcadero underpass was built during the 1930's Depression and the city was short of funds, so a compromise was
made. Now is the time to correct this unsafe condition as cars merge to go through the underpass. Now the same is for
Alma above, the overpass must be widen to 4 lanes from the now 3 lanes. Let's do it right. The people opposing
widening the underpass claim that plan is to widen Embarcadero, No it's to widen the underpass only and not the whole
road.
Thank you,
Gary Lindgren
Gary Lindgren
585 Lincoln Ave
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-326-0655
Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading
@garyelindgren
Listen to Radio Around the World
Be Like Costco... do something in a different way
Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything
A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but
think what no one else has ever said.
The difference between being very smart and very foolish is
often very small.
So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when
they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when
they are supposed to be creative.
The secret to doing good research is always to be a little
underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste
hours.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:38 AM
3
It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to
prove you have made the world a better place.
Amos Tversky
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:38 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Wei Xiao <weixiao1984@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 16, 2018 6:59 PM
To:Council, City; City Council
Subject:Regarding the CalTrain Proposal
To City Council of Palo Alto,
We recently moved to 325 Victoria Pl, Palo Alto. We love the neighborhood and at the same time are very
concerned about the current above-grade CalTrain proposal. Before we moved here we lived in San Mateo for
many years where above-grade solution was used. It created separation and divided the neighbors. We want one
united Palo Alto but not two.
We need to act as an owner to make the right decision that is influencing the future of the city for many years.
With that being said, a underground tunnel will be the right solution here. The land used to lay train tracks can
be utilized for local businesses and in the long run the tax generated can justify higher cost of the underground
solution. Please help Palo Alto become a better place.
Thanks,
Wei's Family
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:38 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah Waxman <deborahwaxman8558@comcast.net>
Sent:Saturday, June 16, 2018 8:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rail options
My previous email bounced, so I am resending:
Dear City Council Members,
I live in Palo Alto near the Charleston/Alma intersection. I’ve lived here for more than a decade, through
the many suicides at the Charleston and the West Meadow intersections and through the increasingly
dense noise and traffic. The current trains already pose a significant hazard and a cost to our quality of
life. Adding above grade options will only exacerbate these issues.
I strongly oppose an above‐grade rail design as unsafe, unsightly, and a huge contributor to the already
severe traffic congestion at this intersection.
I understand your concern about costs, but I also know the cost to safety, property values, and quality of
life that will endure for decades. We have already lost two families, who have moved away because they
can’t endure the options that have been proposed. I urge you to consider the long‐term impacts of this
project rather than succumbing to short‐term cost concerns. Underground tracks will minimize train
noise and safety issues, and free up land for better, more neighborhood friendly uses. It would also save
many families from the loss of their homes through eminent domain.
I can only hope that you will consider a tunnel option and allow the communities to find ways to fund a
tunnel rather than peremptorily deciding against an option that will do so much good for the
community.
Thank you for your consideration,
Deborah Waxman
4166 Park Blvd
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:38 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Stephen Chan <stephen.chan.paloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 16, 2018 9:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Strongly oppose any option that would raise the train tracks in Palo Alto
Dear Council Members,
Given the concerns I expressed in my last email, I am joining the petitions that strongly oppose any elevation of the train
tracks and strongly support the under ground tunneling or open trench options that bring train tracks lower.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Steph
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:38 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Anjan Ghose <anjanghose@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 17, 2018 4:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Train solution in Palo Alto
To The City Council of Palo Alto,
We have lived at 4119 Park Blvd., Palo Alto for many years, next to the CalTrain tracks. We love the
neighborhood and at the same time are very concerned about the current above-grade CalTrain
proposal. In San Mateo, where above-grade solution was used. It created separation, blight and
divided the neighbors. We want a united Palo Alto.
We need to act as an owner to make the right decision that will influence the future of the city for
maybe a hundred years. With that being said, a underground tunnel will be the right solution here. If
even the Charleston and Meadow crossings are made so that the train runs in a trench, the land used
to lay train tracks can be utilized for local businesses and in the long run the tax generated can justify
higher cost of the underground solution. Please help Palo Alto become a better place.
Anjan Ghose
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:ahn344w <ahm344w@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 18, 2018 9:10 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:railroad and train design
Dear City Council of Palo Alto,
I am a resident in the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood. I strongly oppose any above ground design. Palo Alto prides
itself on social responsibility, safety, and a sense of place. Any above ground design will be extremely destructive to our
neighborhood fabric, and will also pose greatly increased risks especially for local children. Risks will include increased
traffic, more frayed nerves and dangerous impatient driving behaviors, increased risk to all pedestrians and cyclists,
especially students, increased pollution, noise, and trash. Above ground structures can create risk for It will disrupt
neighborhood cohesion, and present irreversible damage to the very elements that make our community a peaceful,
friendly and desirable place to live.
Please do not create this irreversible damage to our great community. Underground options are in Palo Alto’s best
interest. Do not destroy the neighborhoods and communities that residents work so hard to build and maintain. We
have an opportunity to model responsible city planning and maintain neighborhoods designed for human beings with
the goals including social cohesion and safety, especially for children.
Sincerely,
Annie Hempstead MD
344 Whitclem Drive
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:42 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Rene Ho <renehsho@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 17, 2018 9:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:train situation
Dear City Council,
I understand that there are several options being considered for the train tracks in Palo Alto.
Increasing capacity for the Caltrain is certainly a benefit for the public and community. It cannot be without
cost. A community benefit should be funded by the community for a solution that is best for all over the long
run. Please don't make a decision that solves our short term needs, causes major disruption during the
construction, only to be done all over again.
A buried train while disruptive to build can last for generations. Less pollution, less noise, increased train
capacity with no car crossings. A trench can get us part of the way there, but not entirely. Closing off crossings
will only make heavy rush hour traffic situation worse
Please consider the long term and realize that the community benefit does come at a cost and the community
should pay for it
Rene Ho
374 Whitclem Dr
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:42 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Kevin Moore <moore.kw@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 17, 2018 7:37 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Kou, Lydia
Subject:Rail crossing options--South Palo Alto
Dear Council Members:
My name is Kevin Moore; I have been a resident of Palo Alto for thirty years, 1987-1999 on Park Blvd. and
1999-present on Carolina Lane. I am generally unable to attend City Council Meetings due to family
responsibilities so I am writing this email regarding the ongoing discussion of rail crossing options, particularly
those at East Meadow and Charleston Avenues.
First, I wish to register my strong opposition to any exercise of eminent domain to forcibly seize
properties. This would have a profound, life-changing impact on the affected families. When it becomes clear
that properties are to be seized there would be a significant depreciation in their value. Moreover, following
seizure and "compensation"--presumably at the depreciated rather than current values--the former owners would
likely be required to pay significant capital gains taxes on the sale of their properties. This "double whammy"
would amount to forcible economic eviction of these residents not only from their current homes but from Palo
Alto (and perhaps even Menlo Park and Mountain View) entirely: they would be unable to purchase any other
comparable, or even less-than-comparable, residences elsewhere in this area.
In addition, given the scarcity of housing, why would we consider destroying existing housing stock?
Among the options being discussed I favor either a tunnel (first choice) or a trench (distant second choice). A
tunnel offers the interesting option of keeping the current tracks at the surface for freight operations which
could be restricted to certain hours of the day or night. Alternatively the city could potentially buy out the
freight company(ies) and/or their rights-of-way if they cannot use the tunnel or trench.
The road-over-rail and rail-over-road scenarios would in my opinion significantly alter the character of our
neighborhoods, to their long-term detriment. I very much hope that the Council will consider the tunnel or
trench as the only options that are acceptable to the residents of South Palo Alto neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Kevin Moore
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:42 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Neel Valame <nvalame@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 17, 2018 6:21 PM
To:Florence Keller; Council, City
Cc:De Geus, Robert
Subject:Re: [cma_neighborhood] Charleston Road Renovation and Train Crossing
Can city add searchable “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) document on city web site covering Arastradero
project and Rail grade separation project. It will consume time of officials upfront but there is ROI with saving
in time for repeated questions for the next 1-10 years + citizens may feel more at ease with transparency to the
extent possible.
Regards
Neel Valame
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 17, 2018, at 5:23 PM, Florence Keller <fkeller@trialanalysisgroup.com> wrote:
Dear City Council Members and Mr. DeGeuss,
I know you folks are busy, but given that you represent, inter alia, me, I am
left with a certain degree of frustration at city council's inadequate
response, and Mr. De Geus' lack of
response. I shall attend the tomorrow's city council meeting and shall speak
in the Public Comments period, although I know that, by policy, you do not
respond to public comments or
questions during that period. So I am left to query how, exactly, one gets a
serious response to serious questions?
Perhaps this email will elicit such response. I must hope that it will.
Florence O. Keller
4124 Wilkie Way
Palo Alto, 94306
Dear Mr. DeGeus:
As I noted at the City Council meeting this past week, I wrote the
following email to the members of the Palo Alto City Council:
Dear Council Members:
I have just concluded reading a long article in the Palo Alto Weekly about
the extensive and costly transformation of the Charleston-Arastradero
corridor
that is planned to commence shortly. I am also aware that plans are in
the works for the reconfiguration of Caltrain within the next few years
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:42 AM
5
which may, it appears, result in having to make major renovations to the
Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection.
My question to the Council, then, is why would you spend monies
to dig up Charleston Road corridor one year to accommodate
traffic, only to potentially have to spend more money
the following year to redo a part of the corridor to accommodate the
railroad? Or have you already settled upon a plan for a railroad that would
not necessitate digging up the
surrounding part of Charleston Road?
An answer to these questions would be helpful to me.
Three council members were kind enough to respond to my email:
their
answers were all quite different from one another. Ms. Kniss'
response
was, I thought, the most cogent and concise: "It's a good
question which
I will forward on to city staff to explain the rationale for
doing that
corridor at this point".
Now, as a result of attending the city council meeting, I have
one more,
related question, to wit: It seems well within the realm of
possibility
that the East Meadow rail crossing will be eliminated. Does it
really
make sense then to subject the Charleston Corridor to a road
diet when
it may well be the only crossing in South Palo Alto, bearing
traffic
loads comparable to those of Oregon and Embarcadero? The air
quality,
already not great, not to mention the tempers of our citizenry,
would
surely suffer.
You were kind (or foolhardy) enough to offer me your business
card and
invite me to email you, noting that "there might be an answer to
your
question". That would be nice. I look forward to hearing from you
when
you have a moment.
With thanks in advance,
Florence O. Keller
4124 Wilkie Way,
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Charleston Meadows
Neighborhood" Google group.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Charleston
Meadows Neighborhood" group.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:42 AM
6
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
cma_neighborhood+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cma_neighborhood@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cma_neighborhood.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:regakan@gmail.com on behalf of 2004.wood <2004.wood@stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, June 17, 2018 5:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closing off Churchill and Palo Alto Ave crossings
Attachments:WolbackPaloAltoTraffic.doc; TanakaPaloAltotraffic.doc; ScharffPaloAltotraffic.doc;
KouPaloAltotraffic.doc; HolmanPaloAltotraffic.doc; FinePaloAltoTraffic.doc;
FilsethPaloAltoTraffic.doc; DuBoisPaloAltotraffic.doc
Please forward the following attachments to members of the Palo Alto City Council or add to their packets.
Thanks,
Rega Wood
Allen and Rega Wood
3310 Thomas Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Sunday, June 17, 2018
Eric Filseth
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mr. Filseth:
We have read that there are plans to close the railway crossings on Alma Street at both Churchill Ave.
and Palo Alto Ave. We are residents of Palo Alto near Loma Verde Ave. who must regularly drive to the
Stanford campus. The only natural way for us to get to campus is to cross the railway at Churchill Ave.
We know that many vehicles cross the track in this way, especially during rush hours.
If the Churchill Ave. crossing is closed, we would either have to use the Oregon Expressway, or
Embarcadero as ways of crossing the tracks. We avoid these routes precisely because they are frequent
traffic bottlenecks. If more traffic is forced to use them, the traffic congestion that already makes these
routes prohibitive for us would become much worse.
The Palo Alto Ave. crossing at the end of Alma Street is the most natural route for residents of Palo Alto
to use in getting to Menlo Park. If it is closed, they too will have to use Embarcadero or Oregon
Expressway to get to El Camino Real. This will further add to the congestion on all these routes, and to
the congestion on El Camino as well.
We read that these changes are intended to incentivize biking and walking, and discourage people from
vehicular travel. But this is like the Republican argument that cutting off medical insurance gives people
an incentive to stay healthy. That argument merely incentivizes sickness and death, and your argument
incentivizes not traveling – incentivizes staying wherever you are, not working, socializing, shopping, or
doing anything away from home. Some people, for instance the handicapped, simply do not have the
option of walking or biking miles from home. You will be simply cutting these people off from
convenient access to the west side of Palo Alto. Do not try to pretend that you intend anything more
benign than that.
We think that the unintended consequences of any decision to close these crossings must not have been
well thought through. Have there been any studies done to predict the amount of increased traffic
congestion that will result from these railway crossing closings? I see no sign in the reports that any such
thing has been done.
The consequences of these closings seem to us utterly disastrous for traffic in Palo Alto. We therefore
oppose any plan to close these crossings without providing any new way for the traffic that uses them to
get across the railway between Alma Street and El Camino Real.
Sincerely,
, signed for both in Allen’s absence
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 3:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kerry Yarkin <kyarkin895@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 18, 2018 3:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Hybrid Option for Churchill
6/18/18
Dear City Council Members:
I support approving the Rail Committee's recommendation to remove the Churchill Hybrid Option from the
list of options that need more research done. Our family owns 2 homes in the middle of the block on
Churchill. We are fortunate to own these 2 homes which my father bought (built one) over 50 years ago. Many
members of the Yarkin Family have lived in the 2 homes, and my sister and I plan to keep these houses in the
Yarkin family, hopefully to pass on to the next generation.
We urge you to take the Hybrid Option off the table so we can have some peace of mind that our homes will
not be destroyed, and the neighborhood ruined. As you probably know, this neighborhood is full of charming
craftsman , colonial style and Spanish style homes.The number and variety of full grown trees is
astounding. We love walking to Paly, Stanford athletic events, Town and Country as well as the Community
Center Area. I bike the Bryant Bike Boulevard a few times a week, crossing Westward on Churchill to
Paly/Stanford. I hope in your decision making process you come to the conclusion that the benefits of keeping
North Old Palo Alto intact outweigh the Churchill Hybrid Options.
Sincerely,
Kerry Yarkin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 10:11 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kellerman, Thomas W. <thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com>
Sent:Monday, June 18, 2018 10:24 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Mello, Joshuah
Subject:Submission for June 19, 2018 Council Meeting
Honorable City Council Members:
We are writing with regard to the proposal to be considered at the City Council meeting to be held on June 19,
2018 concerning proposed modifications to the rail crossing alternatives under consideration. We would like to
submit for your review some further background information and a suggestion as to a modification of the
language to be included in the proposal to be voted upon, as set forth below.
Background:
Professorville is the oldest neighborhood in Palo Alto. Its narrow streets were not designed as major car
commuting arteries or cloverleafs to access El Camino Real. Furthermore, streets adjacent to Embarcadero
Road serve as vital bicycle and pedestrian routes to schools, libraries and businesses, and must be protected
from potentially dangerous and disruptive increases in vehicle traffic.
If the Churchill rail crossing completely closes, east/west traffic looking to access El Camino and other
locations west of the railroad tracks will be pushed into surrounding neighborhood streets. This situation is
exacerbated as drivers increasingly use navigation apps such as Waze to avoid traffic. Crescent Park already
suffers from the detrimental “Waze effect” as cars clog narrow neighborhood streets trying to access freeways.
During rush hour, Waze-induced gridlock heightens the risk of unsafe driving imperiling bicyclists, students and
other pedestrians.
Palo Alto and other cities all across the country are dealing with the Waze effect and experimenting with
solutions. However, thus far there are no easy or comprehensive solutions to ease this Waze-induced
commuter traffic burden for previously quiet neighborhoods.
Suggested Modified Proposal:
To address the concerns described above, we believe it is important that the City Council commit to implement
actions as necessary to address the impact of redirected traffic resulting from the closure of Churchill and other
alterations to rail crossings. Our proposed modification is set forth in red below:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________
1. Council Rail Committee Recommends the City Council Move Forward With the Community
Engagement Plan as Developed by Staff and AECOM Including the Creation of a Community
Advisory Panel
2. Council Rail Committee Recommends the City Council Further Define the Grade
Separations for Further Study in the Following Ways: a. Eliminate Churchill Avenue Hybrid (CAH) idea from consideration;
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 10:11 AM
2
b. Eliminate Churchill Avenue Reverse Hybrid (CAR) idea from consideration; c. Break out Churchill Avenue closure option into full closure and partial closure; d. Remove the language regarding widening Embarcadero Road underpass from description of Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea; and e. Add to Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea, “study additional options for
addressing traffic in the Embarcadero Road underpass area and implement appropriate
actions to mitigate the impact of redirected traffic onto residential streets in
adjacent neighborhoods.
3. Verbal Update on Interagency Activities
_________________________________________________________________________
____________________
References:
Traffic Complaints to Result in “No through traffic” Signs in Willows, Palo Alto Post November 17,
2017 http://padailypost.com/2017/11/17/traffic-complaints-to-result-in-no-through-traffic-signs-in-willows/
Suburbs Finally Figured out How to Get Rid of Pesky Drivers on Waze Shortcuts, Slate June, 2018.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/06/16/suburbs_finally_figured_out_a_way_to_get_rid_of_pesky_dr
ivers_on_waze_short.html
There’s a Bit of a Problem with Waze Navigation app, L.A. Official Claims, Digital Trends April 17, 2018
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/los-angeles-official-says-waze-causing-traffic-problems/
Traffic Weary Homeowners and Waze are at War Again- Guess Who’s Winning? Washington Post June 5,
2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/traffic-weary-homeowners-and-waze-are-at-war-again-guess-whos-
winning/2016/06/05/c466df46-299d-11e6-b989-
4e5479715b54_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bb6fffda8769
Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing proposal and for your efforts to address these important
issues as the City strives to improve its transportation infrastructure.
Thomas W. Kellerman and Rachel H. Kellerman
1129 Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com | www.morganlewis.com
Assistant: Teresa M. Hillstrom | +1.650.843.7521 | teresa.hillstrom@morganlewis.com
DISCLAIMER
This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use
of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an
attorney-client communication and as such privileged and
confidential and/or it may include attorney work product.
If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review,
copy or distribute this message. If you have received this
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 10:11 AM
3
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
e-mail and delete the original message.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 3:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:richard purkey <rapurkey@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 12:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:City Council Meeting June 19, 2018, Agenda Item 2
Dear Mayor, Vice‐Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing today to support the Council Rail Committee’s recommendations relating to the further narrowing
of possible grade separation alternatives for the Churchill Avenue rail crossing that you will consider in Agenda Item 2 of
your meeting on June 19, 2018. In particular, I encourage the City Council to eliminate from further consideration the
Churchill Avenue Hybrid (CAH) idea and the Churchill Avenue Reverse Hybrid (CAR) idea. I also urge the Commission to
adopt the proposed clarifying language recommended by the Rail Committee relating to the study of the Churchill
Avenue crossing closure (CAX) idea.
I am a 30 year resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood living in the 100 block of Tennyson Avenue. While my
home would not be directly affected by the two Churchill Avenue Hybrid railroad crossing ideas, I believe our
neighborhood would be irreparably harmed should either idea be implemented. Foremost in effect would be the loss of
our close neighbors who would likely lose their homes if either option were built. The staff’s preliminary engineering
analysis presented at the last week’s Rail Committee meeting estimates that as many as 14 to 22 residential properties
would be affected by CAH idea, and more than 40 residential properties would be affected by the CAX idea. Besides this
terrible loss to my directly affected neighbors, the noise and visual impacts that would result from raising either the
railroad bed in the case of the CAH idea, or the Churchill/Alma roadways in the case of the CAX idea would be terribly
devastating for our entire neighborhood. These effects are unacceptable, and I urge the Council to eliminate from
further study the CAH and CAX rail crossing ideas.
My now grown 3 children attended Palo Alto High School. Every school day, they crossed the rail line at either
Churchill Avenue or Embarcadero Road on their way to or from school. If Churchill Avenue is ultimately closed, the
Council should consider all options at or near Churchill Avenue and Embarcadero Road to ensure that children in the
neighborhood have a safe route to school. I believe the language proposed for the Churchill Avenue closure (CAX) idea
study, as modified by the Rail Committee, will provide the information the Council needs to ensure this need is met.
Sincerely,
Richard Purkey
167 Tennyson Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:39 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:frank altick <flaltick@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 13, 2018 2:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP
Dear Council, I have practiced dentistry in Palo Alto for 40 years-- treated thousands of residents. I own my
building at 824 Bryant St and the last 2 years have been very difficult for my staff and myself due to parking
issues. I pay property taxes just like residential property owners do— I can’t park if front of my own property
do your decisions and I have 2 senior citizen employees who have to walk long distances to get to the office
every day. Just not right, please ensure that dental and medical offices will be able to secure affordable parking
permits under the RPP program. Thank You, Frank L Altick DDS
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:40 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Sandy Songy <sandysongy1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:MORE EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMITS NEEDED-NOT LESS
I am in favor of more employee permits, not less. Please do not reduce the number of available permits. Employers are
having trouble recruiting and retaining employees and need to be able to offer the parking permits for support staff.
Thank you,
Sandy Songy
850 Webster
Apt 539
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:40 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:pogocat13@gmail.com on behalf of Joanne Payne <jojopayne@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 8:19 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:More Employee Parking Permits
My name is Joanne Payne; I have resided at Channing House for 6 years.
At your next council meeting regarding RPP, please reconsider the vote to reduce employee parking permits to
1000. Channing House and other local businesses cannot operate without sufficient employee permits.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:40 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Rita Donovan <rjd32249@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 8:53 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:MORE EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMITS...
Dear Council Member,
i have been a resident at Channing House for several years.
Our employees here are essential for care and service. To maintain an
adequate staff it is necessary to provide sufficient parking.
The Council Staff's recommendation to increase employee parking permits
to 1400 was geared to meet the continuing parking needs of facilities like
Channing House and other important users that serve Palo Alto. I do not
understand why
Council voted to reduce this to 1000 permits.
Please reinstate the plan supported by Staff to provide 1400 permits in the
RPP.
Sincerely,
Rita Donovan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 10:12 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Judy Adams <judyblueeyes1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 18, 2018 7:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:below market "affordable" and low-income housing in Palo Alto: A CRISIS
Dear Mayor Kniss and the City Council,
The news of the sale of the President Hotel Apartments, like the sale of Casa Olga some years ago for
conversion to a luxury hotel will clearly create an additional level of crisis as the city loses housing options for
low-income renters. Where will our city workers, working poor population base find housing? You must
accelerate the replacement of these types of housing and build additional truly "low-income" units if Palo Alto
is to keep any of its economic diversity. Where will those who work hard in the city be able to live without a
big commute. Is Palo Alto only to be fore the rich? I'm not talking about middle-income/middle class families,
who also have problems living in Palo Alto, but our working poor who deserve support! When the Barker
Hotel and Hotel California became part of the low-income housing stock it was merely a drop in the
bucket. Increase the city's plans for more low-income housing; the income eligibility levels for the VTA lot and
Windy Hill are much to high - they should be lowered to address the needs of renters who have modest
incomes, not by the inflated levels of Silicon Valley. I'm talking about low-wage earners; even if we raise the
minimum wage to levels that have been explored, you're excluding too many residents!
Judy Adams
lived in Palo Alto in the 70s to mid 80s
now a resident of Menlo Park, retired
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Heather L Hadlock <hhadlock@stanford.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:SUPPORT for Palo Alto bike projects
Dear City Council, I regret that I wasn’t able to attend the study session on bike projects last night. I wanted to express
strong support for the city’s projects improving safety for bicyclists.
I’ve been making an effort this year to use my bike more for trips within 5 miles from my home in Palo Alto (including my
commute to work.) I bike to work and errands about 20 miles/week. I really appreciate the new roundabouts on
Stanford’s Campus Drive, and I would like to see more 4‐way stops in town replaced with roundabouts. I also appreciate
the new bright green indicators of shared bike/car lanes on Stanford Avenue and Churchill Avenue, and I think it would
be great to add the green markings to other shared bike/car lanes, e.g. on California Avenue. The signage about bike
boulevards and routes is very helpful.
My teenage daughter bikes about 40 miles a week during the school year (to high school and after‐school activities). I
appreciate the bike lanes and signals that make it safe for her to do this.
I encourage the City Council to continue safety improvements with bike boulevards, clearly shared lanes,
bike/pedestrian‐activated signals, and signage that helps bicyclists find safe and direct ways through town away from
the main arteries of El Camino, Alma, and Middlefield.
Thank you,
Heather Hadlock
Stanford/Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Erika Harrington <erikaharrington@me.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 13, 2018 5:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of bike boulevards
I was unable to attend last night’s meeting re: the ongoing bike boulevard improvements around town. However, I
wanted to voice my continued support for these improvements. Many of the upgrades are taking place around Ohlone
Elementary School, where my children attend. Over the years, commuting to Ohlone I have seen countless dangerous
situations involving students on bikes and careless, hurried, distracted drivers. Improvements like the traffic slowing
efforts, bike boulevards and crosswalk at Colorado make a huge difference to the safety of our students. Since Palo Alto
is a city with no school bus service, creating safe routes for kids to get to school is essential.
I understand that some people are upset about these changes, however, from my discussions with other parents, I feel
like these upset people are a loud minority. From many that I talk to, the changes are being well received amongst the
Ohlone community. In fact several people have commenting positively on our school Facebook page about these
changes. Thank you for continuing to make Palo Alto a better place to live and for encouraging traffic/bike safety on our
roads.
Best regards,
Erika Harrington
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Greg M. Bell <gxbell@me.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 13, 2018 7:05 PM
To:Council, City; De Geus, Robert; Keene, James
Subject:Re Bike Boulevard Study Session. I appreciate all you do for our City, so many thanks
for your time and energy
City Council and City Staff,
I want to apologize for the harsh language from some community member’s during the bike boulevard study
session.
I can see where tweaks need to be implemented, but I don’t see the need for insults to you. Seems some have
lost perspective on our high-functioning city.
Thanks for caring and thanks for wanting to improve our city.
Hope you have easier days going forward…
——
I type less and talk more by phone.
Greg M. Bell
LinkedIn Profile
SustainTimes.net Sustainable Actions Made Easy!
——
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Nadia Priestley <nadia@stodge.org>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 10:18 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road Appreciation
We used to cycle Ross Road every morning to get from our home off Loma Verde to Fairmeadow Elementary school. We
were excited to learn of the developments when they were made known and disappointed that our move last October
meant that we didn’t get to enjoy the changes so often.
We still ride that rout to go visit former neighbors, or just to get downtown, and we love it!
We are a single car family, so when my husband drives to work, the kids and I get everywhere we need to go by bicycle.
The new Ross Road cycle boulevard feels fresher, safer, quieter and we love the new planters inside the push‐out
barriers.
On Monday we paused to look at an interesting tree and chatted with the people who owned the garden in which it
grew. “What do you think about the new development?” They asked, and I had to pause, not knowing if this genial
elderly couple were pro‐ or con‐ Ross Road. It’s become an alarmingly polorizing topic and I was not keen to fall into an
antagonistic debate! Thankfully they were very positive about the changes and we shared how much we were enjoying
it too.
I have heard that cyclists feel unsafe, being pushed out into the middle of the road by the barriers. We did not feel
unsafe, and we did not feel pushed out. We did not feel that using the whole road made us discourteous cyclists. We
enjoyed the reduced traffic, and that drivers seemed more aware of our presence and were considerate enough to slow
for us and to wait for us to pass through the narrows.
It was quiet and we enjoyed chatting as we cycled. I realized how much we were enjoying the peace when a large truck
approached from the other direction. The truck waited for us to pass the narrows, and we paused our conversation until
the roar of its engine was muted by distance. I hope that trucks will be less frequently encountered on Ross Road thanks
to the changes, but even so, it was a nuisance to us for its noise rather than any concerns about safety.
I remember one occasion, when we were regular Ross Road commuters, we saw an elementary school child knocked off
his bicycle at the 4‐way crossing that has since been replaced with a roundabout. The child had not stopped at the stop
sign, and the car had already committed to its turn when the two met in a collision in the middle of the intersection.
Thankfully it was a slow collision and the child was rattled, but otherwise unharmed. I was happy to see a roundabout in
that location, as it seems a safer option for a rout frequented by young cyclist, who are still learning and developing the
cycle safe skills.
Kind regards,
Nadia
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Betsy Bechtel <betsybechtel@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 3:27 PM
To:Council, City; Kniss, Liz (external)
Cc:Keene, James; Mello, Joshuah
Subject:Bike and Pedestrian Plan
Thank you for listening to the many comments about the plan last Tuesday.
I do think the Ross Road portion was overbuilt and is costing the City more money that could be used on other
projects.
In order not to repeat the same mistake, I encourage you and staff to look at the rest of the projects in Phase 1. I
realize that you have a contract but would encourage you to consider renegotiating that contract if necessary.
The money you are spending could be used for far more needed items such as repaving streets, finally building
the bike bridge over 101 and many more projects.
I am very familiar with the Bryant Street bike boulevard and ride it frequently. As many speakers mentioned on
Tuesday, they like it the way it is now.
However, your plan on Bryant needlessly is adding additional and costly items. I have studied the plans as well
as I could online. What I understand is there will be three new roundabouts, (North California, Kingsley, and
Campesino.) I like roundabouts and have ridden them when they are designed correctly, i.e. at Stanford,
Truckee, and in Europe. The only roundabout that might be necessary is at North California and Bryant. The
Addison existing roundabout will be rebuilt (unclear as whether really necessary). In addition the plans call for
additional paving and landscaping at El Verano and Lowell Avenue. This is unnecessary. Plans also call for
elaborate changes at Homer and Channing. Both of those intersections work as they are now. Also re-think the
very elaborate changes at Palo Alto Avenue and Bryant.
In order to make Bryant Bike blvd. perfect, improve way finding from East Meadow to San Antonio (not even
part of Phase 1). The signs are too far apart and it is very difficult to know which way to turn and how to get
through the area. Also make biking safer through downtown by better signage and possibly green street
markings.
I am a former mayor and city council member and voted to approve the original Bryant Street Bike Blvd. I bike
frequently.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Phil Cole <philcole1234@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 6:07 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Ben@bikesiliconvalley.org
Subject:Update on Implementation of the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan
I didn't hear about the June 12 meeting. Here are my thoughts on the subject.
I ride my bicycle daily from Moreno via Greer, Loma Verde, Bryant, E. Meadow, Arastradero to Deer Creek in
both directions.
I also regularly ride along Moreno from the Greer intersection to the Mid Town shopping area.
The roundabouts along those routes are an improvement and are clearly reducing car speeds to be compatible
with bikes at the intersections.
The Ross/Loma Verde intersection changes don't affect me much since I generally don't ride along Ross.
I don't mind sharing lane space with cars, since I more or less have to do that anyway all along Loma Verde to
avoid opening car doors, people exiting the Philz parking lot, leaf blower dust, etc.
I avoid the route via Louis/East Meadow due to traffic light delays.
The unaligned alignment of Moreno at Louis is somewhat of a hazard since bikes need to ride the center of
Louis when traversing the intersection.
Also, there only three Caltrain+Alma crossings (Charleston, E. Meadow, Cal Av Pedestrian Tunnel and maybe
Churchill) in the mid town area, requiring long detours. Another crossing between E. Meadow and Cal Ave is
needed.
I hope you find my comments useful.
Phil Cole
1086 Moreno Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Andrew Sharpe <asharpe@andrewsharpe.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 9:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bicyclists and the city's plans
City Council,
For over 10 years I've been trying to get Bryant/Everett to be a 4way stop, and for over 10 years I was either
ignored or told that there weren't enough accidents on Bryant and Everett to warrant a stop sign (!), and that it
was a bike boulevard and you didn't want to put stop signs on it. As a bicyclist, I found that rather uninformed,
because if the *bicyclists* wanted a 4way stop, who are you to contradict? And now, you are planning on
keeping that intersection a 2 way, yet narrowing it to force the bicyclists into the cars?
This current expensive explosion of street work focused on traffic calming, roundabouts, and "bicycle safety"
that is being done on Bryant Street and across Palo Alto is very well intentioned, but misinformed. Here is a
very good piece by a fellow named George Jaquette, posted on nextdoor.com. I've been informed that you don't
read nextdoor.com; that's too bad, you are missing out on what the people who elected you really think.
Andrew Sharpe
Esteemed city council members- Thank you for making time to listen to the community's input on the ongoing
investment in traffic management, and specifically to hear our objections to the current plans. We request that
the current pause in construction continue for the following reasons: 1. Alta Design was contracted to do a very
detailed, very specific traffic analysis for every road and every intersection where construction was proposed.
This analysis is necessary to safely design traffic changes. This analysis was not done, and the resulting design
could actually increase the number of bike-car accidents. Rather than reproducing this design as proposed, the
city should insist that Alta Design perform the traffic analysis required under the contract for every remaining
street and intersection. There is no way to determine whether this investment is increasing ridership (as stated in
the objectives included in tonight's report, pages 9-10). All construction should be stopped pending this
analysis. 2. Visibility is a key consideration in designing a roundabout, and the sightlines as implemented are
grossly inadequate for 25mph traffic, as the engineering review presented tonight confirms (pages 6-7).
Vegetation and buildings obstruct visibility, and traffic continues to go through the intersection at 25mph (not at
10mph, as suggested in the review document). The city was notified in March that the foliage on the northeast
corner of East Meadow and Ross Road completely obstructs visibility to southbound traffic on Ross -- and that
vegetation remains today. The northeast corner of the proposed roundabout on Greer and Amarillo is
completely blocked by a six-foot hedge, which again makes entering from the east dangerous. Construction
should be stopped until the city can ensure safe sightlines and adequate visibility for the posted speed, 25mph
(or post a lower speed limit). We should not create any more know safety issues. 3. The city's engineering
review refers to the intersection design at East Meadow and Ross Road as a mini-roundabout; the Federal
Highway Transportation Administration defines a mini-roundabout as one having completely traversable
islands (both the central island and the splitter islands; p.4 in the FHWA publication Roundabouts: Technical
Summary). Since a roundabout (with a raised traffic circle) should never be smaller than 90 feet in inscribed
circle diameter (ICD), what we have is neither -- it is not a roundabout (ICD = 64 feet), nor is it a mini-
roundabout as defined by the FHWA. We request that the city stop using this design until the city can confirm
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
8
that it is safe, because independent research indicates that small, low-speed roundabouts are more dangerous for
bikes than four-way stop signs. 4. The fire department made several suggestions for changes to the project,
which Mr. Mello refused to disclose in response to a California Public Records Act request (he cited the
Deliberative Process Exemption). Does the council know what these suggestions were, and can the council
defend the decision not to share this analysis with the public? Has the intersection at East Meadow and Ross
Road been improved as a result of this feedback, and if not why not? We should not continue to reproduce this
design if it delays emergency responders at all. The daylight tests of whether an emergency vehicle can navigate
the roundabout, with police blocking all incoming traffic, is NOT sufficient -- when it's raining and there are
bikes and cars on the road, that's when it really matters. It seems that the city's response to the objections of a
thousand people so far is doubling down on communication and education (and investing in planters and
hayrolls), rather than a true reconsideration of the project and its implementation. MANY of us truly support the
goal of making biking safer in Palo Alto, and many of us love the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard. But MANY of
us feel that the current approach, using concrete constriction points to force bicycles in front of cars, is the
wrong approach (and at least one child has been hit and run already on Ross Road). Some of us feel that always
delaying emergency vehicles is the wrong tradeoff against possibly increasing bike traffic. Given that we do not
have a baseline for bicycle traffic, we can't know if this project is helping achieve the goal. Stop the
construction and insist that Alta Design do the complete traffic analysis required under contract. Do not
continue to plow ahead based on blind faith, because the city has lost the faith of at least a thousand people.
Yours, George
Esteemed city council members-
Thank you for making time to listen to the community's input on the ongoing investment in traffic management,
and specifically to hear our objections to the current plans. We request that the current pause in construction
continue for the following reasons:
1. Alta Design was contracted to do a very detailed, very specific traffic analysis for every road and every
intersection where construction was proposed. This analysis is necessary to safely design traffic changes. This
analysis was not done, and the resulting design could actually increase the number of bike-car accidents. Rather
than reproducing this design as proposed, the city should insist that Alta Design perform the traffic analysis
required under the contract for every remaining street and intersection. There is no way to determine whether
this investment is increasing ridership (as stated in the objectives included in tonight's report, pages 9-10). All
construction should be stopped pending this analysis.
2. Visibility is a key consideration in designing a roundabout, and the sightlines as implemented are grossly
inadequate for 25mph traffic, as the engineering review presented tonight confirms (pages 6-7). Vegetation and
buildings obstruct visibility, and traffic continues to go through the intersection at 25mph (not at 10mph, as
suggested in the review document). The city was notified in March that the foliage on the northeast corner of
East Meadow and Ross Road completely obstructs visibility to southbound traffic on Ross -- and that vegetation
remains today. The northeast corner of the proposed roundabout on Greer and Amarillo is completely blocked
by a six-foot hedge, which again makes entering from the east dangerous. Construction should be stopped until
the city can ensure safe sightlines and adequate visibility for the posted speed, 25mph (or post a lower speed
limit). We should not create any more know safety issues.
3. The city's engineering review refers to the intersection design at East Meadow and Ross Road as a mini-
roundabout; the Federal Highway Transportation Administration defines a mini-roundabout as one having
completely traversable islands (both the central island and the splitter islands; p.4 in the FHWA publication
Roundabouts: Technical Summary). Since a roundabout (with a raised traffic circle) should never be smaller
than 90 feet in inscribed circle diameter (ICD), what we have is neither -- it is not a roundabout (ICD = 64 feet),
nor is it a mini-roundabout as defined by the FHWA. We request that the city stop using this design until the
city can confirm that it is safe, because independent research indicates that small, low-speed roundabouts are
more dangerous for bikes than four-way stop signs.
4. The fire department made several suggestions for changes to the project, which Mr. Mello refused to disclose
in response to a California Public Records Act request (he cited the Deliberative Process Exemption). Does the
council know what these suggestions were, and can the council defend the decision not to share this analysis
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
9
with the public? Has the intersection at East Meadow and Ross Road been improved as a result of this feedback,
and if not why not? We should not continue to reproduce this design if it delays emergency responders at all.
The daylight tests of whether an emergency vehicle can navigate the roundabout, with police blocking all
incoming traffic, is NOT sufficient -- when it's raining and there are bikes and cars on the road, that's when it
really matters.
It seems that the city's response to the objections of a thousand people so far is doubling down on
communication and education (and investing in planters and hayrolls), rather than a true reconsideration of the
project and its implementation. MANY of us truly support the goal of making biking safer in Palo Alto, and
many of us love the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard. But MANY of us feel that the current approach, using
concrete constriction points to force bicycles in front of cars, is the wrong approach (and at least one child has
been hit and run already on Ross Road). Some of us feel that always delaying emergency vehicles is the wrong
tradeoff against possibly increasing bike traffic. Given that we do not have a baseline for bicycle traffic, we
can't know if this project is helping achieve the goal.
Stop the construction and insist that Alta Design do the complete traffic analysis required under contract. Do not
continue to plow ahead based on blind faith, because the city has lost the faith of at least a thousand people.
Yours,
George
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Michael Ackerman <esqpa@aol.com>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 2:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Louis Road Debacle
Dear Esteemed Council Members:
I wonder how many of you have actually driven your car or ridden your bike down Louis Road since construction of the
“traffic‐calming” project began. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or even a halfway competent traffic engineer to
recognize that the entire project from one end to the other will result in nothing even remotely resulting in a “calming of
traffic”. In fact, it has instantly created a dangerous hazard that will one day undoubtedly cause catastrophic car, bike,
pedestrian and/or bus accidents with corresponding injuries or deaths. What a waste of resources!
Did anyone ever consider that vehicles, bikes and pedestrians slip on metal surfaces such as the metal surfaces now
extending halfway into the street from the sidewalks? Did anyone consider how the previous width of the street which
was quite adequate for cars, bikes, and buses to coexist on, has been so reduced by trees, expanded sidewalks and
concrete curbs that this will no longer be possible without placing all users of the road in peril?
I don’t know who made the mistake of approving the Louis Road project, the Ross Road project, the Middlefield/
Emarcadero signal debacle and the white bollard joke on Middlefield but I do know that it is within the City Council’s
power to do something about it. Correct the clear mistakes that have been made without delay and without wasting any
more public money.
The City’s Traffic Engineering Department and it’s independent contractors have consistently demonstrated complete
incompetence and absolute futility. I have lived in Palo Alto all my life (61 years) and have seen this incompetence
demonstrated time and time again. Their mistakes are too egregious and consistent to put up with any longer. It’s time
to do something about it before an innocent life is lost or an innocent child is maimed.
Most sincerely,
Michael Ackerman
1322 Tasso Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Julian Ashton <corkhead@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 6:51 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike riding in PA
I live on Bryant at the corner of Hawthorne. I have witnessed changes for cars and bikes on the Bryant Blvd for many
years. Things in general are getting worse. I think the major change has been increased riders and cars. There are close
calls at all the intersection ( Palo Alto Ave to Lytton) everyday. As others parts of the boulevard seem to be working
well, there are differences that make the downtown area different:
Busy/full parking area
Some calming measures in place
Mix of deterrents ( confusing and ugly)
The new curb bumpouts are not helping. They narrow the road resulting in less room for everyone. Since there are no
stop signs for 3 blocks speeds are higher even at the bump out intersection.
This will not work. There should be 4 way stops on Bryants. Possibly one way section. More policing?
The other risk factor is the quality of the roads. There has been roadwork for months. The streets are chewed up which
is dangerous. The street work better include re‐paving or we are just wasting funds.
Finally I haven't noticed anyone evaluating the results if the bump outs. Who is doing that?
I have noticed large watering truck that further block traffic.
Regards,
Julian Ashton
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Willits <richardwillits@me.com>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 7:47 AM
To:Council, City; De Geus, Robert; Keene, James; Mello, Joshuah
Subject:Bike Plan Review
Thank you all again for coming and listening Tuesday night at the Mitchell Community Center.
I heard an enormous number of good points from all speakers. I did not hear a coalescence of forces, those pro and con
the Ross Bike Boulevard.
The direction I got, which I had not expected, was support for making Ross more like the Fletcher Bike Boulevard:
diverting car travel & eliminating Stop signs. The objections to roundabouts were weaker than the prior conversations
on Next Door indicated.
The descriptions of the differences between “the usual faces” and those caught unaware suggests strongly that projects
will go smoothly if there is broad public education just before a project starts.
Anyway, here is my scorecard from what I heard, different from my perception of public sentiment going in:
Diversion +++
Bike Blvrds & Bridges +++
Roundabouts +
Stop Signs ‐‐
Bulbouts and humps ‐‐
Finally, to elaborate on my comments, much of the fear and confusion of users of the bike boulevard could be
ameliorated by e‐bike‐mounted Traffic Safety Officers giving some warnings to drivers and cyclists who break the law. I
don't mean those cyclists and drivers who practice the Idaho Stop, but those who do dangerous things.
Congratulations to you and staff for managing this situation so well, given how things have gotten out of control. Thanks
to Liz, Eric, Jim, and Rob for keeping a firm but considerate hand on the handlebars Tuesday night.
Richard Willits
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Christopher Dembia <dembia@stanford.edu>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 9:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for bicycle infrastructure
Hello City Council:
My name is Chris Dembia, and I have been a graduate student at Stanford for 6 years (living on Stanford’s campus). I
strongly support improved bicycle infrastructure. Palo Alto is beautiful, and much more beautiful from a bicycle than
from a car. Moving people out of cars and onto bicycles will make the city better for everyone.
I encourage you to follow through with increasing bicycle boulevard mileage by 13.1 miles, and redesigning streets to
support active and non‐single‐occupancy‐vehicle modes of travel as outlined in the Sustainability Implementation Plan.
Thank you,
Chris Dembia
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:41 PM
14
Carnahan, David
From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 10:12 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Don't Mess with Bryant Bike Boulevard - It works just fine
City Council,
Please do not alter the Bryant Bike Boulevard between Embarcadero and Oregon. It works just fine.
Having the road blocked off to avoid through traffic is plenty of traffic calming.
Also, please show some leadership and tell Castilleja that they can't have a garage entrance on
Bryant Bike Boulevard. How insane is that? Will it take a EIR to tell you it is unsafe? You could save
us all a lot of time and heartache if you told Castilleja they can't build a garage.
Regards,
Jim Poppy
135 Melville Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Trevor Davis <trevor.l.davis@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 11:17 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Palo Alto BPTP
Dear City Council,
My wife and I have been residents of the Ventura neighborhood since 2012 and our son Alfred joined us in
2016. I'm writing in support of the Palo Alto BPTP. As a father who often bikes and walks with his son I
appreciate how the Bike boulevards and bike lanes in Palo Alto make for a much safer and pleasant
neighborhood and city for my family to live in. In particular I commute to Stanford using the the Bike
Boulevard along Park every day and we often use the Wilkie Way path to bike to Mountain View and several
times a week we also bike with are toddler son along Meadow St to either go to Michell Park (as well as other
city parks), visit the Bay (via Adobe Creek Underpass), or go to PreSchool Family.
Thanks for your help in making Palo Alto a more livable and pleasant city.
Thanks,
Trevor Davis
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:34 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Linda Xu <lxu1000@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 16, 2018 11:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Stop work on Louis ----- will contact news reporters to come and take a look
Hi City council,
I plan to contact news reporter to make it public on what happened on Ross and Louis.
thanks,
Linda Xu
650-862-7078 Cell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:34 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 7:42 PM
To:Shikada, Ed; Yazdy, Shahla; Robert.degeus@cityofpalaoalto.org;
Joshuahmello@CityofPaloAlto.org; Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; jaquette@gmail.com; Becky Sanders
Subject:Updated / Bike Meeting / Middlefield Road Project Post-Mortem
As a followup to my Weds. email on Middlefield
1) The very next day there was a major crash at the Middlefield/Oregon intersection. Cars backing up into the
middle of Oregon has been a reported to the city from the time Jordan bollards and lane narrowing were
installed,
Oregon intersection http://padailypost.com/2018/06/13/two-car-crash-at-middlefield-and-oregon/middlefield-
and-oregon/
How long are you going to maintain radio silence on our complaints about the safety problems caused by the
bollards at Jordan and all the other Middlefield problems?
2) Re safety problems, your traffic calming data on your web site is based on 2006 "data" and doesn't ignores
our current reality. Voters are not happy at the incredible waste of money to endanger and inconvenience us.
Wasting tens of millions of our dollars and $400,000 on the Ross Road "consultants" when the city didn't even
have the safety data shows shows incompetence, indifference and possibly fraudulent behavior on the part of
those drafting and awarding that contract.
3) I'd appreciate a reply to my question about when and how to contribute to the much-needed review of
Middlefield projects.
4) While you're doing your public opinion poling on which taxes should fund infrastructure projects like traffic
calming, you might also poll on whether we WANT traffic calming and would be willing to fund more
spending.
Most sincerely,
Jo Ann Mandinach
Hello. Thanks for holding last night's meeting on the city's bike and traffic calming projects which was said is
the first of many such meetings.
It was said last night that you're finally going to conduct a review of the Middlefield Road projects.. Please
officially notify me how to comment officially on the Middlefield projects because
resident outreach has long been problematic and our complaints have routinely been dismissed as :isolated.
I'd like to register a formal protest about the new bollards at the foot of my driveway at 1699 Middlefield at
Lowell. The new road striping narrows to
one lane just before the new bollards. That means that cars can't go around me when I'm signalling to enter my
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:34 AM
5
driveway and one of these days I'm
going to get rear-ended. Further, these bollards at almost every Middlefield intersection contribute to the
gridlock and are a common complaint in our neighborhood.
Finally, the new striping at Middlefield/Embarcadero is a disaster and needs more review. Every evening there
are at least 5 cars per light cycle zooming down the WRONG lane hoping to make it into
the left turn late on Embarccadero. Eliminating the southbound right-turn-on-red lane at the Middlefield
/ Embarcadero intersection is responsible for backing up the traffic for blocks!
Again, thanks for holding last night's meeting and I hope you keep listening. There's a good reason why only
30% of PA residents give the city a satisfactory grade for transportation.
Here's a link to the PA Online article and comments on last night's meeting:
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/2018/06/12/residents-sound-off-on-ross-road-changes
Most sincerely,
Jo Ann Mandinach
1699 Middlefied Road
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Jo Ann Mandinach
Need To Know Info Solutions
http:.// www.needtoknow.com
650 329-8655 or cell 650 269-0650
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:34 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Oli <oli_chen@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 4:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Halt bike plans on Bryant
I oppose changes to Bryant. Please review and provide more information on impact to residents in old Palo Alto
I also oppose parking lot for Castilleja with exits on Emerson and entrance on Bryant. Cars already drive very fast and do
not stop all the way in old Palo Alto.
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 12:11 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Michele Moran <mmoran8@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, June 18, 2018 11:15 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:HORRIBLE $8.7M Midtown road changes/roundabouts
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 3:37 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Greg M. Bell <gxbell@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 2:26 PM
To:Council, City; De Geus, Robert; Keene, James
Subject:Ross Road Bike Boulevard Design Tweak
From Gregory M Bell
Avid bicyclist for decades, Palo Alto resident for decades, City of Palo Alto Technical Advisor Commission
Member (TAC advisor)
My input regarding the June City Council Study Session at Mitchel Park
Bike and Car Road Sharing is Unnerving
A bicyclist sharing the road with a car is quite unnerving for both the bicyclists and the car driver. It unnerves
me continually when I drive or when I bike. The Ross Road current design directs bikes through the narrow car
and bike road share area. This design is unusual. It’s not used in cities where bike paths are highly developed
and used daily. For example, cities in Europe have fine-tuned their bike lanes for decades - let’s take their lead
and build bike lanes like the Europeans build them. The European bike lane design system is highly proven.
What is the Bike Path Design in Europe?
Many cities in Europe, such as Berlin, Copenhagen and Oslo have dedicated bike lanes. There is no bike
merging with cars. Bikes have a dedicated lane. Merging in-lane with cars is not done in any of these
cities. Dedicated bike lanes are the answer.
How do we Build a Dedicate Bike Lane on Ross Road?
Let’s all be aware, there will be tradeoffs. Regarding Ross Road bike boulevard, we need to limit parking to
only one side of Ross Road. As a community, we need to accept this road space trade-off. Freeing the
parking space will provide enough width to have a dedicated bike lane in each direction. It’s the proven design
in many cities.
One Other Tweak to the Ross Road Design.
The islands of river rock don’t provide a stable pedestrian standing area as the surface is uneven. We need to
provide a flat, stable standing area for pedestrians, especially, elderly pedestrians crossing the road and needing
to pause mid-span. Currently, the river rock are is unstable for most people to stand. At a minimum, build the
first third of the island as a flat surface, nearest the crossing lines. Use flat pored concrete only for this section
and the remainder can be river rock.
Thanks for your attention to this detail.
Gregory Bell
——
I type less and talk more by phone.
Greg M. Bell
LinkedIn Profile
SustainTimes.net Sustainable Actions Made Easy!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 3:37 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joseph Harwood <joseph.harwood@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 12:48 PM
To:Lydia Kou; Council, City
Subject:Re: Bike/Ped Transportation Plan - Council meeting June 12th, 2018
Thank you for the link to the staff report. I think it illustrates my point perfectly. If you look at the actions the staff indicates
they have taken in response to negative feedback from residents, you'll notice there are many things being done to inform
residents of what's being done, but input from residents is not being used to decide if the project should go forward or not.
The city should be run for the benefit of its residents. The benefit of residents doesn't seem to be a factor at all in deciding
what projects to do, only to make marginal changes around the edges.
In my opinion, city staff is running the city based on their priorities, not residents' priorities. The City Council is responsible
for ensuring the city is run to benefit residents.
With regard to transportation projects, no project should be allowed to proceed unless a majority of registered voters in
the city approve it. Specifically, not a majority of people who cast ballots in an election, but a majority of people registered
to vote in the city. The bike boulevard project needs to be stopped until there is clear support from residents, and if there
is no clear support the changes need to be reverted.
Regards,
Joseph Harwood
On Thursday, June 7, 2018, 12:07:08 AM PDT, Lydia Kou <kou.pacc@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Palo Altans,
City Council will be holding a special Council meeting to conduct a study session and receive updates on the
implementation of the Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevards,
with focus on the Phase 1 project along Amarillo Avenue, Bryant Street, East Meadow Drive, Montrose Avenue, Moreno
Avenue, Louis Road, Palo Alto Avenue, and Ross Road.
Here is the link to the staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65305
June 12th Agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=46779.73&BlobID=65310
Time: 6 PM
Location: Mitchell Park Community Center, El Palo Alto Room
--------
Lydia Kou
My LinkedIn Profile
(650) 996-0028 | Email
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:40 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Caroline Japic <cjapic@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 13, 2018 1:35 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:City Mgr
Subject:Concern About RVs along El Camino Real
Dear Honorable Mayor Kniss and Palo Alto City Council Members:
I'm writing to share my concerns over the growing number of RVs parked along El Camino Real. I just drove
from Galvez/Embarcadero south along El Camino to Park and counted 39 RVs. If you add the blocks beyond in
both directions, I'm sure we are looking at between 75-85 RVs parked along one of the main avenues in Palo
Alto. Quite simply, it's embarrassing. It looks like Palo Alto has become a big RV park.
I'm asking (begging really) that you address this problem and find another place for these people to park.
Perhaps Stanford could open some of their parking lots. At the very least, please put a 2 hour limit on those
spots along El Camino.
Thank you for listening to my concerns. I know it's not an easy problem to solve, but I would really appreciate
you addressing the issue.
Best,
Caroline Japic
1655 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650-619-4162
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Derek Gurney <derek.gurney@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 16, 2018 3:41 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Mary Jane Marcus
Subject:$2000/day fine for College Terrace Centre should start soon
Dear Councillors:
I'm writing to remind you that the beginning of July will mark 6 months since College Terrace Centre has been
without the market to which the building owners legally agreed. I hope city staff will be ready to administer the
mandated fine of $2000 per day from the first day that it is applicable until the building owners meet their
contractual obligations.
Yours truly,
Derek Gurney
--
Derek Gurney
+1.650.796.1556
Have questions about using Google Drive? Email them to Derek.Gurney+gdrive@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 3:50 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com on behalf of Wolfgang Dueregger
<wolfgang.dueregger@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Monday, June 18, 2018 12:57 PM
To:Keene, James; Mello, Joshuah
Cc:Council, City; Lydia Kou; Filseth, Eric (external); Tom Dubios; Holman, Karen; evergreen-
park-discuss@yahoogroups. com Use THis One
Subject:Fwd: No response
Dear Mr. Mello and Mr. Keene,
Can you work on the request below with urgency. Our neighborhood has been waiting for a resolution on this
for months.
Our neighborhood sent you multiple reminders over the past 3 months. No response from the city.
We look forward that the city does what it promised to do: Giving the merchants parking in front of their offices
and relieving the commercial parking pressure on our neighborhood.
We neighbors with the dentists were ready for a compromise to increase temporarily the number of business
parking permits in Evergreen Park.
We expect the city to do their part and now solve this problem long-term.
thank you
We expect an update about the city's efforts with Caltrans..
Wolfgang
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:21 PM
Subject: No response
To: city council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Council directed staff over three months ago to ask Cal Trans to allow
parking on El Camino Real to take some of the commercial parking
demand in the neighborhood of Evergreen Park and Southgate. Both our
neighborhood and businesses supported this request.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 3:50 PM
2
After this directive resident leaders were invited to meet with the city
manager and were introduced to Deputy City Manager Robert
Degeus. We were told Robert would be the liaison with the
neighborhoods on parking matters.
On behalf of Evergreen Park I have sent multiple requests to the Deputy
City Manager about the status of City's request to Cal Trans but have not
received a reply.
As our elected representatives I therefore send the following plea to
council to ask staff the following questions that concern our neighborhood
and possibly other neighborhoods.
1. What is the status of the request to Cal Trans regarding parking on El
Camino as directed by council.
2. Where will cars park when construction begins on the Cal. Ave.
garage? Surely the neighborhoods are not intended to be construction
parking lots.
3. What progress has been made to extend the TMA program to the Cal
Ave. area and the City as a whole. Surely this is relevant to question #2
and also to relieving congestion in the City as a whole.
4. When council approved the Cal Ave garage it was expected to meet the
parking needs of the Cal Ave. area. This project along with the above
mentioned TMA program was meant to meet the long term commercial
needs of the area. With the turnover in staff, is City staff still focused on
the goal of not utilizing neighborhoods as commercial parking
lots. Building dense construction near transit is meant to reduce traffic not
increase it. Parking a car either in a garage or in a neighborhood increases
congestion and it is already intolerable.
Thank you
Paul Machado
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 3:37 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 12:45 PM
To:Kniss, Liz (external); Scharff, Greg
Cc:Council, City; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Lum, Patty; James Aram;
michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Jay Boyarsky; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Keene, James;
Keith, Claudia; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; swebby@da.sccgov.org; HRC
Subject:History of bias and bigotry - Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Long vile history of Palo Alto police bias and bigotry. At the same time this citizen was lodging is complaint,
this same officer was scripting, framing moving forward with the cities first “Hate Crime” unbeknownst to the
complainant.
Is that bias and bigotry Ms. Mayor? The flagrant display of police indifference and partiality.
Disgusting!
Moreover, this same office was instructing other officers on how to frame their police reports against the
complainant. Is that bias and bigotry Ms. Mayor.
Outrageous behavior! Gennaco, as always sugar coated police improprieties in his reporting. Just the way city
managers prefer. It would not be surprising, if these same offices are still employed.
I would go back and review all of their past police reports for bias and indifferences and partiality. They just
may have conspired on previous police reports sending numerous innocent citizens to jail or worse.
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
6/19/18, 12:58 PM
History of @cityofpaloalto to control #FirstAmendmentRights by armed @PaloAltoPolice brute
force.
Citizen Complaints
Case c-2011-07 bit.ly/2hmekFV
Case c-2008-001 bit.ly/2JY0suo
Case c-2008-004 bit.ly/2JY0suo
City ordinance bit.ly/2lj1OFm pic.twitter.com/ZaKfnxVhMh
Mark Petersen-Perez
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nancy Martin <nancy.martin@mac.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 17, 2018 1:09 PM
To:citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Council, City
Subject:Illegal RV parking
It seems like such an easy solution to stop the RVs. Why don’t we just put up a sign that says no or RV parking and attach
a $500 fine. The RVs on El Camino and Shoreline are out of control and such an eyesore. You Have to wonder where they
dump the waste as well.
I’d like to hear what you are doing to stop this.
Thank you,
Nancy Martin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jessica Galbraith <jessica@galbraiths.org>
Sent:Saturday, June 16, 2018 10:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ising wins!
Attachments:iSingSV RobertSchumann Press Release 2018_06_11.docx
Just wanted to update you on some of the great activities that iSing Silicon Valley is involved with, this summer, and to give you
an idea of the positive impact that our organization has in Palo Alto and around the world.
For more information, please contact Marsha at info@isingsv.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Organization: iSing Silicon Valley, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
Press contact: Marsha Genensky
Phone: 650-323-6209
E-mail: info@isingsv.com
Website: http://isingsv.com/
iSing Silicon Valley wins 8th International Robert
Schumann Choral Competition
“Now we know that Silicon Valley isn’t just about Facebook”
— xxx, Competition originator
June 11, 2018, Palo Alto, CA: iSing Silicon Valley Girlchoir has won the Grand Prize at the 8th
Robert Schumann International Choral Competition. Held in Schumann’s birthplace of
Zwickau, Germany on June 6–10, 2018, the Competition brought together 17 choirs from 11
countries from around the world, including iSing. These choirs participated not only as choral
competitors, but also as “builders of bridges between nations.” (Festival Director XX).
iSing’s performances in the Chamber Choirs of Equal Voices and Sacred Choral A Cappella
categories included Laudate Pueri Dominum (Mendelssohn), Vivos Voco (Szymko), and Spark!
To Music (Barnum), Bogoroditse Devo (Rachmaninoff), and Even When He is Silent (Arnesen).
After successfully competing in these categories, iSing advanced to the Finals, where they
performed Der Wassermann (Schumann) and Hoj, hura, hoj! (Mácha). iSing won both
competition categories and claimed the Competition’s Grand Prize.
Earlier this year, iSing Silicon Valley won Chorus America’s 2018 Dale Warland Singers
Commission Award, for a work for treble choir, string quartet, and percussion to be written by
Grammy-nominated composer Adam Schoenberg, setting excerpts from Holocaust survivor Elie
Wiesel’s memoir, Night. After leaving Zwieckau yesterday, iSing visited the Terezin
Concentration Camp, in an effort to deepen their understanding of the new work, which will be
premiered in Spring 2019. During the coming week, iSing will offer a joint concert with Pražská
Kantiléna at the Emmaus Monastery in Prague and will perform at the Kaasgrabenkirche in Vienna.
Founded in 2013 by artistic directors Jennah Delp Somers and Shane Troll, iSing Silicon Valley
brings together 250 of the best young female singers in the Silicon Valley; offers them rigorous
musical and vocal training while fostering artistry, engagement, and leadership; and guides
them as they build and transform community through song. iSing looks forward to the start of
its 6th season of singing in August 2018.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:44 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sonam Soni <sonam.ss.soni@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 5:22 PM
To:Keene, James; Council, City
Subject:Leave the RV's alone
There is a huge housing shortage in this city--HUGE. Leave the RV dwellers alone. They are not bothering
anyone and I walk past their RV's many times a week and have NEVER felt uncomfortable. They sometimes set
up in my neighborhood (College Terrace) and I don't mind that either. We all need a roof over our heads.
Thank you,
Sonam
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 12:11 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 18, 2018 10:37 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Palo Alto Forward Board
Subject:Letter in support of keeping the President Hotel residential
To Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto Forward bemoans the potential loss of the President Hotel as a residence for 75 of our fellow Palo
Altans, and strongly supports any efforts to allow for the building to continue to be residential.
The President Hotel is a perfect example of the sort of residential building that we need more of in Palo Alto. It
is lovely building, with smaller apartments that are relatively affordable for our area. It is located in the center of
our University Avenue downtown, allowing residents the freedom to shop, eat, live and work without having to
rely on cars, should they choose to.
We hope City Council can find a way to preserve this as a residential building. Furthermore, for those people
who are supportive of this as a wonderful residential building, please take a moment to think about what makes
a building like this possible. The President Hotel violates all of our existing zoning codes: it is underparked,
overly dense, and too tall. And yet, it is wonderful. It provides a unique supply of smaller apartments in the
heart of downtown, and houses a huge diversity of people who may not otherwise be able to live in our
community.
We want to encourage more President Hotels in our town. Please consider supporting buildings like this in
your Housing Workplan!
Sincerely,
Eric Rosenblum
President, Palo Alto Forward
--
Eric Rosenblum
206 604 0443
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:44 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kai Robinson/USA <kai.robinson@cushwake.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 1:58 PM
To:pwecips
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Ne well Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Good afternoon,
I'm seeing a lot of documents proposing the replacement/upgrading of this bridge.
Do we have a timeline for this?
Considering this bridge is over 100 years old and poses a major safety risk to pedestrians and drivers.
Here are some forms I'm referring to.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31909
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/city_information/projects/newell_road_bridge_replacement_project.asp
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/meetings/2aiii_Newell_Rd_Bridge_Replacement_Project_Presentation.
pdf
Kai Robinson
Service Technician II
Direct: 650-320-0223
kai.robinson@cushwake.com
DTZ and Cushman & Wakefield have now merged
1950 University Ave,Suite 220
Palo Alto, CA 94303 | USA
www.cushmanwakefield.com
LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Google+ | Instagram
Service Desk Contact
Our 24x7 Global IT Service Desk is the single point of contact for any IT relates issues or requests.
Please note, you will receive a faster response time by calling compared to emailing.
Phone: +1 844-9CWTECH | +1 844-929-8324
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:44 PM
2
Email: ITServiceDesk@cushwake.com
The information contained in this email (including any attachments) is confidential, may be subject to legal or other professional
privilege and contain copyright material,
and is intended for use by the named recipient(s) only.
Access to or use of this email or its attachments by anyone else is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
intended recipient(s), you may not use, disclose,
copy or distribute this email or its attachments (or any part thereof), nor take or omit to take any action in reliance on it. If you have
received this email in error, please notify
the sender immediately by telephone or email and delete it, and all copies thereof, including all attachments, from your system. Any
confidentiality or privilege is not waived
or lost because this email has been sent to you by mistake.
Although we have taken reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of transmitting software viruses, we accept no liability for any
loss or damage caused by this email or its
attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or unapproved access.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:44 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 3:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:President Hotel Evictions
This week, 75 Palo Altans received notice that they must vacate their homes in five months. In a city with
varied housing inventory, this would be an inconvenience, a disappointment, a chore. Here, in Palo Alto, it is
arguably a personal catastrophe if one needs affordable housing. We don’t have such housing to offer displaced
people.
It is one thing to be housing inconvenienced and not be able to find the housing you want where you want it. It
is another thing altogether to have housing here and lose it. The 75 people who live in the President Hotel face
the very real specter of being forced to leave their home community if they cannot find housing here. That that
is a challenge is a direct result of the rampant Office/R&D development that has been approved over and over
again.
Doubling Office/R&D development will only worsen our housing problem. Doing so builds housing insecurity
of the worst sort - and that is a true threat to our character and diversity and community viability.
You nine are in the unique position of being able to stem the tide. I am writing to urge you to reconsider your
position regarding the initiative to curb Office/R&D development. As is, our jobs:housing imbalance will
likely never be remedied. But with good planning (and some luck) we can improve it or at least not make it
worse.
Instead of studying the fiscal impact (again) and paying consultants and paying election costs, please be our
heroes and do what this community so badly needs you to do and simply amend the Comp Plan as the initiative
proposes. Now is the time to do that. Palo Alto cannot afford a doubling of office space inventory; we are
struggling as is.
Housing Insecurity has 75 new faces. Please think of them as you consider your response to the initiative.
/Annette Ross
Amherst Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:44 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Margaret Allen <margaret.e.allen@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 5:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:President Hotel Evictions
Dear City Council members,
This week, 75 Palo Altans received notice that they must vacate their homes in five months. In a
city with varied housing inventory, this would be an inconvenience, a disappointment, a
chore. Here, in Palo Alto, it is arguably a personal catastrophe if one needs affordable
housing. We don’t have such housing to offer displaced people.
It is one thing to be housing inconvenienced and not be able to find the housing you want where
you want it. It is another thing altogether to have housing here and lose it. The 75 people who
live in the President Hotel face the very real specter of being forced to leave their home
community if they cannot find housing here. That that is a challenge is a direct result of the
rampant Office/R&D development that has been approved over and over again.
Doubling Office/R&D development will only worsen our housing problem. Doing so builds
housing insecurity of the worst sort - and that is a true threat to our character and diversity and
community viability.
You nine are in the unique position of being able to stem the tide. I am writing to urge you to
reconsider your position regarding the initiative to curb Office/R&D development. As is, our
jobs:housing imbalance will likely never be remedied. But with good planning (and some luck)
we can improve it or at least not make it worse.
Instead of studying the fiscal impact (again) and paying consultants and paying election costs,
please be our heroes and do what this community so badly needs you to do and simply amend the
Comp Plan as the initiative proposes. Now is the time to do that. Palo Alto cannot afford a
doubling of office space inventory; we are struggling as is.
Housing Insecurity has 75 new faces. Please think of them as you consider your response to
the initiative.
Margaret Allen
Cornell Street, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 10:10 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 10:09 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Problems With Council Budget Review
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA
Elected City Council:
The Council’s periodic budget review is now over. Sadly, with over $700M dollars in combined spending between the Ops
Budget and the Capital Budget, there was not that much time for individual Council Members to discuss any of the items
in the budget in any detail.
The question arises as to why, with expenditures of this magnitude, so little time is allocated by the City Manager for
review, and discussion, of these monies? Perhaps it would pay for the Council to ensure that the Budget Review be the
only item on the schedule for the evening—giving both the Council and the public more time to offer observations and,
yes, criticism.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 10:12 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Maryjane Marcus <maryjane.marcus@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 18, 2018 5:05 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Fred Balin; Mora
Subject:re: fines from College Terrace market need to be a community benefit -- set up hearing
now
Attachments:2180_How do we ensure public benefit in grocery space_1215 draft.pdf
Dear City Council and Department of Planning,
The College Terrace Centre management is about to start receiving daily fines of $2000(?) on July 6? in
accordance with the PC. When the PC was approved, I had requested that the fines be set aside for community
benefit purpose, like renting space for community programming, and the planning department wanted to use
them for zoning enforcement.
City Council promised you would have a hearing if 6 months passed to decide how the fine would be used.
I would like to set up that hearing as soon as possible.
Let's also explore the possibility of the space reverting to the City or the community for community uses.
Below is the history of correspondence as background dating from 2014.
Sincerely
Mary Jane Marcus
College Terrace
4152699079
OPTIONAL TO READ BELOW
********
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maryjane Marcus <maryjane.marcus@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 9:39 AM
Subject: request to add 2100 El Camino to Jan 22nd agenda
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org>
Dear City Council,
As you know, the College Terrace Market is closing this week or has closed. This was a situation many of us in
the neighborhood foresaw, and we want to revisit the contingency plans now that is has occurred.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 10:12 AM
2
I request you add the College Terrace Market to the City Council agenda as soon as possible, such as
January 22nd. I hope the City Council will recognize the Owner is not committed to keeping a grocer, and
that the City Council consider amending the PC so that the grocer's space be given to the City or a community
non-profit for public benefit uses for the greater College Terrace communities.
OWNER QUESTIONABLE COMMITMENT TO GROCER:
1. Miki Werness was never an owner, just a manager and he was let go a few months into the project when
the Owner/Investors had no grocery experience and may have been friends of George Smailey;
2. Rent is $22,500 currently and they were unwilling to waive it from what I understand.
3. The layout was mainly to benefit the office tenant. The location of the grocer reduces its likelihood of
succeeding and limits its access to College Terrace. You can't turn left off El Camino to get there and
the entrance is not where anyone in College Terrace ever walks. The public outdoor space was never
used because of how unpleasant it is to sit so close to El Camino.
4. The signage was small.
5. The Tenant above was allowed to have a cafeteria when the owner had said they would not have a
cafeteria and would use the space.
6. They required them to open before Summer when Fall was a much better time to start a grocery store
according to the Manager.
PUBLIC BENEFIT: The reason a public benefit is required is because the City gave the owner millions of
dollars in benefit (it can be calculated) by rezoning, and that benefit to the owner needed to be balanced with a
benefit to the community. What we need is a place to gather, to see each other, and to do community-benefit
activities.
I urge you to revisit the question of a public benefit unless the Owner can demonstrate they have a ready tenant
who can help that place thrive under the conditions they set. And what if it is hard for a grocer to succeed in
that location, how do we determine an alternative public benefit at this stage? The financial benefit to the
owner for the PC must be calculated and considered in this evaluation.
Please read my 2 emails sent to you in December prior to approving the PC 2 weeks before it was expiring, and
I've attached what I could identify from those meetings regarding public benefit besides a grocer.
Sincerely,
Mary Jane Marcus
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maryjane Marcus <maryjane.marcus@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 1:14 PM
Subject: 2180 El Camino, Palo Alto -- limit Motion to extension of deadline OR let REZONING lapse.
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I was the first person to testify last week about 2180 El Camino, sharing with you my urging that you insert
language to ensure the PUBLIC BENEFIT lasts in perpetuity. I remember sitting there afterwards and thinking,
1) wow, the City has much bigger issues than whether a grocery store is a public benefit (so maybe your staff
can do more on this) and 2) this is turning out to take lots of time and be a bad deal for many.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 10:12 AM
3
Think about it....whatever you decide on the public benefit for 2180 El Camino will be in place for 50-100
years. Let's FIX IT NOW, even though this is a pain!
Please consider this:
How can you insert language to ensure a public benefit in this project in perpetuity? (a fine is not enough)
Why is it important to take steps to ensure a lasting public benefit?
Can you realistically predict a grocer will be in that space for that long? We don't know how the market
or world will change. We especially can't guarantee that the grocer is extremely comparable to JJ&F.
A fine, even $2000/day, does not address the zoning violation or correct it. It just issues a penalty. A
penalty does is not zoning compliance.
People wanted JJ&F. A grocer would be nice, but it's not clear, 5 years later, that a grocery store is the
primary public benefit value the community wants. I know you hate to read that, but it's possible.
Here are options:
A) Please do not pass the Motion as you drafted last week. The sentiment of giving clear guidance is
helpful, but does not address the core issues with this project.
To ensure we have time to revisit these issues, just
Extend the deadline to March 31st during which the public benefit agreement will be revisited between the
City and the Developer.
Include terms of the extension by the end of December, 2014.
If you want to include language to support a public benefit in the current motion,
- Require that an acceptable grocer be found by X date, or the zoning will lapse. It's not that a grocer is not
possible, but it is not possible on the terms the Developer wants to offer (rent, etc).
- Require not just fines but a substitute public benefit (to be negotiated). You can't keep polluting, for instance,
and paying a fine. The pollution needs to stop, and a fine is paid. So if a grocer fails, a fine is paid and they
need to find a substitute public benefit.
- Any fines must be adjusted for inflation!
B) Please offer revised language in the public benefit agreement (by the end of December). You have
already been revising the original ordinance. It's worth making this right now (or asking your staff to do their
best) or we will end up with something no one really wants.
Revise the public benefit agreement to:
- If it is to be a grocer, that there is flexibility in the qualification. (or do a quick survey to get an updated sense
of what would be valuable)
- Ensure that if the grocer fails, the public benefit is maintained with that square footage (or at least 5000
SF). This would have to be worked out.
- Any fines collected must be adjusted for cost of living and must go to the neighborhood in support of space-
related public benefit projects.
C) If you do not want to revise the Motion or public benefit agreement, let the Rezoning lapse.
Remember that the Developer is earning $5-7 million, if not more, because of this zoning change, and many of
those benefits need to come to the community. We are in dire need of public benefit, now more than ever.
Please advocate on our behalf! You are not a mediator between the public and the developer - Let's not make
this a bad deal for many. I cannot attend tonight because I am going to PreSchool Family but I am happy to talk
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 10:12 AM
4
in more detail with anyone on your team. I know there are much bigger issues (like climate change, the
skyrocketing rents here) so I hope your staff can help with this, or I am happy to do what I can.
Warmly,
Mary Jane
4152699079
(do something my daughter will enjoy when she's grown!)
********
November 24, 2014
Dear City Council,
I've recently gotten involved in the 2180 El Camino location because I live 2 blocks from there and would really love to
make sure it offers real community benefit. I am still getting up to speed but I think a modification to the agreement could
make it much more easily enforceable.
Along with other Transition Palo Alto members, I am recommending the following:
1) Require that the 'public benefit' space at 2180 El Camino revert to the City of Palo Alto (for community space) at a
reduced rate if the grocery store fails.. Why?
This requirement will ensure a lasting community benefit. It would be much more enforceable and lasting than a
grocery requirement. It is impossible to enforce a Landlord leasing to itself, as is the case with the plan for the
grocery store. As you know, the 'public benefit' process is problematic and is currently under review because
of some of its limitations.
Market conditions make it difficult for a market to succeed, so we need a contingency plan that preserves a public
benefit. Alma Plaza has taught us a lot about this issue.
If the grocery store fails, low-cost or free community space is desperately needed in the Cal Ave area.
DETAILS:
Market conditions: When this agreement was made, it was 2009, JJ&F was still in business and we did not have the Alma
Plaza experience. Now there are other conditions (such as access) that may have led to Miki's market failing, but we
know here it is going to be very challenging for any sizable market to succeed. Trader Joe's has opened and taken
considerable business from Stanford students that JJ&F once had, and the community has come to rely on mollie stone's
and country sun as well now that JJ&F has been gone for several years under its original owner (and last year under its
subsequent).
Value of reverting to City for community space: If you establish a plan that the lease reverts to the City if the market fails,
we will be assured the building will have a lasting public benefit. There is a dire shortage of free/low cost community
space in the California Ave area. The College Terrace library is small and open only daytime hours, and many of us,
especially Transition Palo Alto, relied on WorldCentric (formerly at 2180 El Camino) for many film screenings, potlucks
and gatherings. The future of our community depends on community space to support public goods and the betterment of
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 10:12 AM
5
the whole community. Transition Palo Alto has only been able to find church space far from CalTrain now that
WorldCentric has closed. It is important to have non-sectarian space.
OR
2) Revert to the original Neighborhood Commercial zoning which is more appropriate for this space and given current
market conditions.
Sincerely,
Mary Jane Marcus
College Terrace Resident & Transition Palo Alto Member
(415)269-9079
TO:
FROM:
ORAFTOf:
SUBJECT:
The City of Palo Alto
Transition Palo Alto member Ma1y Jane Marcus, Coll Ter re ad nt
12/13/14
liow to ensure a public berwfat at 2180 over the bu1ld111g's lire (50·100 y r )
Overview -Rezoning Requires Public Benefit (Grocery}
2180 El Camino (a city block) was rezoned from neighborhood retail and hou ing (n I hborhood
commercial) to primarily regional office space with ground noor retail. The Developer not only ot
more square footage (20,000 SF) but also more profitable zoning ratios (regional office).
This new zoning from the City hinges on the new space providing a public benefit to the community
The idea is that ifthe developer is going to make additional money from the space, he/she also
needs to give some of that back in the form of a community /public benefit
The agreement is to have a grocer equivalent to Jl&F, and it looks like the Developer has identified a
suitable candidate. The City took the groundbreaking step of negotiating a fine of $2000/day as a
way to ensure the Developer's commitment to keeping a grocery store in place.
Question -What if Grocery Store Fails? How do we ensure community· based public benefit?
A Fine is Helpful but Not Sufficient
What's going to happen if a grocery store fails and they do not find another grocery tenant?
The current proposal is to fine the Developer daily after 6 months if they fail to find a suitable
tenant equivalent to jJ&F in 2009. A fine is a great temporary measure, but it is not a solution.
A fine alone does not address the reason the public benefit exists in a PC: tQprovide the community
not only services they value but a space to see each other and connect as they did at Jl&F. This is a
core feature of the C_o1nprehensive Plan1, to preserve neighborhood retail and spaces that serve as a
bridge between the neighbors. It doesn't have to be a grocery store, but it needs to be something
from which the community could benefit and interact Details of existing community spaces here
are in this endnote.11
Of everyplace I have lived or visited in Palo Alto, College Terrace in particular has a very strong,
distinctive identity, perhaps because it is clearly delineated (and at times threatened) by major
streets on each side. There is also an amazingly large concentration of young children and families
here, including rotating Stanford faculty and international visitors. This community could really
benefit from some positive gathering and informal interaction spaces to maintain its distinctive and
friendly character.
So how do we ensure a community benefit and gathering space, given that public benefit is a
tradeoff for the increased financial benefit accrued to the Developer?
The most obvious alternative is for the lease to revert to the City of Palo Alto after a set period (6
months) of fines. The lease would be for the costs related to the asset (insurance, property tax and
utilities) without additional rent.
Thi could be added to the volunt.iry covenant at the end of th cfocum n If fin c n b add d,
this is an equivalent "fine" that ensures publie ben lit,
The City or P<1lo Alto would then identify, based on the needs at the time, an appropriate public
benrfit partner (s). It would need to be a space where the community can visit and see each other,
and hopefully use for community projects/events.
Imagine what we could do with 8000 SF In College Terrace? (and near Stanford)
Some ideas for alternative public benefit (to be identified if the need arises, but wanted to share
some fo r now)
Possibly pop-up community /social space with rotating community users
Green spaces in support of City's Climate Action Plan that can also be used by the
community (such as a climate NGO with public education, shareable.net, etc).
A global space/international house to harness the amazing global presence in the
neighborhood.
Family center with Blossom, other neighborhood non-profits
1 In the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (2007), the first theme (of 7) is "building community
and neighborhoods." "Palo Alto's diverse neighborhoods are the building blocks of the community.
Schools, libraries, parks, public facilities and small businesses are an essential part of neighborhood
life and help build the bridge between neighborhood and community. The City is committed to
building upon the strengths of its neighborhoods, keeping them safe and attractive, maintaining a
distinct identity for each, and delivering top-quality community services to all residents (p. 1-2).
11 Anaylysis of Community Space in College Terrace and nearby neighborhoods: On this side of El
Camino (College Terrace and nearby Stanford housing as well as the soon coming Mayfield
Development), there is only Starbucks. If you go inside, you can see that it is usually packed and
hard to find a table. It is not usually a place you would meet someone, but a place you would say
hello to someone you already know. We lost Jj&F and World Centric (a major gathering space for
green groups and Transition Palo Alto). The other nearby businesses -jack in the Box and Panda
Express -serve people along the corridor more than people in this neighborhood. The College
Terrace Library is fantastic but has limited hours and no meeting space. We do have the Lutheran
Church on Bowdoin which is a great offering but it is a faith-based facility. The Dish is another
great community space but it is rare to strike up conversations with others. Probably the best
public gathering space in College Terrace is College Ave itself. on which I often see neighbors as I
walk when they are in their yards. The park.lets are very surprisingly used less frequently than you
would expect; I do see people with young children in the summer at Donaldina Cameron (closest to
where I live) and usually 1 or 2 kids at Werry Park. This becomes less frequent during the rainy
season or when it gets dark early. Escondido Elementary, from my impression, is not easy to use
because of forms and costs and coordination efforts. The other spaces people use -downtown
library, Mitchell Park, maybe Lucie Stern -are quite far from the neighborhood.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joy Sleizer <joy.sleizer142@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 10:26 AM
To:Aram James
Cc:chuck jagoda; Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group; Pastor@unilu.church;
wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com;
roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Council, City; Keene, James; Jonsen, Robert;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Rev. Bear Ride; Annanda Barclay;
Chuck Hebel
Subject:Re: Hey Liz, et al —when will Palo Alto step forward with a long long long overdue safe
parking program???
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 12:56 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/12/mountain-view-nonprofit-kicking-off-2-year-trial-to-get-car-
dwellers-off-streets/amp/
Good for you Aram for reminding us about this. To answer your question about PA stepping up, don't hold
your breath!
I remember when Palo Alto faith communities were asked to take part in a program of housing a few cars each
night (3 if I remember correctly). My faith community was one that stepped up & we received hate mail! Sad,
but true!
I also remember having the Santa Barbara group speak in PA & they told us how they had gone about building
a successful program & I believe Karen Holman was at that presentation. Good for Mt View for following that
model & good for Joe Simitian to always be in the mix of doing something worthwhile for the least of us.
Best regards,
Joy Sleizer
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Stop the Ban Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
STB_Discussion+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:43 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 12:57 AM
To:chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; stb_discussion@googlegroups.com; Pastor@UniLu.Church;
wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com;
roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Council, City; citycouncil@menlopark.org;
jborgens@redwoodcity.org; council@redwoodcity.org; Keene, James;
mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; Jonsen, Robert;
dcbertini@menlopark.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:Hey Liz, et al —when will Palo Alto step forward with a long long long overdue safe
parking program???
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/12/mountain‐view‐nonprofit‐kicking‐off‐2‐year‐trial‐to‐get‐car‐dwellers‐off‐
streets/amp/
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:33 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 16, 2018 1:21 AM
To:linda lopez-otero
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Utility rate increases: email city hall: council.cityofpaloalto.org
I agree with Roberta that it is inappropriate to use water billing to pay other city expenses,
rates should be limited to cost recovery. In fact, I would go further and say that the amount of water
needed for drinking and cooking--of course that's just gallons, and not acre feet-- should be free, and
the cost borne by bathing, laundry and landscaping. I noticed the city had a proposal to make an
adjustment for leaks, as the private water companies do, because they can reach hundreds of dollars,
but I urgently recommend sponsoring research to notify householders early on that they have a leak,
and also mandate for new construction collection of grey water to be used in gardens. with the city to
advance, for older homes, modification costs, which would be paid back, over time, with interest, for
households which can't afford the upgrade.
A couple of years ago, the city offered a rebate for low flush toilets, which I investigated, too late to
take advantage of it, because my condominium association (101 Alma)
insisted that I replace three toilets with low flush toilets, close to $1000 each, half for the toilet, half for
the installation. I protested in vain that they couldn't possibly save any more by making me change
three toilets, since there was only one of me., and, in fact, hadn't lived in the apartment for a number
of years, and they didn't tell me about the city rebate, which I didn't learn about bcause the
association pays for the water. While investigating the rebate program, I got the impression that Palo
Alto, also was going to demand low flow toilets, and I'd like to suggest that Palo Alto find some other
way of cutting down on water use.
From: "linda lopez-otero" <pasionaria@gmail.com>
To: "Roberta Ahlquist" <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Cc: "Ruth Chippendale" <grchippendale@yahoo.com>, "stephanie" <stephanie@dslextreme.com>,
"Debbie Mytels" <dmytels@batnet.com>, "Elaine Meyer" <meyere@concentric.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 6:42:57 PM
Subject: Re: Utility rate increases: email city hall: council.cityofpaloalto.org
this is the email for city council:
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:
We were told it was important to voice our concern re. these utilitiy rate increases by June 11th, with the hope that enough
people do this to stop the increases. We oppose these rate increases. Each year we are hit with one form of increase or
another. Find other ways to support the
budget. This should not be used as a cash cow.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:33 AM
2
Sincerely,
--
Linda Lopez Otero
" Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:31 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Patrick Toland <ptoland@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, June 15, 2018 11:38 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:RVs on El Camino
It's out of control... I've been counting them as I walk the path next to them and the numbers are the highest I've
ever seen them in years.
I also noticed ±10 plastic bags full of urine thrown on the same path. Not to mention other garbage.
And several of them are getting more comfortable by spreading their gear around their RVs... bikes, chairs,
other storage devices, pets, etc.
It also appears many of the vehicles are immobile. That doesn't seem in the spirit of what parking there is
intended for. Why not just make them move every 72 hours?
Is there a plan?
Patrick Toland
650.704.6200
ptoland@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 9:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:kathleen spillane <kspillan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 17, 2018 10:42 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:RV's Parked Along El Camino
Dear City Council,
I am a resident of Palo Alto and I would like the city council to do something to remove the RV's that
are permanently parked on El Camino.
The RV's are a traffic safety hazard and a health hazard. I frequently wonder if Palo Alto will have a
hepatitis A outbreak like San Diego County did because it allowed unsanitary living conditions to go
unabated.
I understand the unaffordability of housing in Palo Alto - as my family and I rent a house here and try
in vain to actually purchase a home. My concern has nothing to do with a lack of compassion for
people struggling to afford to live here - because I am in that boat too - but I cannot abide that the city
allows a festering safety hazard to continue on like this for YEARS! Please, find a real solution!
Respectfully,
Kathleen Spillane
671 Seale Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/18/2018 5:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Judith Wasserman <jwarqiteq@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 18, 2018 4:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Save the President Hotel!
If you can save Buena Vista,you can save the President. This is exactly the kind of housing you have been
saying we need, and I agree completely. Now please put your (our) money where your mouth is.
Thank you!
Judith Wasserman
Bressack and Wasserman Architects
751 Southampton Drive
Palo Alto CA 94303
ph: 650 321-2871
fx: 650 321-1987
www.bressackandwasserman.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 10:11 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 7:39 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Library Director; Lai, Diane
Subject:someone is trying to seduce your kids sexually
There was a recent posting on the NextDoor social media platform which included a photograph of a poster which
suggested that the City of Palo Alto Library is somehow not keeping children safe because of the books in its collections.
I wish to speak out in support of the Library staff who make decisions about the collections and who offer services to
patrons. I reject the notion that the titles depicted do not belong in the Library’s collection.
I regret that I was not aware of this prior to the Monday, June 18th, City Council meeting as I would have attended to
make this statement in person.
thank you for supporting the Library,
Ken Joye
Ventura neighborhood
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/19/2018 10:11 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 18, 2018 10:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:The Auditor's Office Question
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Elected Council Members:
While the idea to use outside labor to perform the role of City Auditor’s office seemed to come from nowhere during
a recent Finance Committee meeting focusing on 2019-2020 Budget Review. It gained traction, then almost as
quickly as it was born it was put down.
Tonight’s Council Meeting seemed to raise the possibility that the outsourcing might be on the table again.
The Office of the Auditor has been troubled since its being approved by the voters. The first Auditor left under a
cloud, one lasted a few months and disappeared, and another went on maternity leave and never returned.
The current output of this office is questionable. Just as the topics of the audits are questionable—given that there
never seems to be much in the way of improved City operation based on the recommendation of this Office.
Part to the problem, I believe, is that the Office of the Auditor is understaffed. With municipal spending of about a
billion dollars every four years, before the Capital budgets are taken into consideration.
I really don’t believe that the Auditor’s Office has ever really produced many “high quality” audits over the
years. There have not been any complete performance audits of the Police, Fire, Public Works and Utilities---no
matter what any previous, of current Auditor, might claim.
I would like to see the staffing levels of this Office linked to the size of the budget. As the budget grows, the City
should be adding, or outsourcing, another audit staff member in order to ensure that the budget dollars are actually
being spent appropriately.
I encourage the Council/Finance Committee discuss this in some depth. Outsourcing is likely to be one of the saviors
of City finances in future years.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Alice Smith <alice.smith@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 9:03 AM
Subject:Views from my balcony. When will Palo Alto underground those ugly wires?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/15/2018 3:43 PM
2
Alice Smith
850 Webster Street #520
Palo Alto, CA 94301
NEW ADDRESS
IC~lr~~(~ETING
[ ) )>laced Before Meeting
( >! Received at Meeting
(!) Churchill Ave I Alma St
50 [87] (BO)
36 [75] (56)
109 f 261] (193)
19471
1,960 / 7,768::: 25.2°/o
Churchill Ave
ICOUNCIL MEETING h/lq/Zolf/
. i [ ] Placed Before Meeting
/~I){" Received at Meeting
Old Consultant's Report -2014
Table 1: Summary of Trench Alternatives
Trench Grade One Percent (l"l Two Percent (2")
Cost $1,050, 728, 700 $488,187,283
Full Property Acquisitions 0 0
Partial Property Acquisitions 0 0
Turn Movements Maintained Yes Yes
Source: Hatch Mott McDonald, 2014
Table 2: Summary of Roadway Submersion Alternatives that AboHsh Alma Street Turning
Movements
Roadway submersion Intersection ChurchHI Meadow Charleston
Cost $90,334,561 $84,578,797 $101,783,449
Full Property Acquisitions 16 11 18
Partial Property Acquisitions 4 5 3
Turn Movements Maintained No No No
Source: Hatch Mott McDonald, 2014
Table 3: Summary of Roadway Submersion Alternatives that Lower Alma Street to Maintain
Turning Movements
Roadway Submersion Intersection ChurchHI Meadow Charleston
Cost $183,513,669 $143,385,047 $152,903.454
Full Property Acquisitions 33 14 18
Partial Property Acquisitions 3 4 3
Turn Movements Maintained Yes Yes Yes
Source: Hatch Mott McDonald, 2014
Petition to the Palo Alto City Council: Rail
crossing initiatives should not include widening
Embarcadero Road & unfairly increase
neighborhood traffic
We, the undersigned, oppose the widening of the Embarcadero Road underpass as part of the
proposed rail crossing initiative for the following reasons:
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD NOT SOLVE THE TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES There is
no evidence that the current underpass is a bottleneck, while the traffic lights at Paly, Town and
Country, and El Camino Real are known to be bottlenecks. A new pedestrian overpass for
Paly students will likely do more to smooth traffic flow than a new expensive underpass.
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD LEAD TO MORE WIDENING, MORE TRAFFIC LIGHTS The
proponents of the proposal to widen the Embarcadero underpass also propose to take away
park land and mature stone pine trees and add more traffic lights to Alma. Some also
advocate for eventually widening the entire length of Embarcadero. Nearby residential streets
in Professorville are already impacted as de facto cloverleafs, and will only get worse.
THIS PROPOSAL SHIFTS A PROBLEM FROM ONE NEIGHBORHOOD TO ANOTHER AND
IS NOT A SYSTEM-WIDE SOLUTION The rail crossing challenge must not pit one
neighborhood against another. Instead, we should work together to improve the traffic flow in
and through Palo Alto by controlling the amount and type of development and using alternate
transport where appropriate.
THIS PROPOSAL ATTRACTS MORE SPEEDING TO PALO ALTO The Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan clearly calls for prioritizing safety over vehicle LOS (level of service). We
support following through on the principles already espoused in the comprehensive plan.
THIS PROPOSAL THREATENS CITYWIDE WALKABILITY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY We all
rely on residential arterials, which are densely lined with single family homes with direct
driveway access, host community schools, libraries, neighborhood shopping areas and
community centers. Keeping residential arterials and nearby streets and neighborhoods safe
are a KEY part of the walkability of the entire city.
In short, we oppose any so-called solutions which don't solve real problems. We urge fair and
comprehensive city-wide initiatives to reduce traffic volume, reduce speeding, and increase
safety. We request removing the widening of the Embarcadero underpass as part of the rail
crossing initiative. Further, no solution for the Churchill crossing should be approved that
increases traffic in surrounding neighborhood residential.
*Required
1. Name *
2. Address
Timestamp Name
6/14/2018 17:58:06 Thomas Kellerman
6/15/2018 8:02:13 Yoriko Kishimoto
6/15/2018 20:10:18 Reo haynes
6/15/2018 20:26:42 Andrew martin
6/15/2018 20:34:04 lnder Monga
6/15/2018 20:37:57 Kimberley Wong
6/15/2018 20:43:36 Brian Kelley
6/15/2018 20:53:36 Janet Dafoe
6/1512018 20:54:30 Ronald Davis
6/15/2018 21:30:18 Dena Seki
6/15/2018 21 :30:33 Kent Seki
6/15/2018 22:32:09 Jo Ann Mandinach
6/16/2018 3:51:01 Gary hobstetter
6/16/2018 3:51 :56 Joan hobstetter
6/16/2018 6:10:42 Wesley Leong
6/16/2018 6:19:12 Jessie Leong
6/16/2018 6:21 :33 Kevin Leong
6/16/2018 6:22:45 Tim Ranzetta and Dr. Katherine Eslao
6/16/2018 6:22:54 Thomas Leong
6/16/2018 6:25:29 Helen C Feinberg
6/16/2018 6:32:46 Barbara Hazlett
6/16/2018 6:34:31 William Hazlett
6/16/2018 7:40:30 Sarena Kim
6/16/2018 9:16:32 John Carey
6/16/2018 10:06:40 Peter Danner
6/16/2018 10:20:04 Marshall Deitsch
6/16/2018 10:27:25 Nick Atkins
6/16/2018 10:50:59 Carol Weber
6/16/2018 11 :34:58 Sasha Mervyn
6/16/2018 14:15:21 Kathleen Wait
6/16/2018 14:17:23 Gregory Wait
Address
....
....
--
Timestamp Name
6/16/2018 15:47:50 Merrill Wolfe
6/16/2018 16:41:02 Mary Gallagher
6/16/2018 20:05:20 Julian Gomez
6/16/2018 21:23:11 David I Epstein
6/16/2018 21 :25:30 Sarah Epstein
6/16/2018 22:02:59 Robert E Morgan
6/17/2018 11 :20:32 Carolyn George
6/17/2018 12:58:46 Julie Callan
6/17/2018 14:55:58 Eleanor Laney
6/17/2018 17:56:02 Alan Zulch
6/17/2018 22:39:45 Palo Alto
6/17/2018 22:41:18 Reo Haynes
6/18/2018 4:59:18 Michael Ackerman
6/18/2018 10:51:06 Katherine K. Wilson
6/18/2018 10:56:09 Rachel Kellerman
6/18/2018 13:00:54 Rekha Das
6/18/2018 14:46:41 Deborah Johnston
6/18/2018 16:12:21 Richard H Braun
6/18/2018 17:39:57 Stefan Heck
6/18/2018 18:49:44 Daniel Nitzan
6/18/2018 19:00:46 Mary Chacon
6/18/2018 20:15:49 Patricia Devaney
6/18/2018 21 :08:41 Catherine Zhao
6/19/2018 0:57:01 Yi-Ying Wang
6/19/2018 6:28:23 Robert Gamburd
6/19/2018 13:24:37 Cindy Traum
6/19/2018 13:51:48 John Martin
6/19/2018 14:20:22 Roberto peon
6/19/2018 16:01 :33 Lee Collins
6/19/2018 16:14:48 RICHARD E GRAGLIA
Address -....
.... .... .... ....
, Petition against Widening of the Embarcadero Road Undercrossing
We, the undersigned, oppose the widening of the Emblicadero Road underpass as part
of the proposed rail crossing initiative for the following reasons: ·
1. THIS PROPOSAL WOULD NOT SOLVE THE TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES
There is no evidence that the current underpass is a bottleneck, while the traffic
lights at Paly, Town and Country, and El Camino Real are known to be bottlenecks.
A new pedestrian overpass for Paly students will likely do more to smooth traffic flow
than a new expensive underpass.
2. THIS PROPOSAL WOULD LEAD TO MORE WIDENING, MORE TRAFFIC
LIGHTS
The proponents of the proposal to widen the Embarcadero underpass also propose
to take away park land and mature stone pine trees and add more traffic lights t9
Alma. Some also advocate for eventually widening the entire length of
Embarcadero. Nearby residential streets in Professorville are already impacted as
de facto cloverleafs, and will only get worse.
3. THIS PROPOSAL SHIFTS A PROBLEM FROM ONE NEIGHBORHOOD TO
ANOTHER AND IS NOT A SYSTEM-WIDE SOLUTION
The rail crossing challenge must not pit one neighborhood against another. lnstead, ~.
we should work together to improve the traffic flow in and through Palo Alto by ·· ·
controlling the amount and type of development and using alternate transport where
appropriate.
4. THIS PROPOSAL ATTRACTS MORE SPEEDING TO PALO ALTO
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan clearly calls for prioritizing safety over vehicle
LOS (level of service). We support following through on the principles already
espoused in the comprehensive plan.
5. THIS PROPOSAL THREATENS CITYWIDE WALKABILITY AND TRAFFIC
SAFETY
We all rely on residential arterials, which are densely lined with single family homes
with direct driveway access, host community schools, libraries, neighborhood·
shopping areas and community centers. Keepi~g residenti.al arterials and nearby
streets and neighborhoods safe are a KEY part of the walkability of the entire city.
In short, we oppose any so-called solutions which don't solve real problems. We urge
fair and comprehensive city-wide initiatives to reduce traffic volume, reduce speeding,
and increase safety. We request removing the widening of the Embarcadero underpass
as part of the rail crossing initiative. Further, no solution for the_ Churchill crossing
should be approved that increases traffic in surrounding neighborhood residential
streets
•
• Petition against Widening of the Embarcadero Road Undercrossing
Name ~~~-···Sig~~tu;e ·--. ·· ."'"s~~tadd;~;.,.·-· -~----Em~i1-~cici~~ss"·~
(optional) '
. ~ : . ~ -~j
A~eJ.a~~k
Joh Vl YotAvr
KoCer\
LC{ ~~~\l\i 7 fYl
:b1 Abuy
CWiunU\tt nca ~Vlffi. s
C'hctse
Lo,.rn'bev-r
-Da11iel
~ .i ( -t\r\ e.·, ,_,..
~~
~~
~~~
-~~
~'P0 (}µ11/r
~a£
\.l_c,k.~1 h. ~ )M"; \ . (...l..-1 -
iJScica~w-ei(@
8M'I;l I
C.oW\
C,tH~~vte~, VWJ
~JtW.\l .. 11-\f\
tl"le 1'c (;re. <!i-)JJ.M,·1.< fYVl ·
d vi'f'·{ ke~, ... ej ..... ,;I.to /YI
Petition against Widening of the Embarcadero Road Undercrossing
H~
~A-~
~5
Jo41\
IGOV\6
~rov.:>V\
~ ~" 'f I\} Jt
~Ut.E"
SoivA~r
SlJ\J6tt
( ole
Mc::\vdef
l,..tt\JnA ~).J
... .. .. . . ..
-br-~e
~~l. co~ !~i.
l
.I I
•
June 14, 2017
TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
NOTIFICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S APPLICATION REQUESTING
TO CHANGE RATES FOR THE RECOVERY OF ENERGY PURCHASES AND THE RETURN OF
REVENUES FROM THE SALE OF GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) ALLOWANCES (A.18-06-001)
Summary
On June 1, 2018, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its 2019 Energy Resource Recovery Account
(ERRA) Forecast Application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting approval to
change rates for the following:
• Recovery of $2. 7 billion in costs related to the fuel needed to produce electricity as well as costs of
buying energy from third parties
• Setting certain charges for departing load customers, including the Power Charge Indifference
Adjustment (PCIA), Ongoing Competition Transition Charge (CTC) and Cost Allocation Mechanism
(CAM)
• Return of $314 million to eligible customers for the sale of GHG emission allowances (including the
California Climate Credit for residential customers)
Exact amounts are subject to change and CPUC regulatory approval. PG&E will provide the CPUC with
updated amounts later in the year to ensure the most current information is used to set customer rates.
Background
The ERRA is used to record fuel and purchased power costs which can be recovered in rates. While this may
result in a change in rates, PG&E recovers these costs with no mark up for return or profit. The purpose of this
application is to forecast costs of obtaining energy for customers and also to approve the amount to be
returned to customers from the sale of GHG emission allowances for the calendar year of 2019. If the CPUC
approves this application, PG&E will begin to recover its costs in electric rates effective January 1, 2019. At the
end of 2019, PG&E will compare actual costs to the amounts forecasted in this application and will incorporate
any differences in next year's application.
How will PG&E's Application affect me?
Most customers receive bundled electric service from PG&E, meaning they receive electric generation,
transmission and distribution services. A summary of the rate impact by customer class was provided in the
original bill insert sent to customers in June and July.
Based on rates currently in effect, the bill for a typical residential Non-CARE customer using 500 kWh per
month would decrease from $111.59 to $106.43 or 4.6 percent. Actual impacts will vary depending on energy
usage. Twice a year, in April and October, eligible residential customers will also receive a California Climate
Credit in the amount of approximately $29.15. The annual credit amount will be approximately $58.30.
How will PG&E's Application affect non-bundled customers?
Direct Access (DA) and Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) customers only receive electric transmission
and distribution services from PG&E. PG&E does not purchase energy for these customers. However, this
application addresses the cost of transporting energy for these customers through PG&E's electrical system
using the PCIA, CTC and CAM. Residential DA/CCA customers also receive the benefit of the California
Climate Credit. In addition, eligible non-residential DA and CCA customers receive the benefit of the GHG
allowance returns. The impact of PG&E's application on these customers is an average increase of 2.0
percent.
Another category of non-bundled customers is Departing Load. These customers do not receive electric
generation, transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However, these customers are required to pay
certain charges by law or CPUC decision, including the PCIA, CTC and CAM. The impact of PG&E's
application on these customers is an average decrease of 2.3 percent.
How do I find out more about PG&E's proposals?
If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TIY, call 1-800-652-
4712. Para mas detalles llame al 1-800-660-6789 • 2¥tlilit111-800-893-9555. If you would like a copy of
PG&E's filing and exhibits, please write to PG&E at the address below:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2019 ERRA Forecast Application (A.18-06-001)
P.O. Box 7442
San Francisco, CA 94120
A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits is also available for review at the CPUC's Central Files Office by
appointment only. For more information, contact aljcentralfilesid@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's
application (without exhibits) is available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov.
CPUC process
This application will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (Judge) who will determine how to receive
evidence and other related documents necessary for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its
decision. Evidentiary hearings may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to
cross-examination by other parties. These evidentiary hearings are open to the public, but only those who are
formal parties in the case can participate.
After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge will issue a
proposed decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC
Commissioners may sponsor an alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will
be discussed and voted upon at a scheduled CPUC Voting Meeting.
The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) may review this application. ORA is the independent consumer
advocate within the CPUC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain
the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. ORA has a multi-
disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about
ORA, please call 1-415-703-1584, email ora@cpuc.ca.gov or visit ORA's website at www.ora.ca.gov.
Stay informed
If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPUC's free
subscription service. Sign up at: http:J/subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov/. If you would like to learn how you can
participate in the proceeding, have informal comments about the application, or have questions about the
CPUC processes, you may access the CPUC's Public Advisor Office (PAO) webpage at
http:J/consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/.
You may also contact the PAO as follows:
Email: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov
Mail: CPUC
Public Advisor's Office
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074
TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-5282
If you are writing or emailing the PAO, please include the proceeding number (2019 ERRA Forecast
Application (A.18-06-001 ). All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Judge and
appropriate CPUC staff and will become public record.
2
DocuSign Envelope ID: EACB2283· 1113-483F-B779-A9080B23661 D
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
12
MONIQUE LECONGE ZIESENHENNE, INTERIM DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
JUNE 18, 2018
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12· APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CONCORDIA
LLC FOR 18 MONTHS IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $565,972 FOR
CUBBERLEV COMMUNITY CENTER MASTER PLAN AND VISIONING; APPROVAL
OF A COST SHARE AGREEMENT WITH THE PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT FOR UP TO $332,986; AND APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO
FUND THE MASTER PLAN
Please note that the date the Palo Alto Unified School District will vote on the cost share
agreement is June 19, 2018, not June 5, 2018 as stated in the staff report.
Ooculllgned by: ,,,,_.,_. ,,. e-.,. ,. ...... .ks.-
/C88SF21B188WJ! ·-Mon iq Ue leConge Ziesenhenne
Interim Director
Community Services Department
1of1
RETURN ADDRESS:
I support Castilleja's proposal,to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because ...
su pr,:,.+
I
W&MtW. iQ1\ U l OVho V'-· -:t:-t-
1 ~ ~ l""1f'O~ -fo~
OM>~ D 1v-t ~ -ro i c+
fu ~o.;tlv"V'-~ VU>tA..
PM7t.. ·
~ ------------------::::~~·\ -----.._-~ ---------.___ -----------~ -CD
~
(")!:?
--t ~-<
00 ,... ...
;:n ~~
~,...
2llt c.no ~ ol> -..,,!::;
Office of the Clerk U, ~o
Please distribute to all~ Co~embers
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th f!T'oor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
\l\11\1111\\1 \1 \11 \ 11 l\l l\\\ \\1 \\pl \11111\ 111 ll\11 \\hi\\h\\h
I support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because ...
Uj V\~e..e-~ \b -<('}O) \11~ <Jt ~
~V\+-~(? Supp or-
Vi.Qr On tk w~y
-\-o Co.. &.a--. \\~1~1~1·111·1·1
I support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because ...
------------------------~~~Id
-------"""11~-..li~ -----~ -----__ ... ___ __
~--------------------
-('") r:: CD --<--f-i ~ -<-<" ~ C"')O -,....~ (JI ,.,,~
Office of the Clerk ~~
Please distribute to all S Codflt1~
250 Hamilton Avem:ze. 7ijf ~or
Palo Alto, CA. 94 -:t~ ~ci 'VI C""). -~
\ 1\ip\}1\\n \\ 1\\I \ \l\1\\, \ 11I\11 l\ l l' \' 111\
co ;
n!:? --t ~-<
no r-""
en ~~ :s;r-
29 ..,;o
:II: ol:-
Office of the Clerk =:? ~Ci
Please distribute to all Ci..,.ounfii~mbers
250 Hamilton Avenl.lr,7th'n~r
Palo Alto, CA. 94301
RETURN ADDRESS: R-~
I support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because ...
Jr w1U ~w ~ ~h2u ~ ~ ~~J1 ~ ·d.. -lo~
-::;:."/--::?'~ ~
("')~ -.... -4-< -< ("')g ,.-
fT'~
QI) 'X)l>
:;,i;r-
~ <fiO
ol>
\II -n!:i .. ~o
'-' oc,
O' f"'1 J>
Office of the Clerk
Please distribute to all City Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
•1.11J1pl u 11Jll •11111, 11111111111J•11111111; 11•Ii,11,,.1.i.111
I support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because ...
\'t....t.~~~ ~ "~~ . Al\ \N ~((~
~v..Ule-s.<..h~ ~.1.A ~~~~~·
-("')~ co -...... <-~-< ~ nO r-'""
en ~~
;:ii::r-
:Dt ·o :::s V>
Office of the Clerk= ~~
Please distribute to all erty Co~embers
250 Hamilton Avefi!le. 1m&or
Palo Alto, CA, 94301 > ~~ .-&l ffa'v~
;4~::~~~11j1I ool ji1ih1•••1•1l•iioijloo 1i1olhl1hil
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2018 12:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Audrey Zha <audreyzha416@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:California Avenue Underpass
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing to you today in regards to the underpass which connects California Avenue to the residential
neighborhood of Old Palo Alto.
Earlier this year, the bike barriers in the underpass were widened to allow easier access for wheelchairs and bikes
with trailers. However, this has actually made the tunnel more dangerous for pedestrians, especially those who need canes
or walkers, and wheelchair users. The widening of the bike tunnel has increased the number of cyclists who see the more
open bike barriers as an invitation to ride their back all the way through the tunnel.
On June 15th, Palo Alto Online posted an article titled “Whizzing Cyclists are Putting Pedestrians on Edge: New
group advocates for improvements to California Avenue tunnel”.
(https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/06/15/whizzing-cyclists-are-putting-pedestrians-on-edge) This article cites
several stories from Palo Alto residents who have had close encounters with being hit by cyclists who ride through the
tunnel without checking for pedestrians first. One resident said that “[Cyclists] pay no attention to [pedestrians] —
especially us senior citizens.” Given the slope of the underpass, it’s impossible to see the other side, and yet many
cyclists still ride at high speeds into the underpass without a thought as to whether there is a pedestrian on the other side or
not. Riding through the tunnel doesn’t just lead to potential dangers for pedestrians, but for the cyclist as well. It’s
possible that the cyclist may lose control of their bike or need to swerve to avoid a pedestrian and seriously injure
themselves.
As a frequent user of the California Avenue underpass, I have had similar personal experiences as those
mentioned not only in the June 15th article, but also with commenters on a 2015 Palo Alto Online town square post
(https://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/2015/08/
31/bikes-on-the-california-avenue-underpass) who shared their experiences with cyclists who refuse to share
space in the tunnel. Being yelled at or tailed by cyclists, especially during commute hours, is such a common experience
that it’s almost to be expected. Hostility should not be expected by people who are simply trying to get around on a public
walkway; in fact, it’s almost a shame that cyclists feel frustration or that they should have the right-of-way over young
children walking to the park or pedestrians with mobility issues.
I’d also like to remind the city council that the city’s municipal code to states under section 10.64.130 that
“(a) No person shall ride or operate a bicycle … on any pedestrian underpass or overpass … unless such sidewalk is
officially designated as a bicycle route.”
While section b does go on to stipulate that bicyclists may ride on sidewalks as long as they yield right-of-way to
pedestrians, no section of the municipal states that cyclists can ride through underpasses. The California Avenue
underpass also specifically has signs asking pedestrians to walk their bikes. Despite this, there are no repercussions for
cyclists who ride through the underpass.
The Palo Alto Police Department has stated that they plan to increase patrols around the underpass when staffing
allows, but there should be a more permanent solution to this problem. I would like to propose that guards be staffed at
one end of the tunnel in a similar manner as the guards at Caltrain crossings. The idea behind this is the same as why
guards are posted at train crossings: to monitor traffic through the area as well as using the presence of a human to deter
potential wrongdoing. With a multitude of Palo Alto citizens already worried about the safety of the underpass, I’m sure
there is no shortage of citizens willing to support the idea.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2018 12:52 PM
2
Sincerely,
Audrey Zha
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2018 12:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 20, 2018 11:11 AM
To:Susanellenberg Info; Cindy Chavez
Subject:IQs Fall in many Countries
Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com
From WORLD MERCURY PROJECT, JUNE 19, 2018
worldmercury.com, Directed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, Atty.
Declining IQ: A Race to the Bottom?
Highpoints
* ...3/5 (57%) of graduating high school seniors not ready for college 2013
* one in 5 children were obese 2017
* one in 10 had activity limitations from chronic health problems
* one in 17--serious difficulties with emotions, concentration, behavior
* 12% of adolescents suffered a major depressive episode
* 8 countries report IQs have been dropping, some since 1990s
* The turnaround in IQ is due to environmental factors--
--Vaccines-- one of biggest sources of exposure to mercury, aluminum
for kids and flu shots for pregnant women
* Decisive action must be taken to ensure safe vaccines and eliminate intelligence-harming toxins
contained in vaccines
By the World Mercury Project Team
In the U.S., plummeting SAT scores are one proxy indicator of cognitive fallout; the
scores have been falling for over a decade and are at historically low levels, reflecting an
across-the-board worsening in critical reading, math and writing performance.
A report in 2013 suggested that almost three-fifths (57%) of graduating high school
seniors were not ready for college. And a new study that reports “large changes in average
cohort intelligence” in recent years has the answer—the turnaround in IQ is due
to environmental factors.
Over the past several decades, American children’s physical and mental well-being has
steadily deteriorated. Over half (54%) of all U.S. children (as of 2007) had a chronic health
condition—with developmental and behavioral problems, obesity, allergies, asthma and
mental health conditions leading the pack—and the prevalence of many of these
conditions doubled from 1988 to the mid-2000s. Federal reporting on pediatric health
indicators in 2017 showed that one in five children (kindergarteners through adolescents)
were obese, one in ten had activity limitations resulting from chronic health problems, and
one in seventeen (more males than females) had, according to a parent, “serious difficulties
with emotions, concentration, behavior or getting along with other people.”
In addition, 12% of adolescents suffered a major depressive episode in the previous year,
with the prevalence of teenage depression rising continuously since 2004 and suicide
representing the second leading cause of death for both teens and young adults.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2018 12:52 PM
2
A converging body of evidence calls attention to a consistent decline in basic cognitive
abilities and ‘mental speed,’ particularly in young males, beginning in the mid-to-late
1990s.
Mild and serious developmental disabilities
Mild and serious developmental disabilities are one of the most prominent faces of the
health crisis affecting American children(and, increasingly, children in other countries as
well). These disabilities have obvious and sobering implications for individual children’s
learning trajectories and future cognitive achievements—but also for society as a whole. I
In the U.S., plummeting SAT scores are one proxy indicator of the cognitive fallout; the
scores have been falling for over a decade and are at historically low levels, reflecting an
across-the-board worsening in critical reading, math and writing performance. A news
report in 2013 suggested that almost three-fifths (57%) of graduating high school seniors
were not ready for college.
The turnaround in IQ is due to environmental factors.
In Europe, researchers have been systematically assembling other types of cognitive data
to examine intelligence quotient (IQ) trends over time. A converging body of evidence calls
attention to a consistent decline in basic cognitive abilities and “mental speed,” particularly
in young males, beginning in the mid-to-late 1990s.
An article in the British popular press noted the falling IQ scores in 2014 and pointedly
asked, “Are we becoming more STUPID?” Ignoring the belligerent tone of the journalist’s
question, it seems logical to follow up with another question: what is causing the decline in
measured intelligence? A new study that reports “large changes in average cohort
intelligence” in recent years has the answer—the turnaround in IQ is due to environmental
factors.
A new study that reports ‘large changes in average cohort intelligence’ in recent years
has the answer—the turnaround in IQ is due to environmental factors.
The European IQ studies
In the mid-1980s, a New Zealand professor named James Flynn reported that
Americans’ IQs rose by approximately three points per decade from the 1930s through the
1970s. This rise in standardized intelligence test scores—documented year after year and
decade after decade in numerous countries—has come to be known as the Flynn
effect. Since the early 2000s, however, researchers in Scandinavia and Western Europe
have been publishing accounts of a “negative” Flynn effect—or a Flynn effect “gone into
reverse.”
Five of the studies are worth summarizing due to their striking timeline similarities.
(Note: Because short-term military service is compulsory for young able-bodied men in
many of these countries, some researchers have taken advantage of data from cognitive
tests administered to prospective conscripts.)
Norway: A 2004 study reviewed “general ability” (which included measures of language and
math) in male conscripts tested from the mid-1950s to 2002. Following substantial gains
over the first three decades, the gain rate began decreasing and then came to “a complete
stop from the mid-1990s.”
Denmark: A Danish assessment in 2008 of 18-year-old males appearing before the draft
board described falling cognitive test scores from 1998 to 2004, with the abrupt decline
representing a loss of about 1.5 IQ points. This pattern held true in young men planning to
pursue higher education and in those not continuing their education.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2018 12:52 PM
3
United Kingdom: In a British study published in 2009, the investigators compared test
results for 13- and 14-year-olds in 2006-2007 with data collected from the same age group
in 1976. The researchers discovered a “narrowing” in the young people’s range of
performance, with “far fewer go[ing] on to develop the interpretative and evaluative level of
thinking characteristic of formal operations” [emphasis in original].
(The researchers are referring to Piaget’s theory that describes a formal operational
stage of cognitive development from about age 12 that allows adolescents “do mathematical
calculations, think creatively, use abstract reasoning, and imagine the outcome of
particular actions.”)
Finland: In 2013, researchers with access to data from three tests administered to 18- to
20-year-old male conscripts (N=25,000) reported that whereas IQ increased from 1988 to
1997, there were “declines in all three tests averaging 2.0 IQ points a decade” from 1997 to
2009.
Austria and Germany: A 2015 meta-analysis of dozens of studies involving over 13,000
subjects from schools, universities and the general population (with an average age of 22
years) pulled together data collected from the late 1970s until 2014. Examining one domain
of IQ (spatial perception), the researchers documented a “robust” pattern of “initial
increases, followed by stagnation (with performance peaking around the mid-1990s), and
subsequent decreases of task performance.”
It goes without saying that these general population studies of intelligence trends do not
begin to capture the tragic circumstances of children with specific intellectual disabilities
such as, in some cases, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or fragile X syndrome (FXS). A
recent study by neuroscientists at the University of California-Davis rhetorically posed the
parental question, “What will my child’s future hold?” After assessing the IQs of children
with ASD at ages two and eight, the Davis researchers found that IQ declined in about 25%
of the children over the six years. Studies of children with FXS also have shown that IQ
may decline over a relatively short period of time.
And the possible causes of falling IQ are…
Although researchers have speculated on possible contributors to the disquieting IQ
trends, few have come up with any meaningful answers. The puzzled investigators of
the 2008Danish study stated, “the declines…seem to be real,” but “it is not easy to account
for them.” Another group of authors vaguely discussed four causes ranging from the
“cultural-environmental,” to statistical, biological or “hybrid” explanations.
In addition to prevalent toxins such as flame-retardant chemicals, heavy metals such as
mercury and aluminum represent another category with documented detrimental effects on
intelligence.
There is another far more concrete possibility, which is the impact of environmental
toxins on IQ. In addition to prevalent toxins such as PBDEs (flame-retardant
chemicals), heavy metals such as mercury and aluminum represent a category with
documented detrimental effects on intelligence. Vaccines are one of the most widespread
and ongoing sources of prenatal and childhood exposure to these metals.
Prenatal exposure—as occurs with the mercury-containing flu shots and aluminum-
containing pertussis vaccines now routinely administered to pregnant women—is
particularly dangerous as early exposure can impair subsequent growth and development
of neurons.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2018 12:52 PM
4
The U.S. requires the largest number of vaccines for school entry of any developed
nation, although compulsory vaccination has been trending upward in Europe as
well. Childhood brain disorders can have subclinical effects at the individual level that
translate into large population-level effects.
Future challenges
Childhood brain disorders can have subclinical effects at the individual level that
translate into large population-level effects. Harvard researcher David Bellinger believes (as
quoted previously by World Mercury Project) that “
"Even a modest impact that does not push a child’s neurodevelopment into the
range of clinical concern cannot be dismissed as benign because, if the exposure is
prevalent, the total number of IQ points lost in the population as a whole might be
large, and the reduction in the intellectual resources available to a society
substantial.”
Researchers already are openly expressing concern about the potential for a mismatch
between available cognitive abilities and “the expected larger demand for non-routine
analytical-cognitive jobs,” noting that “cognitive tasks at the workplace as well as in daily
life and in organization, maintenance and especially innovation are rising.”
Predictions that the U.S. is “on the decline” may come true unless decisive action is
taken to ensure safe vaccines and eliminate children’s cradle-to-adulthood exposure to the
intelligence-harming toxins contained in vaccines.
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury
Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
N.B. The National Institute of Health reveals that when pregnant women drink fluoridated
tap water, that their fetuses have lower IQs. Harvard University has scientists believing
some 50 world tests prove children have lower IQs with fluoridated water. AG
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2018 12:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Barry M Katz <bkatz@stanford.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 9:47 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Fine, Adrian
Subject:Parking Structure
To the City Council:
The Council has voted, with near-unanimity, to proceed with the building of a permanent parking structure in
the California Avenue district. This decision, whose intent is to accommodate the maximum number of cars in
this commercial and residential area, favors the short-term interests of a small number of constituents over the
long-term interests of our city. I look forward to the next election in which I will do my utmost to remove every
one of you from office and replace you with candidates who have demonstrated a greater sense of civic
responsibility and environmental stewardship.
Barry Katz
Consulting Professor, Design Group
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Stanford University
m: 650.644-8697
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2018 12:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bill Zaumen <bill.zaumen@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 10:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Public reaction to transportation projects
As you are all too well aware, there has been a lot of criticism lately regarding transportation projects. I suspect that
there is a contributing factor that has not been mentioned: "construction fatigue". With all the work being done in both
Palo Alto and surrounding communities, it feels like we live in a permanent construction zone.
I suspect that this is making people particularly sensitive to any additional changes.
It is not just an emotional thing: I've lost between 500 to
1000 dollars in vehicle repairs due to such projects. In one case, a rock flew up and wedged itself in my car's brakes,
requiring a repair that cost a few hundred dollars. More recently, I had to replace/repair three tires due to driving over a
board that fell off of some truck on Route 101. An indication that something was wrong never showed up immediately,
so there was no one who could be held responsible. None of this is the city's fault, of course, but that won't stop people
from being fed up with construction in general.
By the way, I've gone through the Ross Road / East Meadow roundabout a number of times, both in a car and on a
bicycle. It seemed to work just fine and is faster than a four‐way stop. While visually the bulb‐outs on Ross Road seem
excessive, they actually work as designed.
The speed bumps are a bit annoying in a small vehicle, but apparently have to be there for the worst case: aggressive
drivers. The road is not a problem at all when riding a bicycle if used as intended. That is, with bicycles riding in the
middle of the lane instead of staying close to the curb only to swerve around parked cars.
Finally, I have a couple of short videos showing how these facilities work. There is one for the roundabout at Ross road
that compares it to the previous configuration:
https://youtu.be/yHJ0RCk62gE
A second video shows the "right" and "wrong" way for a bicyclist to ride past a bulb‐out:
https://youtu.be/NBd3nQBe2L0
Both are to scale and use drawings I found on Palo Alto's web site as a background. The videos are short and do not have
a soundtrack.
Previously I provided copies of these videos to the transportation division in case they might be useful, and uploaded
them to youtube today. I posted a link to a similar one to a discussion group a month or two ago and got some negative
reactions from one person, leaving me wondering how anyone could see "wheelies" in simple stick fingers, but it turned
out that youtube had automatically run some random video after mine and he thought he was seeing a single video
because mine was so short.
Regards,
Bill Zaumen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2018 12:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jason Matlof <jmatlof@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 8:37 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James; De Geus, Robert; Mello, Joshuah
Cc:Scharff, Greg; Adrian Fine; Cory Wolbach; Kniss, Liz (external); Filseth, Eric (external);
Greg Tanaka; Holman, Karen (external)
Subject:Re: Everyone Can Have Their Own Opinion, But No One Can Have Their Own Facts!!!
Council Members
Member DuBois mistakenly quoting 9,000 cars crossing the tracks at Churchill, which is factually wrong.
PLEASE LOOK AT THR ACTUAL DATA.
Jason
On May 30, 2018, at 11:49 AM, Jason Matlof <jmatlof@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Council and Staff,
As a follow up from last night's discussion on Grade Separation, please accept this email to set
the record straight regarding claims about Churchill Avenue and Embarcadero Road traffic. As
per my email of yesterday highlighting the misinformation spread by certain people regarding
CPUC regulations of Caltrain, we now have additional evidence of efforts to intentionally spread
false information to mislead people regarding this critically important City decision. We must
ensure that the actual facts are known and used to make such important decisions.
Last night, several Embarcadero Road residents claimed (after they were innocently led to
believe) that there would be ~9,000 cars per day that would get redirected to Embarcadero Road
and the Emerson "cloverleaf" if Churchill was closed. It is, in fact, true that ~9,000 cars per day
do traverse the Churchill / Alma intersection, but that's where the facts end. Per the below chart
from the Mott-McDonald circulation study the 3 peak traffic hours over 5 days in 2017, you can
see very plainly what you would expect to see. Only a very small percentage (25.2%) of the total
traffic actually crosses the train tracks and would need to get diverted to another location - the
rest traverses on the much more utilized Alma corridor and Churchill East. An even smaller
percentage of that traffic (roughly half or 13%) traverses across the tracks from E -> W, and
would need to find it's way either through Embarcadero or Oregon Expressway south (we have
to assume that some will also divert there, as well). We're talking about hundreds of cars during
all 3 peak rush hours, not thousands.
<Circ Study Summary - CHurchill.png>
While we're on the subject, I also want to bring up the proposal of Citizen Advisory Council.
Given what appears to be an intentional misdirection campaign by some, I would like to request
that members of our NOPA leadership group participate in this Advisory Council. Given that we
represent by far the largest and most organized community association on this topic in Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2018 12:51 PM
2
(> 450 signatories), I think it's more than fair to expect that we have representation. I hope that
you agree.
Thank you for your consideration. I sincerely appreciate the difficult position you are all in given
the severity and consequences of this City decision. Thank you for your service and willingness
to fight through the noise to find the best outcome.
Jason Matlof
NOPA
NOTE: While there were many problems with the Mott-MacDonald study, this circulation count is objectively factual and
irrefutable. While it did include a non-school day (2/16/17) in the count, that was only 1 of 4 days counted. While the
absolute numbers may vary, the proportional and directional information is representative. You can find that if you read
the fine details.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2018 12:52 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 20, 2018 10:07 AM
To:Kniss, Liz (internal)
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Thank you for your leadership
Dear Mayor Kniss,
Thank you for your strong words in condemning the bigoted and homophobic messages that were placed around
Palo Alto.
I appreciate your leadership on this issue. These messages are important to continue to convey in order to make
all (especially young people) feel worthy and accepted.
Sincerely,
Michael Harbour, MD, MPH
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2018 12:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 5:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Train Decisions
To the Palo Alto City Council,
I feel strongly that we should not use Emminent Domain either in North Palo Alto or
in South Palo Alto. Residents need to trust that each part of the city is a valuable to
them as the is the others, to our elected officials. And if you close off Churchill it will
increase traffic on the Oregon Express, East Meadow and Charleston, which does not
solve our congestion problem.
I urge you to use for electrification the single pole down the middle, and think we should
be consistent city wide to our rail approach.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/20/2018 12:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dwayne T-Town <dwayneisbman@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 19, 2018 3:01 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Unprofessional PD Video
I have recently viewed a viral video involving no less than 3 officers . 2 supervisors and another officer who
stand there for 20 minutes berating and insulting a citizen journelist. Making calims he wasn't a man because he
wouldn't I'd himself for simply taking pictures in public. After consistently getting in the man's space and trying
to make him as uncomfortable as possible with their bully tactics . They then threaten him with arrest still not
understanding filming the police in a public place is business . So when they make statements like since your
business is done here beat it or we will lock you in and you can explain law to a judge . Getting so crazy over a
citizen tkaknb pictures in public makes me wonder how these officers act when there isn't a camera on them . If
they are willing to go so far when they know a person is actually filming them I would be surprised if they had
any limits at all .
The two most disturbing parts for me in the video was first the officer making the statement " your hiding
behind the facade of the law" like he was a bad person because he was expressing his first ammendment right in
public that needs to be somehow justified to these officers with a full rundown of his I'd and a blood test . And
the second most atrocious point was this very officer swore an oath first to protect the Constitution and the man
doesn't even know what the first ammendment says ..after freedom of speech he was lost he thought the whole
ammendment had 5 words and he was a genuis because the "stupid" photographer thought it meant something
else .. do you see the problem if a officer with a supervisory role in this department doesn't actually even know
the actual constitution he is supposed to be protecting this is unacceptable and quite alot like trying times in
other countries . We have these civil rights given to us by God and that officers at the least should be retrained
in the actual constituents and then after that class they need a course in public photography and the specific
California laws saying citizens have the right absolute to. Film that tyrants in public and the act of it is business
and it cannot be turned into a crime or reason for detainment or detention ..(or a shakedown of any of your other
civil rights)
I hope the council and mayor are embarrassed enough to ctually address these officers in a way that would set
an example that treatment of citizens like this is unacceptable and the proper training and reinforcement that
civil rights are not just a "facade" that citizens think they have to hide behind
Dwayne Bowerman