Loading...
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