HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180625plCCDOCUMENTS 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: 6/25/2018
Document dates: 6/6/2018 -6/13/2018
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
701-32
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Terry Trumbull <terryt1011@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 05, 2018 11:49 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Cool Block Program- June 11 consent agenda
Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice-Mayor Filseth and City Council Members:
I’m writing today to encourage you to support the Cool Block Pilot program which I understand is on the June 11, 2018 Consent Calendar.
When my wife retired from her federal judgeship in 2010, we started walking downtown every morning. It was quite nice
to become friends with so many of our neighbors on the 2.4 mile walk.
You would expect that I would know my neighbors well, but sadly, that is not true. A program to get us prepared for potential disasters would be excellent. An example is being flooded out of my home in 1998 by San Francisquito
Creek. When we were forced out of our home, we had to spend the night with friends 3 miles away, when neighbors 5-6 houses away were dry.
I’ve been tracking the The Cool Block program is an unique and effective tool with tremendous potential. Getting our
residents take action around issues that affect us, short and long term, is essential. An example is climate change, which is raising the level of the Bay, and thereby increasing the potential for flooding to re-occur.
In regards to climate change, I believe that the City's direct actions have been good, but we have a willing population who
we ought to get more engaged. We all know its crucial for citizens to do their part to reduce carbon but it’s not an easy task. I have studied the data from the first 2 pilots and the program has had some very impressive results in carbon
reduction.
Our Utility Dept has programs available to residents and the Cool Block program but difficulty in getting the information to residents. This program makes it easier for them to learn about -- and take advantage of -- these programs by leveraging
existing initiatives.
As a City we’ve have approved ambitious goals in all sorts of programs. While changes our municipal operations deserve praise, we also need to get citizens on board. I know of no other platform that engages residents to lower their
carbon footprints and we need citizens who understand their role in both creating and reducing energy usage. Behavior change is difficult and the Cool Block is an effective cooperative, educational program.
Please support the Cool Block program.
Sincerely,
Terry Trumbull
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marilyn C Messer <marilyncmesser@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 03, 2018 9:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Utility rates rise every year
I do my best to turn off lights, rarely watch tv. Often use a flashlight. I also, like many people here watch every drop of
water. I am very upset that utility rates continue to rise a lot!
Marilyn Messer
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:51 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Robin <karenrobin2007@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 03, 2018 7:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rates
Hi,
Please do not continue to raise utility rates. It’s already so expensive!!
Thank you!
Karen Gould
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 8:51 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Oli <oli_chen@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 02, 2018 11:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:No new rates
Hi,
I’m opposed to new rate hikes.
Olivia
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Preeva Tramiel <palmpeebs@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 04, 2018 9:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Utility rate increases
I am against the proposed rate increases you sent out last week. My utility bills are high enough now.
Preeva Tramiel
767 Addison Avenue
Sent from my iPhone, be amused by the autocorrect.
ACCOUNTABLE WITH YOUR MONEY
t Moulton Niguel has earned the coveted "AAA Rating" from the
independent credit ratings agency Fitch -the highest rating possible.
t Moulton Niguel has consistently received a clean audit of financial
health from respected, independent accounting firms.
RESPONSIBLE FINANCIAL PLANNING
t Over the last decade, Moulton Niguel has invested more than
$75 million in local water reliability projects.
t Moulton Niguel maintains the lowest average bill in South
Orange County.
EFFICIENT WITH EVERY DROP
t Moulton Niguel's partnerships with pioneering organizations has
helped maximize water efficiency, deliver water reliability solutions,
and save Moulton Niguel ratepayers tens of millions of dollars.
t Moulton Niguel has been recognized as the "water agency that
thrived during California's drought" by a leading independent
media outlet reporting on water issues and policy.
Moulton Niguel:
LOWEST AVERAGE BILL IN SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY
City of Palo Alto I City Clerk's Office I 6/11/2018 1:42 PM
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
linda lopez-otero <pasionaria@gmail.com>
Sunday, June 10, 2018 6:42 PM
Council, City
No utility increases please!!
Dear Council Members,
I live in condo (building with 55 units) built in 1978 with single
pane windows, no direct sun, first floor, above a garage, so it's
mostly cold inside unless it's 80-100 degrees outside. I tell my
husband (80 y.o.) to do push ups to conserve energy when he's
cold, but he tends to turn on the electric heat. We do have an
electric fireplace, but it gives off practically no heat
whatsoever, except psychological, so we don't use it. We are
paying $10 a month just to rent the meter in the basement for
this fireplace, whether we turn it on or not.
I think we should tax the tech companies a bit more to cover
what we lack in the utility funds.
Thank you for your consideration to this matter.
Sincerely,
Linda Lopez Otero
410 Sheridan Ave., #111
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Linda Lopez Ot ero
11 Be yourself; eve1yone else is ah eady taken. 11 Oscar Wilde
1
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:45 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Manjun Martin <paul.manjun@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 8:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
Just as we are asked on June 11th to comment on 6% rise in electric utility rates, the Palo Alto Utilities manager sent out a message to all customer saying following:
"Mylar Balloon Causes Power Outage for 4,500 Customers"
"Help keep us all safe by choosing an alternative to metallic foil or mylar balloons and hold on to those balloons! Read more on
our website:"
On the surface this seems fine, but are we really comfortable with an electric utility system where one $2.50
Mylar balloon can cut power to 4500 customers?
The solution has nothing to do with Mylar balloons, it has to do with City Council taking responsibility to prioritize funding of a comprehensive plan to underground the ENTIRE electrical and communication system for Palo Alto City customers. We need a plan with a deadline, 2030?, and yearly milestones that undergrounds
the entire network. Under-grounding provides more secure system, removes unsightly poles, preserves our
trees and eliminates the “Mylar Balloon Causes Power Outage for 4,500 Customers” type of email. Please pay
attention to full solutions, don’t just bandaid the problems. Sincerely,
Paul Martin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Great Palo Alto Living <paloaltoliving2013@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 5:06 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:myarima@gmail.com
Subject:Protest Against All Proposed Utility Rate Increases
Attachments:Protest Against Utilities Rate Increases Signed.PDF
Hello, City Clerk,
Attached is a signed letter in PDF format we are sending to Palo Alto City Council as required of us because we
are very disturbed about the planned rate increases and would like our voice heard. Please print and give a copy
to all members of the City Council and all related personnel as required before the deadline on June 11, 2018
public hearing.
Our property is located at 2701 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Barbara Hing
Great Palo Alto Living Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 430-3577 (office)
(440) 915-2839 (cell)
paloaltoliving2013@gmail.com
Proposed Rate Increase by the City of Palo Alto Utilities:
Electric: 6%
Gas: 4%
Waste water collection: 11% (was increased 9% in 2016)
Water: 3% (was increased twice in 2016, 4% then 8% and 4% in 2015)
Storm drain : 2.9%
Dark fiber: 2.9%
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 3:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 3:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:3 items: traffic impairment, utility increases, developer give aways
Dear Council Members.
EXISTING ROAD BLOCKAGES or "IMPROVEMENTS" FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY ARE
NOT SAFE
I am totally confused about why you would approve a traffic safety plan with absurd
construction. Even people I hardly ever agree with on many issues, think the new road/street
traffic calming construction on city/residential streets (what ever those barriers are called) are disgruntled. If the idea was so great, why is there such a loud backlash - and you have to call a special meeting to “study” what has received enormous thumbs down from so many citizens. The one that is now under construction and looks like a total mess (construction will only make the path worse) is reflective of why this is not working.
What will it take to use common sense and not “academic theories” . These look great on the computer but in reality doesn’t fit in to the space or accomplish the needed goal of safety and slowing down traffic. Personally, if I am out early in the morning when kids are going to school and adults have - coffee in one hand and phone in the other, rushing to work - I am going to look for another crosstown street . Then what ? When a new crosstown street starts to fill up and neighbors complain, are you (as CC) going to rush in and build another
roundabout as a solution?
I just noticed in the paper that the City Manager apologized for not communicating properly. What quickly comes to mind is
the apology for cutting down the trees on Calif and the choice of glass. We are told that when we hire for employees, we have
to pay high, + lots of benefits to retain the best……. no sarcasm intended, as I question if we are getting our moneys worth.
Lenore Cymes
714 Wildwood Lane
I
item #2 - Utility increases
Utility #30027180 Bottom line, all this COSTS time and money. ———— next issue of not enough city money. Honestly, I am not a numbers person, however, it doesn’t take a genius to recognize that the city pays high salaries (some even get generous housing allowance that the private sector doesn’t give) and then hires consultants for so many projects. WHY? The utility rates increase over and over. This makes no sense. Where does all the money go from the previous raises in the last 2-3 years. The CC is hired to direct the City Manager and I
question who is leading who…… It seems more often than not, I read about how money is
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 3:47 PM
2
allocated, consultants hired, costs raised - it is time to genuinely tighten the city budget. Yes, some people living in PA can write checks without batting an eyelash - It seems you are banking on the knowledge of that financial freedom. Instead of looking for ways to approach a problem you increase a small % and call it a solution. Yes, some of us
are lucky to have lived in PA for a long time - when there was fiscal “liberties” taken, but not
like today, and certainly not to this irresponsible degree.
Are we getting our monies worth from the salaries+benefits paid with our tax dollars…….the question comes up often in
general discussion over coffee out in the real world of Palo Alto.
Lenore Cymes 714 Wildwood Lane
Item #3 New development at Public Facility parcel
The 57 unit new development at a Public Facility parcel. Parking spaces being decreased
because people will live near the “transit hub” is absurd thinking. If the majority of the
Council thinks this will work, they are naive. For every middle income person earning
$100,000 - to $150,000 and qualifies for the lower rental units and those who pay market
price need to sign an agreement that they will NOT own a car. Since it has to be parked
somewhere and where else but, in front of someone’s home closest to their unit. By signing
such an agreement and if are found to own a car - will there be a penalty or be asked to move? Your carrots are enabling people behave badly.
People with that level of income usually find jobs via headhunters or referral… Only the signs all over town, are for HELP WANTED…….. usually for retail sales, service people, waiters, janitors etc - jobs that pay a barely livable wage in this city. Why are you not up in arms that there is a shortage of people to fill these slots and, don’t forget teachers? In case you haven’t been in a classroom for a while - visit one These people do not earn enough to live here. What you are approving to be built costs too much and there are not enough low income worker units being built. The City Council is not sincere when it speaks about
housing, the subject is really insufficient housing affordability when units get built.
My thanks to Lydia Kou and Karen Holman for voting NO on this issue and recognize it is
time to stop giving our city away to the developers.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 4:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:RICH STIEBEL <w6apz@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 4:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:PROTEST: Exempt Seniors from Utility Rate Increases 061118o
I retired in 1993, 25 years ago. My pension has not kept up with inflation, or with the “taxes” added to
the utilities bill over the years. In fact, my effective pension has been reduced because the medical
insurance that used to be covered by the company for retirees has been stopped.
When we moved to Palo Alto, over 50 years ago, our utility bill was typically $25. It consisted of paying for water, gas, electricity, and garbage pick up. While we have added extensive insulation to
our home, installed low-flow shower heads, new efficient toilets, etc. our monthly bill is now typically
increased by more than ten fold.
Our “reward” for water conservation has been an increased cost for the water we use.
When we first moved here, we had a LARGE garbage container. The city, to encourage recycling,
offered lower costs for smaller garbage containers. We followed the city’s lead and went for the
smallest, lowest cost container. What happened? The cost for collection of this smallest container was
raised.
Subsequently a Sewer Tax, Storm Drain Tax, and a Utility Users Tax were ADDED to our utility bill.
These taxes are in ADDITION to the “Distribution” charges (tax) added to Electric and Gas portions of
the Utility Bill.
Then of course there are the “G1 Commodity Charge Summer” and Monthly Service Charge, and a
bunch of small dollar amount charged for various things.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 4:07 PM
2
ENOUGH TAXES/Charges ALREADY! It’s time to exempt retired seniors from further increases
in our utility bill and to roll-back many of these charges for retired seniors.
Rich Stiebel
840 Talisman Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303-4435
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 6:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Carnahan, David
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 4:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Agenda Item No. 10: Water, Wastewater Rate Increases: Additional Utility Rate
Increase
David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650-329-2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org
From: William Ross <wross@lawross.com>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 4:43:41 PM
To: Carnahan, David
Subject: Agenda Item No. 10: Water, Wastewater Rate Increases: Additional Utility Rate Increase
As a business (400 Lambert Ave.) and residential (2103 Amherst St.) I protest (vote NO) on the proposed water
and wastewater increases. Additionally, both the water and wastewater increases and the utility rate increases
noticed under Agenda Item No. 10 are improperly noticed and do not comply with Proposition 218 because they
are being proposed at a special rather than a Regular City Council Meeting.
William Ross
Law Offices of William D. Ross
wross@lawross.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY
BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF
THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-
MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM
YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/4/2018 9:02 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 03, 2018 11:53 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Hodge, Bruce; 'David Coale'; Altieri, Lisa; Hays, Walt
Subject:Case for Reconsidering the Parking Garage Projects and related Funding and EIR
Attachments:Letter to Council re Cal Ave Parking Structure.pdf
Honorable Council Members,
Please find attached a letter from Carbon Free Palo Alto presenting the case for reconsidering the proposed California
Avenue and Downtown parking garages and the related Environmental Impact Report and Funding proposals on the
June 4th Council Agenda.
Carbon Free Palo Alto
Honorable Council Members,
We would like to reiterate the need to evaluate alternatives to moving ahead with the planned
California Avenue and Downtown parking garage projects.
These two projects make up the majority of the 2018 budget shortfall that is causing the City to
explore politically and economically detrimental ways to raise taxes in order to fund them. The
budget crisis is also forcing the City consider deep cuts to its operations in 2019. The proposed 1
garages were conceived of before 2014, prior to the current proliferation of alternatives to
driving and parking demand management techniques. To our knowledge, there has been no
formal consideration of the other available courses of action to address the demand for parking
that ostensibly justifies the building of these structures.
This situation alone should compel the Council to carefully reconsider the garage projects. But
the projects are also prohibitively expensive (on a per parking space basis). And they are huge,
single purpose, car-centric investments that run counter to our community’s recognized
transportation and infrastructure strategies and goals. Among the much better alternatives
described below, the most obvious is to expand the Palo Alto TMA to reduce parking demand.
That approach completely aligns with our transportation plans at a tiny fraction of the cost of
building new parking garages.
The garage projects represent $65M of the capital budget shortfall.
The March 20, 2018 Finance Committee Staff Report presented the enormous potential savings
from cancelling or deferring the garage projects based on the 2018 budget in the table below.
The savings are even higher now as project costs escalate. The California Avenue project cost
stands at $47M in the 2019 budget and it quite likely could exceed $50M due to cost escalation 2
and overruns before it is complete.
1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65197
2 2019 Fiscal Year Capital Budget, p110: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64860
The garage projects are prohibitively expensive on a per space basis.
The California Avenue garage, for example, was proposed in large part to satisfy the demand
for parking during the limited, lunchtime peak. In its January 22 presentation to Council on the
City Infrastructure plan, City staff described it as a “$75,000 per space for a 2-hour need”
solution (see slide below) . 3
The cost rises to $120,000 per space if one considers only the 335 net new spaces created.
The cost of building new parking is prohibitively expensive while we have proven means of
reducing the demand for such parking that cost on the order of one tenth as much.
The Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) offers an alternative that is
far cheaper and much more flexible and valuable to our community.
The TMA is already successfully promoting the use of alternatives to driving and parking in the
downtown area. It provides hundreds of small business and service employees incentives to
use transit, carpool, bike, walk or rideshare instead of driving to downtown. Highlights from this
3 Jan 22, 2018 City Council Meeting staff presentation, Potential Solutions section, p10.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63341
March 2018 Palo Alto Online article reveal the TMA’s impact and how it plans to build on its
success :
4
●Rate of workers driving alone declinedby 10% (from 80 to 70%) in just one year (2016 to
2017)
●Goal is to shift 30% or 1,650 drivers to other modes in the next several years
●Budget is $450K for 2018
●Aims to increase transit pass use from 200 in 2018 to 700 in 3 years and 1000 in 5 years
●Scoop and Waze carpooling programs currently serve 160+ users and aim to serve 300
users in 3 years and 600 users in 5 years. These are the TMA’s cheapest programs to
provide.
●Aims to add 100 to 150 riders to shuttles in 3 to 5 years
●TMA board will consider expanding to the California Avenue business district if funding is
available
We should consider expanding the TMA to the California Avenue district. We conservatively
estimate the cost at $4.8M over 10 years (10 times the current TMA’s 2018 budget which covers
a much larger zone). The TMA results noted above indicate that this could reduce parking
space demand by the hundreds. This is commensurate with the size of the proposed California
Avenue garage at 335 new spaces yet would cost 10 times less!
Subsidized ride hailing alone could eliminate the need to build more public parking.
Cities are working with Uber, Lyft and others providers to achieve this today. It is a flexible way
to reduce parking demand and avoid building garages.
● Summit, NJ is an example of a town that uses subsidized ride hailing to avoid building a
parking lot.
5
● Neighboring Mountain View and Menlo Park are already pursuing this option to reduce
parking demand in their downtown districts . Using the Mountain View example of a 50%
6
subsidy, the cost for Palo Alto to provide enough rides to avoid the need for the
California Ave. garage could be about $418k. That is less than 1% of the cost to build
the new garage. This assumes 335 rides per day avoids 335 parking spaces at up to $5
per ride within Palo Alto 250 business days a year.
● Volume and fixed arrangements with ride hailing companies reduce the cost to the City
and users of subsidized services. For popular routes, fixed shuttles are on offer at ride
hailing companies. They are being tried in San Francisco using Lyft Shuttle. The 7 8
service is still being tested but is getting good reviews and is expanding. It costs 2 to 3
times less than a standard Lyft Line ride.
4 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/14/palo-alto-nonprofit-revs-up-efforts-to-reduce-traffic
5 https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/3/13147680/uber-new-jersey-free-ride-parking-lot-train-commute
6 https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2017/07/24/menlo-park-city-could-help-pay-for-uber-lyft-rides
7 https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/New-Lyft-Shuttle-service-launches-with-fixed-SF-11049922.php
8 https://www.lyft.com/shuttle
Ride hailing, carpooling, micro-bus and shuttle services from private providers will continue to
proliferate because they use existing infrastructure to generally deliver better service at a lower
cost than driving and parking. They will likely play an important role moving forward as Palo Alto
improves its transportation options in its commercial districts.
Other measures that will reduce driving and parking demand.
Palo Alto’s bike share program will bring hundreds of bikes and scooters to the streets starting
in 2018 at no cost to the city. Paid parking also motivates drivers to think about alternatives.
Metered parking is already the norm in many Peninsula cities. Palo Alto could introduce
metered parking in commercial districts and expand permit programs where needed to preserve
it for neighboring residences. Finally, the electrification of Caltrain is projected to increase daily
ridership by 21% overall and should be operating by 2022. Caltrain serves both downtown and 9
California Avenue areas.
Funding alternatives to driving and parking. Funding new parking structures from general tax
money is regressive in nature including the current favorites, increased hotel and real estate
transfer taxes. In the words of Donald Shoup, Research Professor in the Department of Urban
Planning at UCLA, “A city where everyone happily pays for everyone else’s free parking is a
fool’s paradise” .
10
The less costly alternatives to the garages give Palo Alto more funding options that more
effectively target the beneficiaries of such services, for example:
● Instituting a business tax. Palo Alto is one of the few cities in the region that don’t collect
this tax.
● Institute a district tax for each business district to help pay for transportation services
The garage projects run counter to our official community transportation development
plans. The Comp and Sustainability Implementation Plans (CP and SIP) reflect years of
consensus building effort with city leadership, staff and community members. They direct us to
responsibly invest public funds in efficient and flexible alternative transportation modes and
services that lower costs and bring other quality of life, productivity and economic benefits. They
recognize the hidden cost of public parking and the trends that are moving us away from a
car-centric infrastructure. We should accept their challenge to find more intelligent and effective
ways to improve our transportation services than building public parking facilities.
In conclusion, we believe that both garage projects are probably unnecessary and a waste of
money and real estate. We recommend that the City Council at least delay these projects and
9 http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Electrification/PCEP+Fact+Sheet+Nov+2017.pdf
10 https://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2016/cutting-the-cost-of-parking-requirements/
call for a more complete analysis of the costs and benefits of cancelling them in light of the
much more promising and beneficial alternatives at hand.
Sincerely,
Carbon Free Palo Alto
Lisa Altieri
Bret Andersen
David Coale
Bruce Hodge
Walt Hayes
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 1:37 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 09, 2018 3:32 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:French, Amy; Eggleston, Brad; Raschke, Matt; pwecips; Glanckopf, Annette; Esther
Nigenda
Subject:Fw: RE: Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage - Final EIR and
updated TIA
This is a follow-up to my previous email to the city council where I stated a couple of concerns I had on the
Public Safety Building FEIR. I wanted to thank city staff for fully addressing my concerns (in the email below) along with previously addressing the concerns I had about about seismic safety of the Public Safety Building in
the FEIR. At this point I have no seismic or other concerns about the much needed Public Safety Building and
California Ave Garage. Thanks again.
Hamilton Hitchings
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Raschke, Matt <Matt.Raschke@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>
Cc: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org>; pwecips <pwecips@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018, 3:17:05 PM PDT Subject: RE: Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage - Final EIR and updated TIA
Hamilton,
Sorry for the delay in responding. I received the following responses to your comments from Ray Pendro at MIG:
(1) Regarding all comments on EIR chapter 8 (Geology and Soils): As explained in the Final EIR (especially in the introduction to Final EIR section 3 (Revisions to the Draft EIR), the Final EIR reprints Draft EIR pages that have been
revised, along with associated contextual text - not the entire EIR chapter over again. All of the text that you thought had been removed (Draft EIR pages 8-1 and 8-2) remains exactly as before; therefore, those pages were not duplicated in Final
EIR section 3. No mistake has been made, and no correction is needed.
(2) Regarding the revisions to Draft EIR section 3.4.3 (Material Relationships and Architecture, page 3-17), which are also in
Final EIR section 3, these revisions were made for a particular reason: City staff deliberately wanted certain details removed from the EIR Project Description (chapter 3) so that - if those details did not make it through to the final project design - the
EIR Project Description would still be accurate, and the EIR would not need to be revised again. No impact or mitigation conclusions have changed due to these revisions. The revised EIR text does not imply, nor does it describe, "a much less
attractive building". The ARB review process is still in motion for the PSB. We expect the next design revision for the PSB to be presented to the ARB in August. No correction is needed.
(3) Regarding your comment on emergency access for the PSB (Final EIR section 3, page 3-8), please see (2) above. Regarding the parking garage, please note that the EIR has no reference to "2 vehicle ramps" for the public garage, as you
stated. Regarding the PSB itself, the removal (page 3-8) of the precise reference to a Birch Street emergency access is not intended to imply that no emergency access will be provided; the revision means that the emergency access might not be on
Birch (see item [2] above). In the latest PSB plan revision, the secondary ramp technically exits to Jacaranda Lane. No correction is needed.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:37 PM
2
I hope that satisfies your concerns.
Thanks,
Matt
Matt Raschke, PE | Senior Engineer 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.496.5937 | E: matt raschke@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
From: Hamilton Hitchings [mailto:hitchingsh@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 2:07 PM To: pwecips; Raschke, Matt
Cc: French, Amy; Eggleston, Brad Subject: Re: Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage - Final EIR and updated TIA
Thank you very much for the improvements. The FEIR discussion of earthquake requirements are much clearly and more specific and
appear to much better support Goal #2 (*1)
There appears to potentially be a significant error in the final EIR where at least one section appears to have been removed.
This is on page 136 of the FEIR at the top where the sentence starts "the earthquake source (e.g., magnitude, location, and area of causative fault surface), distance from the fault, and amplification effects of local geologic deposits."
In the DEIR this can be found on page 160 where the preceding text was
"(1) Ground Shaking. Ground shaking is the most widespread cause of earthquake damage. Most loss of life and injuries during an
earthquake are related to the collapse of buildings and structures. The intensity of the ground shaking at a particular site depends on characteristics of 1 Army Corps of Engineers Field Manual TM 5-818-7, 1985. Available online at:
http://armypubs.army.mil/eng/DR pubs/DR a/pdf/tm5 818 7.pdf, accessed on February 3, 2012 by Placeworks for the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:37 PM
3
Comprehensive Plan Update EIR. Palo Alto Public Safety Building and Parking Garage Draft EIR City of Palo Alto 8. Geology and
Soils January 4, 2018 Page 8-3 T:\10754 Palo Alto PSB EIR\DEIR\8 (10754).doc the earthquake source (e.g., magnitude, location, and area of causative fault surface), distance from the fault, and amplification effects of local geologic deposits."
This along with the paragraphs preceding it have been removed. It appears most of the Geology and Soils section starting on page 158
in the DEIR has been removed. This includes section 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.3 from the DEIR. Was this intentional? If so,why? Do you plan to fix it?
Also, I noticed in section 3.4.3 all mentions of aesthetic enhancements were removed on page 117 of the FEIR were removed. Does
that mean the plan is to build a much less attractive building?
On page 113 it appears you reducing from 2 vehicle ramps to one for the PSB garage and along with removal of emergency access on page 112?
Please let me know about the above issues
Hamilton Hitchings
1-650-862-9657 (mobile)
*1 Goal #2:To locate the City’s Police Department, Office of Emergency Services, Emergency
Operations Center, Emergency Communications (911 Dispatch) Center, and Fire Administration
Division operations within a facility that meets the standards of an essential services facility to
substantially increase the probability of maintaining operation after a major earthquake, natural
disaster, or other substantial disruption or disaster.
On Monday, May 21, 2018, 9:47:34 AM PDT, Raschke, Matt <Matt.Raschke@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Dear Commenter,
Thank you for your comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Palo Alto Public Safety Building (PSB) and California Avenue Parking Garage at 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue, respectively. The Final EIR with response to your comments has
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:37 PM
4
been published and is available for download at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/infrastructure plan/psb and cal ave garage.asp
Hardcopies of the document are also available for review at the following locations:
1. Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, 6th Floor, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
2. Downtown Library, 270 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
3. College Terrace Library, 2300 Wellesley St., Palo Alto CA 94306
4. Mitchell Park Library, 3700 Middlefield Rd, Palo Alto CA 94303
5. Rinconada Library, 1213 Newell Rd., Palo Alto CA 94303
Additionally, the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) by Fehr & Peers in the Draft EIR was revised (with a revision date of May 2,
2018) for the following changes:
1. Revised TIA Section 7.0 Other Transportation Considerations, Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT), pages 58 to 62.
2. Deleted under TIA Section 2.0 Existing Conditions, Bay Area Bike Share, pages 20 to 21.
The full revised TIA dated May 2, 2018 is also available for download on the project webpage at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/infrastructure plan/psb and cal ave garage.asp
City Council resolution of approval of the Final EIR is tentatively scheduled for June 11, 2018. When available, the agenda for that
Council meeting will be posted at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp
Thank you,
Matt Raschke
Project Manager
Matt Raschke, PE | Senior Engineer 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.496.5937 | E: matt raschke@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:37 PM
5
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
View our other Infrastructure Plan Projects at www.Infrastructure.cityofpaloalto.org.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, June 09, 2018 11:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporters of the Case for Reconsidering the Parking Garage Projects and related
Funding and EIR
Attachments:Letter to Council re Cal Ave Parking Structure.pdf
Honorable Council Members,
The following people and organizations, would like to be known as additional supporters of the attached letter from
Carbon Free Palo Alto, that was sent to you on June 3rd, 2018.
Amie Ashton
Pat Burt
Justine Burt
Peter Drekmeier
Robyn Duby
Kathy Durham
Barry Katz
Adina Levin
Drew Maran
Lynnie Melena
Jeralyn Moran
Debbie Mytels
Robert Neff
Peter Phillips
Peter Rice
J Rosten
Yoriko Kishimoto
Steve Schmidt, Former Mayor, Menlo Park
Anne and Ed Schmitt
Adam Stern, Executive Director, Acterra
Sven Thesen
Jennifer Thompson, Executive Director, Sustainable Silicon Valley
Lisa Van Dusen
Dennis Wilkinson
Diane Bailey, Executive Director, Menlo Spark
Organizations
Acterra
Friends of Caltrain
Menlo Spark
Sustainable Silicon Valley
Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto's Green Sanctuary Committee
Honorable Council Members,
We would like to reiterate the need to evaluate alternatives to moving ahead with the planned
California Avenue and Downtown parking garage projects.
These two projects make up the majority of the 2018 budget shortfall that is causing the City to
explore politically and economically detrimental ways to raise taxes in order to fund them. The
budget crisis is also forcing the City consider deep cuts to its operations in 2019. The proposed 1
garages were conceived of before 2014, prior to the current proliferation of alternatives to
driving and parking demand management techniques. To our knowledge, there has been no
formal consideration of the other available courses of action to address the demand for parking
that ostensibly justifies the building of these structures.
This situation alone should compel the Council to carefully reconsider the garage projects. But
the projects are also prohibitively expensive (on a per parking space basis). And they are huge,
single purpose, car-centric investments that run counter to our community’s recognized
transportation and infrastructure strategies and goals. Among the much better alternatives
described below, the most obvious is to expand the Palo Alto TMA to reduce parking demand.
That approach completely aligns with our transportation plans at a tiny fraction of the cost of
building new parking garages.
The garage projects represent $65M of the capital budget shortfall.
The March 20, 2018 Finance Committee Staff Report presented the enormous potential savings
from cancelling or deferring the garage projects based on the 2018 budget in the table below.
The savings are even higher now as project costs escalate. The California Avenue project cost
stands at $47M in the 2019 budget and it quite likely could exceed $50M due to cost escalation 2
and overruns before it is complete.
1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65197
2 2019 Fiscal Year Capital Budget, p110: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64860
The garage projects are prohibitively expensive on a per space basis.
The California Avenue garage, for example, was proposed in large part to satisfy the demand
for parking during the limited, lunchtime peak. In its January 22 presentation to Council on the
City Infrastructure plan, City staff described it as a “$75,000 per space for a 2-hour need”
solution (see slide below) . 3
The cost rises to $120,000 per space if one considers only the 335 net new spaces created.
The cost of building new parking is prohibitively expensive while we have proven means of
reducing the demand for such parking that cost on the order of one tenth as much.
The Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) offers an alternative that is
far cheaper and much more flexible and valuable to our community.
The TMA is already successfully promoting the use of alternatives to driving and parking in the
downtown area. It provides hundreds of small business and service employees incentives to
use transit, carpool, bike, walk or rideshare instead of driving to downtown. Highlights from this
3 Jan 22, 2018 City Council Meeting staff presentation, Potential Solutions section, p10.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63341
March 2018 Palo Alto Online article reveal the TMA’s impact and how it plans to build on its
success :
4
●Rate of workers driving alone declinedby 10% (from 80 to 70%) in just one year (2016 to
2017)
●Goal is to shift 30% or 1,650 drivers to other modes in the next several years
●Budget is $450K for 2018
●Aims to increase transit pass use from 200 in 2018 to 700 in 3 years and 1000 in 5 years
●Scoop and Waze carpooling programs currently serve 160+ users and aim to serve 300
users in 3 years and 600 users in 5 years. These are the TMA’s cheapest programs to
provide.
●Aims to add 100 to 150 riders to shuttles in 3 to 5 years
●TMA board will consider expanding to the California Avenue business district if funding is
available
We should consider expanding the TMA to the California Avenue district. We conservatively
estimate the cost at $4.8M over 10 years (10 times the current TMA’s 2018 budget which covers
a much larger zone). The TMA results noted above indicate that this could reduce parking
space demand by the hundreds. This is commensurate with the size of the proposed California
Avenue garage at 335 new spaces yet would cost 10 times less!
Subsidized ride hailing alone could eliminate the need to build more public parking.
Cities are working with Uber, Lyft and others providers to achieve this today. It is a flexible way
to reduce parking demand and avoid building garages.
● Summit, NJ is an example of a town that uses subsidized ride hailing to avoid building a
parking lot.
5
● Neighboring Mountain View and Menlo Park are already pursuing this option to reduce
parking demand in their downtown districts . Using the Mountain View example of a 50%
6
subsidy, the cost for Palo Alto to provide enough rides to avoid the need for the
California Ave. garage could be about $418k. That is less than 1% of the cost to build
the new garage. This assumes 335 rides per day avoids 335 parking spaces at up to $5
per ride within Palo Alto 250 business days a year.
● Volume and fixed arrangements with ride hailing companies reduce the cost to the City
and users of subsidized services. For popular routes, fixed shuttles are on offer at ride
hailing companies. They are being tried in San Francisco using Lyft Shuttle. The 7 8
service is still being tested but is getting good reviews and is expanding. It costs 2 to 3
times less than a standard Lyft Line ride.
4 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/14/palo-alto-nonprofit-revs-up-efforts-to-reduce-traffic
5 https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/3/13147680/uber-new-jersey-free-ride-parking-lot-train-commute
6 https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2017/07/24/menlo-park-city-could-help-pay-for-uber-lyft-rides
7 https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/New-Lyft-Shuttle-service-launches-with-fixed-SF-11049922.php
8 https://www.lyft.com/shuttle
Ride hailing, carpooling, micro-bus and shuttle services from private providers will continue to
proliferate because they use existing infrastructure to generally deliver better service at a lower
cost than driving and parking. They will likely play an important role moving forward as Palo Alto
improves its transportation options in its commercial districts.
Other measures that will reduce driving and parking demand.
Palo Alto’s bike share program will bring hundreds of bikes and scooters to the streets starting
in 2018 at no cost to the city. Paid parking also motivates drivers to think about alternatives.
Metered parking is already the norm in many Peninsula cities. Palo Alto could introduce
metered parking in commercial districts and expand permit programs where needed to preserve
it for neighboring residences. Finally, the electrification of Caltrain is projected to increase daily
ridership by 21% overall and should be operating by 2022. Caltrain serves both downtown and 9
California Avenue areas.
Funding alternatives to driving and parking. Funding new parking structures from general tax
money is regressive in nature including the current favorites, increased hotel and real estate
transfer taxes. In the words of Donald Shoup, Research Professor in the Department of Urban
Planning at UCLA, “A city where everyone happily pays for everyone else’s free parking is a
fool’s paradise” .
10
The less costly alternatives to the garages give Palo Alto more funding options that more
effectively target the beneficiaries of such services, for example:
● Instituting a business tax. Palo Alto is one of the few cities in the region that don’t collect
this tax.
● Institute a district tax for each business district to help pay for transportation services
The garage projects run counter to our official community transportation development
plans. The Comp and Sustainability Implementation Plans (CP and SIP) reflect years of
consensus building effort with city leadership, staff and community members. They direct us to
responsibly invest public funds in efficient and flexible alternative transportation modes and
services that lower costs and bring other quality of life, productivity and economic benefits. They
recognize the hidden cost of public parking and the trends that are moving us away from a
car-centric infrastructure. We should accept their challenge to find more intelligent and effective
ways to improve our transportation services than building public parking facilities.
In conclusion, we believe that both garage projects are probably unnecessary and a waste of
money and real estate. We recommend that the City Council at least delay these projects and
9 http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Electrification/PCEP+Fact+Sheet+Nov+2017.pdf
10 https://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2016/cutting-the-cost-of-parking-requirements/
call for a more complete analysis of the costs and benefits of cancelling them in light of the
much more promising and beneficial alternatives at hand.
Sincerely,
Carbon Free Palo Alto
Lisa Altieri
Bret Andersen
David Coale
Bruce Hodge
Walt Hayes
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 I City Clerk's Office I 6/11/2018 11:46 AM
Carnahan, David
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom It May Concern:
Fickett, Bob <Bob.Fickett@cpii.com>
Friday, June 08, 2018 6:24 AM
Council, City
Office Reduction Initiative
Communications & Power Industi·ies (CPI) has been an active and dedicated employer in Palo Alto for more
than 65 years, first as Varian Associates and now as CPI. During this time, we have benefited from a
supportive atmosphere that has allowed our business to thrive; we cunently have approximately 500 employees
in Palo Alto and generate approximately $500 million in revenue serving government and commercial
customers. This is where our company started and we have always been proud to call ourselves a Palo Alto
company because Palo Alto has always been a city that supports innovation.
As a sizeable employer, it is important to us that the City remains a place that welcomes business and
innovation, where companies can grow and evolve to best meet the needs of their customers. We are concerned
about the new anti-growth, anti-business initiative proposed by some residents. It bypasses the official,
deliberate planning process that the City Council, the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Citizens
Adviso1y Committee, and hundreds of representatives from the residential and business communities used to
develop the Comprehensive Plan over the past 10 years. It disregards their work and careful planning in favor
of an ad hoc, reactionaiy ballot box approach that offers no real solutions to the issues facing the entire Bay
Area.
If the initiative passes, it will create a hostile business enviromnent that will impact both cun ent and prospective
employers in Palo Alto. New businesses will not move into the City, and cun ent businesses will be forced to
move out of Palo Alto in order to continue to grow. This will sti·ip the City of revenue and prestige. This
initiative is bad for business and it is bad for Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Bob Fickett
President and Chief Executive Officer
Communications & Power Industi·ies
This message, including any attachments, may include privileged,
confidential and/or inside info1mation. Any disti·ibution or use of this
communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you ai·e not the inte¥ded recipient,
please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:41 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 5:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:June 11 Meeting — Agenda Item 12
Attachments:Initiative Measure June 11 Letter.docx
Please see attached. Thank you, sheri
City Council June 11 Meeting — Agenda Item 12
Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members,
At its June 7 meeting, PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) voted to request Council to:
1. Accept the City Clerk’s Certificate of Sufficiency of the Initiative Petition to Reduce the Office/R&D
Development Cap (“Initiative Measure”); and
2. Approve an ordinance (on first reading) amending the Comprehensive Plan and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as proposed by the Initiative Measure, reduce the cumulative cap
on office/R&D development to 850,000 square feet, and direct staff to place the ordinance on a future Council agenda for final adoption (second reading) by August 10, 2018; or
3. Direct staff to return at a later meeting in June 2018 with a resolution calling for an election to
submit the Initiative Measure to the voters at the next General Municipal Election to be held on November 6, 2018.
We also voted to request Council NOT to prepare a City-sponsored ballot measure to compete with
the citizens' Initiative Petition measure.
The Staff Report indicates the potential that future office/R&D conversions would mean that the
Initiative Measure will not have a significant impact to the City. Under that scenario, the City Council
should either place the Initiative Measure on the November 6, 2018 ballot or approve an ordinance putting into effect the Initiative Measure.
However, the Staff Report contemplates the scenario in which there are fewer office/R&D conversions
or the Stanford Research Park sees increased development, in which case the 850,000 square foot limit would be reached prior to 2030. It is this scenario the Council chose as the preferred growth
scenario. On March 20, 2017, in the Council's consideration of the Comprehensive Plan growth
scenarios for the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Council chose a non-residential square footage increase of 1.7 million square feet (not counting 1.3 million square feet already approved at
the Stanford University Medical Center) and estimated employment growth of 9,850 and 11,500 jobs, all to occur by 2030.
The proposed 2018 Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) includes "Construction of up to 2.275 million
net new square feet of academic and academic support space.” The cumulative impacts of Stanford’s proposed growth with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Preferred Growth Scenario represents an
intolerable increase in intensity in Palo Alto’s sphere of influence.
We note that as traffic approaches saturation, delay increases exponentially. Under any scenario, more jobs adds more traffic, as not all of the new employees will take transit, bicycle or carpool.
Indeed, the current drive-alone rate for Palo Alto workers is over 2/3. We further note that Palo Alto
housing prices and rents have increased dramatically in the last decade. Excessive growth in jobs will exacerbate both these trends.
These are but a few of the reasons we request that the City Council either allow an up or down vote
by the voters of Palo Alto on the Initiative Measure without any competing measure also on the ballot, or that the City Council approve an ordinance as proposed by the citizens' Initiative Measure.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Sanders, Co-Chair PAN
Sheri Furman, Co-Chair PAN
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:41 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:jaclyn schrier <jaclyn@schrier.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 5:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Reduce Office/R&D Cumulative Cap
Palo Alto City Council Members:
During the June 11 meeting, please adopt the initiative measure to reduce the office/R&D cumulative cap as written.
Over-development of office space, resulting in a 3:1 jobs/housing imbalance, has led to severely diminished quality of life for citizens
in terms of living costs, traffic jams, etc.
The only additional offices we need in Palo Alto would accommodate resident-serving professionals, such as therapists, etc., many of whom have been displaced from their former facilities by high-bidding software firms.
Converting existing office space to housing would better position our city for a healthy future. Please do not continue to add R&D
space which our infrastructure cannot support.
Thank you.
jaclyn schrier 427 Alma Street #307
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 7:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Adopt or Strengthen the initiative to curb office growth.
Do NOT weaken it as is the custom of the City Council. Adopt the
measure or better yet, strengthen it. The number of people I spoke to while collecting signatures for this petition who
want a TOTAL ban on new office construction was significant.
Only 30% of Palo Altans give the city a positive rating any more. You had a 20% drop last year. Enough with destroying
the city to suit your backers.
I'm not sure if I'll attend in person because I hate wasting 5 hours watching the city council play games but rest assured
that I ‐‐ and many others ‐‐ will be watching you on tv/cable to make sure you're acting FOR the community and
residents who supported this initiative. not for the developers.
Most sincerely,
Jo Ann Mandinach
1699 Middlefield 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 | 6/11/2018 1:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 11:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda item 12
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
I cannot attend tonight’s Council meeting. I am writing to urge you to adopt the initiative to limit office development in
Palo Alto. Please note that 3000 people have spoken in favor of this initiative. Please support residents’ wish to maintain
a decent quality of life which is being continually eroded by increasing traffic and congestion in the city.
Sincerely,
Beth Rosenthal, Ph.D.
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:46 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org>
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 8:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Initiative to Reduce Office/R&D Cap
Council Members:
I support placing the initiative on the November, 2018 ballot without an alternative measure from Council. Let's get
simple and clear direction from the voters on this issue.
Best regards,
Allen Akin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 3:40 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 3:04 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:June 11, 2018, Council Meeting, Item #12: Reduced Office/R&D Development Cap
Initiative Petition
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
June 11, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
JUNE 11, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #12
REDUCED OFFICE/R&D DEVELOPMENT CAP INITIATIVE PETITION
Dear City Council:
I urge you to adopt the Initiative Petition tonight as an Ordinance
without alteration.
When you adopt the language of the petition you will be adopting the
correct Ordaining Clause as required by Palo Alto Charter Article III,
Section 14 and by Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.290: "The people
of the City of Palo Alto do ordain as follows".
Examples of initiative petitions adopted by the City Council with the
correct ordaining clause include Ordinance No. 3201 in 1980 that dedicated
as parkland Downtown Park North (now Edith Eugenie Johnson Park) and
Ordinance No. 3440 in 1983 that adopted the Jobs with Peace initiative
petition.
The 1983 Council action occurred in a situation similar to tonight when a
closely divided Council had to make a decision about whether to adopt
an initiative ordinance or to place the ordinance on the ballot in
November of the same year when there was a City Council election.
The swing vote on the issue in 1983 was a Council Member who was not a
candidate in that November election.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb BorockHe
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 3:59 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Leora Tanjuatco <leora.tanjuatco@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 3:58 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Please analyze PASZ initative
Dear Mayor Kniss and Palo Alto city council members, I write to ask you to order an analysis of the cap on office space that PASZ has championed. I don't necessarily want to see more office space in Palo Alto, but I really don't believe in ballot box zoning. The Comp Plan represents a
significant investment from the City and the community, and I don't think it should be undermined with a ballot measure. There were
multiple opportunities for all residents to comment on the Comp Plan, but only a handful of people were involving in drafting the ballot
measure.
Please conduct an analysis so that everyone can understand the impacts of the proposed ballot measure.
Many thanks, Leora Tanjuatco Ross 215 El Verano Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 6:34 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Paedon, Jennifer L <jennifer.l.paedon@lmco.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 4:21 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Rice, Joe; Clerk, City
Subject:Lockheed Martin's Comments re: Comp Plan Initiative (6/11/18 Agenda Item #12)
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council:
Lockheed Martin is proud to be one of the founding tenants in the Stanford Research Park. We contributed to
establishing the Park, which helped launch the City of Palo Alto as a research and technology hub. We appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns regarding the proposed ballot initiative to reduce the growth cap of 1.7million square feet currently allowed in the City’s approved Comprehensive Plan to 850,000 square feet.
Lockheed Martin is continually upgrading and renovating our facilities, and from a long-range planning
perspective, it is important for Lockheed Martin to know our capacity to develop at our Palo Alto facility. A reduction in the growth square footage would add uncertainty to our planning activities and could delay futureexpansions, not allowing us to meet internal timelines and serving as a deterrent to adding investment and
capabilities to our campus.
We understand concerns regarding traffic congestion in the City and for decades have maintained a robusttransportation demand management (TDM) program to assist our employees to use commute options to workincluding carpooling, transit and telecommuting. Over the past couple of years, we have actively engaged in the
Stanford Research Park’s Transportation Management Association (TMA) to collaboratively and successfully
address traffic congestion in the City. The TMA has seen great success to date in reducing the number of vehicle
trips to SRP and we are proud to be a part of this effort. From a process perspective, we also have concerns regarding the placement of this initiative on the ballot. The
City of Palo Alto last year approved the Comprehensive Plan after many years of extensive outreach and
discussions with numerous stakeholders, including residents and business, which resulted in a well-developed
plan that satisfactorily addressed the respective concerns. We are concerned that the proposed initiative, if passed, would negate the hard work and efforts put in by city staff, multiple Councils and stakeholders.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share our concerns.
Jennifer Paedon
Lockheed Martin Space
California Government Relations
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 6:35 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tiffany Griego <tgriego@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 4:40 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Jean McCown; Jean G. Snider; Lucy W. Wicks; Shweta Bhatnagar
Subject:Stanford Research park Letter re: Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D Development Cap
Initiative
Attachments:2018-06-11__Stanford Research Park Comment Letter on Initiative - Stanford
University.pdf
Importance:High
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council:
Stanford University and the innovative companies that choose to locate in Stanford Research Park care deeply about the
future of Palo Alto. We believe the “Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D Development Cap Initiative” will compromise Palo Alto’s ability to support the business community, which will undermine the long-term economic stability in our City. We
are concerned about the unintended negative fiscal impacts to the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District,
in particular. Please take the time to conduct proper fiscal impact research on the Initiative. A proper fiscal analysis willhelp empower the community with transparent information about the value of the Stanford Research Park businesses.
Thank you, Tiffany Griego
Tiffany Griego
Managing Director, Asset Management
Stanford Real Estate
Take advantage of our transportation programs:
www.SRPgo.com, a service of Stanford Research Park
Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council June 7, 2018
City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Comments on Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D Development Cap Initiative
Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council: Stanford University and the innovative companies that choose to locate in Stanford Research Park (SRP) care
deeply about the future of Palo Alto. We believe the “Palo Alto Reduced Office/R&D Development Cap Initiative” will compromise Palo Alto’s ability to support the business community, which will undermine the
long-term economic stability in our City. We are concerned about the unintended negative fiscal impacts to
the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District, in particular.
SRP Contributes to Palo Alto’s Quality of Life
It should not be a surprise that Stanford Research Park is a major source of economic vitality for the
Palo Alto community, Santa Clara County, the Bay Area and the State of California. It has taken 67 years for Stanford Research Park to evolve to be such a
productive economic asset for Palo Alto, and we believe this value can be eroded quite quickly.
Through the payment of property taxes, documentary transfer taxes, utility users tax, and “point of sale” taxes resulting from business-to-business sales,
businesses in Stanford Research Park directly contribute to the delivery of valuable services and
infrastructure investments in Palo Alto. In 2016, SRP
contributed $7.6 million in direct taxes to the City.
Additionally, the data provided in the 2015 Fiscal
Analysis conducted by the City of Palo Alto indicated that employees and visitors in SRP generated $292
million in direct retail spending in Palo Alto, and SRP businesses generated $226 million in direct spending with Palo Alto vendors. This spending activity
generated an additional $8.7 million in direct sales and transient occupancy taxes in Palo Alto.
Combined, the $16.3 million in taxes paid to Palo Alto’s General Fund funded 10% of Palo Alto’s 2016 annual expenses – enough to cover the entire Library, Human Resources, City Manager and City Clerk line items, or 57% of Community Services, or 29% of Palo Alto’s Public Safety department. Stanford Research Park
employees, businesses and visitors contribute significantly to Palo Alto’s quality of life.
Growth Trends vs. Property Tax Trends In SRP, growth has been paced extremely well. It has taken 67 years since the founding of Stanford Research Park in 1951 to reach 90% of the total allowable size under the current zoning. Twenty years ago, from 1994 to 2003, the Research Park grew an average of 71,000 square feet per year. Over the past 15 years, Stanford
Research Park has grown an average of 14,200 square feet per year – a modest average rate of 0.2% year-over-
year. However, actual growth is lumpy. For example, in 2011, 2012 and 2013, projects added 35,000 square feet, 26,745 square feet and 49,000 square feet, respectively. In many years, the growth has been zero. Often,
the new buildings you see in Stanford Research Park are replacement projects or Mayfield development agreement projects, in which no net new square footage was added. A discrete and small amount of square feet remains under current zoning – 8% of the 700-acre Research Park remains to be built out.
Despite a variable growth rate, total tax revenues from SRP have increased 6.2% year-over-year. The growth
in property tax revenues is not directly correlated with square footage expansion, but is more the result of the consistent reinvestment and increases in assessed values from this investment.
Confidence Underpins Local Palo Alto Economy, Until Recently Confidence in Palo Alto…Businesses need to have confidence to locate and invest in Palo Alto, and that
confidence comes from the City’s stable, predictable land use policies to date. However, our businesses tell
us that development caps, downzoning, and other mechanisms designed to curtail growth in Palo Alto erode confidence and reduce demand. SRP businesses tell us their needs can evolve quickly, and when they do, we
must be able to grow within a clear, predictable, consistent and objective set of City rules and parameters. Businesses come to Palo Alto because they believe the City will permit future improvements and expansion
to their facilities (up to the maximum allowed under zoning) so that they can remain competitive in their respective industries. For a company to decide to locate in Palo Alto, their leaders need predictability and flexibility to grow and/or contract within existing space, repurpose existing space to meet evolving business
needs, or “exit” space by sub-leasing excess space to another entity. If businesses lose faith that Palo Alto will support their success and allow expansion under zoning, they will stop coming to Palo Alto.
Competition for a lower 850,000 square foot cap would limit the predictability for expansion as business
needs evolve. This in turn will erode demand for space in Stanford Research Park, impacting property values and tax revenues of all types. Vacancy has climbed 6 percentage points in the last year alone, and while it is too soon to see an impact to taxes yet, a sustained reduction in demand will affect the local economy. The
fact is when Stanford Research Park does well – when high-quality space is in high demand and vacancy is low – the Palo Alto community does well.
Commitment to Reduce Local Traffic Congestion We encourage Palo Alto to carefully design solutions to fit the problem. For example, there is community concern about traffic. However, the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association (SRP
TMA) is a model for providing valuable mobility options that reduce traffic congestion and make it easier for employees to get to and from the Research Park. The SRP TMA offers trip planning (www.srpgo.com), VTA
Smart Passes, free Caltrain Shuttle Service, long distance commuter bus options, an enhanced Guaranteed
Ride Program, free Zipcar registration, Scoop Carpool subsidies, on-site bike repairs and cycling clinics, on-going prizes and rewards, and more. SRP businesses are demonstrating commitment to providing alternative
transportation options to their employees and to addressing regional and local traffic congestion. In March
2017, our TMA reported a drive-alone rate of 68%, which is nearly 10% lower than the County average and down 5% from the SRP’s drive-alone rate in 2016. We have every intention to continue this robust effort.
Request for Fiscal Analysis Please take the time to conduct proper fiscal impact research on the Initiative, including engagement with the
valued businesses in the Research Park. Please help empower the community with transparent information about the value of the SRP businesses. We hope to work together to avoid actions that could inadvertently and unnecessarily endanger the economic health and vitality of Palo Alto and our community.
Respectfully submitted,
Tiffany Griego Jean McCown
Managing Director Associate Vice President
Stanford Research Park Government & Community Relations Stanford Real Estate Office of Public Affairs
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 6:35 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Zareen's Restaurant <zareensrestaurant@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 5:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Political Action Committee
Respected Council Members:
My name is Zareen and I own a small restaurant on Cal Ave.
We offer healthy affordable food to our guests but it is a challenge to be profitable in Palo Alto given the high
rents and the premium required to attract reliable staff - most don’t live in the vicinity.
60-70 percent of our revenue is from our corporate customers and I am afraid of the repercussions of an initiate
which restricts or reduces offices in the area. It might force us to consider moving to nearby area like RWC
which has shown commitment to its local businesses.
I am urging the committee to conduct an in-depth analysis before implementing any initiate that may be
detrimental to its local Businesses.
Thank you
Zareen Khan
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 6:36 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 5:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Initiative and Roundabouts
To the Palo Alto City Council,
I urge you to put the initiative on limiting growth back to the historic level on the
ballot. As we can all see, and experience, the historic level has already caused many
problems that we have not solved.
I see we have a meeting tomorrow at Mitchell Park on the roundabouts, which may work
well
in a large city, and in Europe, but do not in Palo Alto. Listen to the residents of Ross Rd.
and
anyone else who uses, our used to use it. Plus 8.6 million dollars? When P. A. is in a
financial
crunch. Use that money for people, again for a place for the motor homes, and cars to
park
that is safe, with showers etc. Now that would really help people who work here, that
cannot
afford to live here or commute home.
Thank you for responding to these issues positively.
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
Palo Alto, 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:gail st. john <gailstjohn@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members~
As a Palo Alto resident, Stanford Health Care employee, & long-time PAMF patient, I'm writing to encourage
you to not allow the Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative onto the ballot in November.
It is shameful that the SEIU-UHW would present & promote a misleading initiative in order to pressure SHC
into allowing the union to expand its membership to include our employees. Despite being promoted as a measure to reduce patients' healthcare costs, nowhere in the text of the initiative does it say that the payer (i.e.
insurance companies) would be required to pass the proposed rebates onto the consumer by refunding any part
of their coinsurance or deductible.
While SEIU-UHW is targeting SHC by bring this initiative to four other cities that are home to SHC clinics (Emeryville, Livermore, Pleasanton, & Redwood City), the end result would bring the most harm SHC
employees via staff reductions/layoffs as well as smaller community providers owners who may have to close
or relocate their practices because they cannot afford to keep their doors open. This will ultimately compromise
not only Palo Alto residents' access to care, but all who live or work in the Bay Area due to shortened operating
hours hours & reduced services.
Palo Alto prides itself in not only being a beautiful place to live, but a home to thoughtful & progressive
innovation- an image which is bolstered by a close relationship with the Stanford brand. I sincerely hope that
you put a stop to this madness before it wreaks havoc our community.
Thank you.
~Gail St. John
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Alexandria Felton <afelton@svlg.org>
Sent:Friday, June 08, 2018 8:01 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:6/11 Palo Alto City Council Meeting: Item #2 – Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable
Health Care Initiative Letter
Attachments:SVLG_Letter -PaloAltoHealthInitiative-Oppose.pdf
Good morning Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Alexandria Felton and I am the Sr. Director of Health Policy at the Silicon Valley Leadership
Group.
On behalf of the Leadership Group, please find a letter attached regarding our opposition of the Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative that will be discussed at next Monday's Council hearing.
Thank you for your leadership and the consideration of our position.
Take care, Alexandria
Alexandria Felton
Sr. Director, Health Policy Silicon Valley Leadership Group
(408) 501-7874 | afelton@svlg.org
www.svlg.org
2001 Ga&eway Pl<lC*, Suite 101E
San Joee. COllifomia 95110
('°81S01-l118h"g.org
CARl GUMDINO
President&CEO
Bo•d Olfioen:
STEVE Jll.LJGAN. Chair
Wes1ern0i;talc.orporation
JAMES GUTIERREZ. l/ico Char -RAQl.Et. GONZAl.EZ.. Treaswer
BaikofAmerica
GREG BECKER, Former Chair
SV8 FNneial Gro14>
STEVE SERGlUM>, Former Chair
Tftr.-le he.
AART DE. GEUS, Former Chair
5-TOM~. Rinner Cha
s.r.l'owe<
Board Mtmben:
8068YBEU
Kl.A-Tencor
OAIWIET 8EVE1llEY
OomeleyF""""' Sol-.
GEORGE 11U.MEHIHAl
Uriwrsityd Califcll'lia, Saia CNZ
JOHNBOWlO
KQEO
CARIA BORAGNO
G.....udl
CHRISBOIU Kaise<-
JOEBURTCN
Plantrorlics
RAMI BRANITZJ(Y
~v-.
GARY BRIGGS ·-KEVJNCOU.WS -USA a.was
KPMG
CHRISTOl'IER DAWES Lucile Packard
Ch kten"s Hospital Stariord
.ENNY DEARSCIW
SN'
MtCHAEl ENGH, s.J.
Sant>C ... u.;.."'1y
TOMFN.1.0H ........
JOHNGAUOER
Comcast
l<ENG~
Hilspire
DOUG GRAHAM _.._
LAURA GINO
llM
STEFAN HECK -ERIC HOUSER
Weis Fa1938ank
AION<IHJGHES
ARIJP
.EffREY .10/&0N
S..-Choode
TOMKB.IP c.....y
AARIF Kl+\KOO
AMGEN
ERIC l<UTCHER
Mcl(jnsey & c.m,aoy
JOHHLEDEJ(
BO Biosciences
ENRIQUE LORES
HPlnc.
&IATTllNWI
Brigacle
T__.,,MANFR .......
l<EN AICIEEl y
AT&T
BENMNGUCa
Alasb Ai1iles
l<EVWIMJRAI
Symex
MARY PAPAZIAN
San Jose State UWersity ..ES PEDERSEN
WEkorBl.iklers
ANDY PERCE
5")te< Enoloscopy
KlllPO!ESE
ClearStreet
RYAN POPPLE .......
RUDY REYES
Verizon
BllL RUH
GE
SHARONF(YAN
Bay Alea News Gro14>
RONSEGE
E<Mco
DARREN SHEi.i.GROVE
Johnson & J<ilnsoo
.EFF 1'«JMAS
Nasdaq
./EDYORK
S~ F r<Wisco 49ers
E•bbliehed in 1918 by
OavidPacbrd
June 8, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative -OPPOSE
Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members,
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group is wilting to express its opposition to the Palo Alto
Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative. While the Leadership Group recognizes the
need for solutions that address the Iising costs of health care, we are concerned that the
initiative would place an undue burden on Palo Alto city staff and shift costs to city taxpayers,
all while falling short of delive1ing on the prolnise to lhnit plices charged to patients.
The Silicon Valley Leadership Group was founded in 1978 by David Packard ofHewlett-
Packard, represents nearly 400 of Silicon Valley's most respected employers in issues,
programs, and campaigns that affect the econo1nic quality of life in Silicon Valley; including
energy, transpo1tation, education, housing, health care, tax, and environmental policy.
Collectively, Leadership Group members provide nearly one out of eve1y three pdvate sector
jobs in Silicon Valley.
Navigating the complexities of health care payment and reimbursement is a complicated
process. We are concerned that without the expe1tise or personnel to regulate the proposed
program, Palo Alto taxpayers would bear the cost of building city staff capacity when many
cities are seeking to reduce staff.
The Leadership Group understands the stated intent of the proposed initiative to improve health
care affordability, but simply imposing plicing caps on ce1tain facilities at the city level will not
make the costs in the health care system disappear. Additionally, as the language in the proposal
defines the "Payer" that would receive a rebate as not only the patient, but also "other
individuals, plimaiy insurers, seconda1y insurers, and other entities," it is unclear how much
savings would be passed on to consumers.
For the reasons outlined in this letter, the Leadership Group opposes the Palo Alto Accountable
and Affordable Health Cai·e Initiative.
Sincerely,
Carl Guardino
President & CEO
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dr. Joshua W. Knowles <knowlej@stanford.edu>
Sent:Saturday, June 09, 2018 11:40 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ballot Measure Opposition
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to add my voice to those opposed to the ballot initiative under discussion for November that allegedly is meant to control health care costs in our community.
I believe that this initiative, developed and promoted by Service Employees International Union-United
Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), would do the opposite and actually put Palo Alto's entire health care
system at risk - including Stanford Health Care. This initiative will significantly impact SHC and the world-class health care we provide. We must make it clear that the SHC community will not let others impact our ability to care for our community and patients. SHC provides care to the some of the most complex cases in the world and delivers high quality health care a
large number of vulnerable and underinsured populations.
The ballot initiative is misguided and could have catastrophic effects.
Thank you
Joshua W. Knowles, MD-PhD
Assistant Professor, Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University
Attending Physician, Stanford Center for Inherited Cardiovascular Disease, Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH) Clinic
Associate Program Director, Stanford Cardiovascular Medicine Fellowship Program
Co-director, Stanford Translational Investigator Program
Cardiovascular Medicine Falk CVRC, Room CV273, MC 5406
300 Pasteur Drive
Stanford, CA 94305
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:52 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, June 08, 2018 6:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Reject SEIU Proposed Ballot Initiative Attacking Stanford Healthcare
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Elected Council Members:
I am very opposed to the SEIU-proposed ordinance that would somehow restrict the Stanford Healthcare Center
from operating independently of the City of Palo Alto. Beyond the Stanford identified issues of illegality and
unconstitutionality, one has to wonder just what power does Palo Alto have to sit on top of all businesses where
there pricing is concerned?
Then, there are other issues—such as how in the world is the City of Palo Alto supposed to make any sense out of Stanford’s billing and operational costs? And would not Palo Alto be responsible for all errors that it makes that deprives Stanford from revenues that it is rightfully due it?
It stands to reason that Stanford would be likely to sue Palo Alto at least once a year, tying up the City Attorney’s Office, the City Council and the employees ultimately responsible for performing the work required by the ordinance.
Please see that the SEIU is trying to use the political power of the Palo Alto government to hobble Stanford.
BTW—if the City were to put a lid on Stanford Health Care, then it would only seem reasonable to put a lid on all
nurses’ salaries and benefits.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:48 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Coffaro <jcoffaro@hospitalcouncil.org>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 11:44 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Jo Coffaro
Subject:6/11/18 City Council Agenda - Item #13 - Letter in Opposition
Attachments:Hospital Council_PA Health Care Init_6.11.18.pdf
6/11/2018 City Council Meeting
Item # 13 Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative – Oppose
Good morning,
Please share the attached letter with Mayor Kniss and the City Council Members.
Thank you,
Jo Coffaro
Regional Vice President
Email I jcoffaro@hospitalcouncil.org
Office I 408‐412‐8882
Hospital Council of Northern and Central California
360 Dardanelli Lane, Suite 1B I Los Gatos, CA 95032
www.hospitalcouncil.org
Regional Office 360 Dardanelli Lane, Suite 1B Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-412-8882 www.hospitalcouncil.org
June 11, 2018
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: Item #13 Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative - Oppose
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members:
The Hospital Council of Northern and Central California is a local advocacy organization representing all
hospitals from Kern County to the Oregon border. I am the Regional Vice President for the South Bay
Area and Santa Clara County is under my responsibility.
We are writing to express our opposition to the Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care
Initiative. The initiative will not achieve its goal of reducing health care costs and it will increase
administrative costs to health care providers, the City, and its taxpayers.
The Palo Alto Accountable and Affordable Health Care Initiative is trying to simplify a complex
reimbursement system that is difficult to navigate. The initiative will have a cascading effect not only on
hospitals, but all health care providers, such as dentists, medical clinics, optometrists and other
specialists. The initiative may result in the negative effects of reduced services or causing providers to
move outside the city limits. The initiative will be a burden to the residents and taxpayers of the City of
Palo Alto, requiring the city to fund a new department outside the scope of City services.
The Hospital Council understands the City Council’s legal requirements regarding the initiative process.
We hope you will choose to conduct a fiscal impact study to educate voters of the initiative’s impact to
the City and its taxpayers.
Sincerely,
Jo Coffaro
Regional Vice President
Hospital Council of Northern and Central California
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 6:37 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Luo, Jian <JLuo@stanfordhealthcare.org>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 4:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Oppose for "PALO ALTO ACCOUNTABLE AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE INITIATIVE"
Importance:High
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
My name is Jian Luo and I am a Nurse Informaticist and US citizen. I am writing to you to share my opposition of the
union‐sponsored ballot initiative ‐ "PALO ALTO ACCOUNTABLE AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE INITIATIVE".
This initiative allegedly is meant to control health care costs in our community. In reality, it would do the opposite and
actually put Palo Alto's entire health care system at risk. There is nothing in the proposed ballot measure actually
addresses health care quality, safety, or anything related to patient care. I am deeply concerned that the impact of this
measure on our day‐to‐day operations and the significant consequences for other Palo Alto providers would negatively
affect patients' access to care.
Thank you and appreciate your consideration of a healthcare professional’s voice.
Jian Luo, MSN, RN‐BC
Clinical Informaticist – Epic Ambulatory
Information Technology Services, Stanford Health Care
O: 650‐723‐1018
E: JLuo@stanfordhealthcare.org
Confidential Information: This communication and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information for the use by the designated recipient(s)
named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure,
dissemination, distribution or copying of it or the attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact me and destroy
all copies of the communication and attachments. Thank you.
1
Minor, Beth
From:Ng, Judy
Sent:Friday, June 08, 2018 11:03 AM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Minor, Beth; Lait,
Jonathan; Dueker, Kenneth; Sartor, Mike; Eggleston, Brad
Subject:6/11 Council Agenda Questions for Items 4, 5, & 8
Attachments:RFP 168151 Mobile Wireless B1.pdf
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 11, 2018 council meeting agenda.
Item 4: SUMC Annual Report 2016‐2017 – CM Tanaka
Item 5: OES Network & Wireless Consulting Contract – CM Tanaka
Item 8: Finding California Avenue Parking Garage Substantially Complex – CM Tanaka
Item 4: SUMC Annual Report 2016‐2017 – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. Were there any activities/construction work not fulfilled when scheduled?
A. 1. No. Some timeframes were extended through mutual agreement between the parties
as permitted in the Development Agreement.
Q. 2. Did SUMC not comply with any agreement obligations?
A. 2. SUMC has complied with all agreement obligations.
Q. 3. Have the funds solely been used for SUMC projects?
A. 3. No, the funds are not intended to be used SUMC projects. Section 5 of the
Development Agreement outlines how the funds may be used. The funds have been
transferred per Council direction in accordance with the Development Agreement. Project
Safety Net is an example of a non‐SUMC program that received transfers from the
Community Health and Safety Program Fund, which is mentioned explicitly in the
Development Agreement as permissible.
Item 5: OES Network & Wireless Consulting Contract – CM Tanaka
2
Q. 1. Why is an additional 30% increase per year necessary for this contract?
A. 1. Brad Horak, a Palo Alto resident, has been a consultant to the City's Office of
Emergency Services since April 2016. The scope of his work includes a number of projects
that are designed to improve the City's ability to provide public safety and other core
services effectively, even in the aftermath of a major earthquake or other disaster.
One major project to support that goal is the deployment of a solar‐powered resilient
wireless network for use by public safety, public works, utilities, and other City staff as well
as the roughly 800 Emergency Services Volunteers (ESVs) serving our community
(https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/emergencyvolunteers). The City issued an RFP (enclosed:
#168151: "Public Safety Wireless Mobile Network") but received zero bids. OES is now
looking at a research partnership with a non‐commercial entity to help implement this
network. Mr. Horak's skills are needed to ensure the City's needs are properly represented
through that process.
Mr. Horak will also be involved in providing technical input regarding certain fiber,
microwave, satellite, and other telecommunications systems for the new Public Safety
Building (PSB) and certain infrastructure related to that project.
To clarify: This is a one‐time request to use existing funds (no new budget requested) to add
$40,000 to the existing $60,000 contract and extend the performance period by two years
(not a 30% per year increase.)
Ref. Staff Report for June 11 Consent:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=49170.15&BlobID=65296
Item 8: Finding California Avenue Parking Garage Substantially Complex – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. Why does the California Avenue parking garage warrant a higher retention value? Is this
related to a digging underground/groundwater impact concern?
A. 1. As described in the staff report, construction of the garage involves a cut‐off wall to
limit groundwater impact, cast‐in‐place post‐tensioned structural concrete, provisions for an
integrated solar canopy, and a signature grand stairway along Birch Street. Coordination of
a number of subcontracted specialties will be required, and the project uses the entire
parcel, increasing the challenge of maintaining right‐of‐way access in a heavily used business
district. The underground levels and cut‐off wall to minimize dewatering are significant
contributors to the complexity of the project.
Thank you,
Judy Ng
Judy Ng
City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329‐2105
Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org
Office of Emergency Services
Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 168151
for Professional Services
Title: Public Safety Wireless Mobile Network
Pre-proposal Teleconference: 1:30 pm
Thursday, December 7, 2017
RFP submittal deadline: 3:00 pm
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Contract Administrator: Carolynn Bissett
Email: carolynn.bissett@cityofpaloalto.org
CITY OF PALO ALTO PURCHASING/CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 250 HAMILTON AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94301 (650) 329-2271
1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 168151 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
TITLE: Public Safety Wireless Mobile Network
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Palo Alto is seeking proposals from qualified firms to provide
professional services to design and build a wireless mobile network for Public
Safety. The required services and performance conditions are described in the Scope of Work (or Services). The City has budgeted a maximum of $200,000 for these services in the 2017/2018 Fiscal Year.
2. ATTACHMENTS
The attachments below are included with this Request for Proposals (RFP) for your review and submittal (see asterisk):
Attachment A – Proposer’s Information Form*
Attachment B – Scope of Work/Services Attachment C – Sample Agreement for Professional Services Attachment D – Sample Table, Qualifications of Firm Relative to City’s Needs
Attachment E – Cost Proposal Format
Attachment F – Insurance Requirement
Attachment G – Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA) required from finalist Attachment H – IT Info Vendor Information Security Assessment (VISA) Attachment I – Palo Alto Wireless Network Plan
The items identified with an asterisk (*) shall be filled out, signed by the appropriate representative of the company and returned with submittal.
3. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS
3.1 Pre-proposal Teleconference – non-mandatory A non-mandatory pre-proposal teleconference will be held Thursday,
December 7, 2017 at 1:30 pm. In order to participate in the
teleconference, please call 1-877-336-1831 using Access Code 5301570.
All prospective Proposers are strongly encouraged to participate in the teleconference.
3.2 Examination of Proposal Documents
The submission of a proposal shall be deemed a representation and certification by the Proposer that they:
2
3.2.1 Have carefully read and fully understand the information that was
provided by the City to serve as the basis for submission of this
proposal.
3.2.2 Have the capability to successfully undertake and complete the responsibilities and obligations of the proposal being submitted. 3.2.3 Represent that all information contained in the proposal is true and
correct.
3.2.4 Did not, in any way, collude, conspire to agree, directly or indirectly,
with any person, firm, corporation or other Proposer in regard to the amount, terms or conditions of this proposal. 3.2.5 Acknowledge that the City has the right to make any inquiry it
deems appropriate to substantiate or supplement information
supplied by Proposer, and Proposer hereby grants the City
permission to make these inquiries, and to provide any and all related documentation in a timely manner.
No request for modification of the proposal shall be considered after its
submission on grounds that Proposer was not fully informed to any fact or
condition. 3.3 Addenda/Clarifications
Should discrepancies or omissions be found in this RFP or should there
be a need to clarify this RFP, questions or comments regarding this RFP must be emailed and received by the City no later than 1:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 13, 2017.
Correspondence shall be emailed to the Contract Administrator,
carolynn.bissett@cityofpaloalto.org and to Todd.Henderson@cityofpaloalto.org. Responses from the City will be communicated through the City’s eprocurement system to all recipients of
this RFP via Proposal addendum. Inquiries received after the date and
time stated will not be accepted. All addenda shall become a part of this
RFP and shall be acknowledged on the Proposer’s submittal. The City shall not be responsible for nor be bound by any oral instructions,
interpretations or explanations issued by the City or its representatives.
3.4 Submission of Proposals
3
All proposals shall be submitted electronically through the City’s electronic procurement system – Planet Bids.
https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569
Proposals must be received by no later than 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
December 19, 2017.
The eprocurement system will not accept any proposals after the specified
close time.
3.5 Withdrawal of Proposals
A Proposer may withdraw its proposal at any time before the expiration of
the time for submission of proposals as provided in the RFP by entering the e-procurement system and selecting to withdraw the proposal.
3.6 Rights of the City of Palo Alto
This RFP does not commit the City to enter into a contract, nor does it obligate the City to pay for any costs incurred in preparation and submission of proposals or in anticipation of a contract. The City reserves
the right to:
• Make the selection based on its sole discretion;
• Reject any and all proposals;
• Issue subsequent Requests for Proposals;
• Postpone opening for its own convenience;
• Remedy technical errors in the Request for Proposals process;
• Approve or disapprove the use of particular subconsultants;
• Negotiate with any, all or none of the Proposers;
• Accept other than the lowest offer;
• Waive informalities and irregularities in the Proposals and/or
• Enter into an agreement with another Proposer in the event the
originally selected Proposer defaults or fails to execute an agreement
with the City.
An agreement shall not be binding or valid with the City unless and until it is
executed by authorized representatives of the City and of the Proposer.
4. PROPOSED TENTATIVE TIMELINE
4
The tentative RFP timeline is as follows:
RFP Issued Nov. 30
Pre-Proposal Teleconference Dec. 7 at 1:30 pm
Deadline for questions, clarifications Dec. 13 by 1:00 pm
Proposals Due Dec 19 by 3:00 p.m
Finalist Identified Mid-January 2018
Consultant Interviews TBD
Consultant selection and contract preparation February 2018
Contract awarded March 2018
Work commences April 2018
5. INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED (to be submitted in this order only)
These instructions outline the guidelines governing the format and content of the proposal and the approach to be used in its development and presentation. The
intent of the RFP is to encourage responses that clearly communicate the
Proposer’s understanding of the City’s requirements and its approach to
successfully provide the products and/or services on time and within budget. Only that information which is essential to an understanding and evaluation of the
proposal should be submitted. Items not specifically and explicitly related to the
RFP and proposal, e.g. brochures, marketing material, etc. will not be considered
in the evaluation.
All proposals shall address the following items in the order listed below and shall
be numbered 1 through 8 in the proposal document.
5.1 Chapter 1 – Proposal Summary
This Chapter shall discuss the highlights, key features and distinguishing
points of the Proposal. A separate sheet shall include a list of individuals and
contacts for this Proposal and how to communicate with them. Limit this
Chapter to a total of three (3) pages including the separate sheet.
5.2 Chapter 2 – Profile on the Proposing Firm(s)
This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Prime Proposer’s firm
size as well as the proposed local organization structure. Include a
discussion of the Prime Proposer firm’s financial stability, capacity and resources. Include all other firms participating in the Proposal, including
similar information about the firms.
Additionally, this section shall include a listing of any lawsuit or litigation and
the result of that action resulting form (a) any public project undertaken by the Proposer or by its subcontractors where litigation is still pending or has
5
occurred within the last five years or (b) any type of project where claims or settlements were paid by the consultant or its insurers within the last five
years.
5.3 Chapter 3 – Qualifications of the Firm This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Proposer’s and sub-
Proposer’s qualifications and previous experience on similar or related
projects. Provide in a table format (see Sample Table, Attachment D)
descriptions of pertinent project experience with other public municipalities and private sector that includes a summary of the work performed, the total project cost, the percentage of work the firm was responsible for, the period
over which the work was completed, and the name, title, and phone number
of client’s to be contacted for references. Give a brief statement of the firm’s
adherence to the schedule and budget for the project. This chapter shall include information regarding any relationships with firms
and/or individuals who may submit proposals in response to the RFPs being
developed.
5.4 Chapter 4 – Work Plan or Proposal
This Chapter shall present a well-conceived service plan. Include a full
description of major tasks and subtasks. This section of the proposal shall
establish that the Proposer understands the City’s objectives and work requirements and Proposer’s ability to satisfy those objectives and requirements. Succinctly describe the proposed approach for addressing the
required services and the firm’s ability to meet the City’s schedule, outlining
the approach that would be undertaken in providing the requested services.
5.5 Chapter 5 – Proposed Innovations (Optional)
The Proposer may also suggest technical or procedural innovations that have
been used successfully on other engagements and which may provide the
City with better service delivery. In this Chapter discuss any ideas, innovative approaches, or specific new concepts included in the Proposal that would provide benefit to the City.
5.6 Chapter 6 – Project Staffing
This Chapter shall discuss how the Proposer would propose to staff this project. Key project team members shall be identified by name, title and
specific responsibilities on the project. An organizational chart for the project
team and resumes for key Proposer personnel shall be included. Key
personnel will be an important factor considered by the review committee. Changes in key personnel may be cause for rejection of the proposal.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 05, 2018 11:36 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Corner of Bryant & Everett a mess
I am not sure who approves all ridiculous plans to " traffic calm" but they are bad. Mr Mello is producing all
this "great ideas" which no one seems to like. There has been so many complaints in the south and now the
North. I am a bike rider and I for one do not like to be pushed into cars. What was wrong with the current
intersection? You can't see around the stupid planters. I just don't see the point. What does the council do
about all these expensive plans that have gone bad. Why does this guy still have a job?
Here is another email on Nextdoor‐
I just left a voicemail outlining my concerns of the corner in front of my home. It is a MESS! It blocks the cross walk from
Going across EverettAve. I have to walk around it; I have seen joggers leaping over it. The bags that hold the gravel are broken
and gravel is spilling out, the street sweeper is unable to sweep in front of my home. Last week somehow one of the tubes had
been moved into the street. Who can I email about my concerns since no one answered the City line???? Very frustrated!
Amy Keohane
650‐346‐5306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 05, 2018 4:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:June 12th meeting on NTSBB phase 1
The City Council will be conducting a special study session on June 12th, at which time staff will be presenting
a review of the NTSBB phase1. I will not be able to attend that study session, but wish to send you my
thoughts regarding Staff Report 65305.
I support the establishment of a network of shared paths, bikeways and traffic-calmed streets. A hierarchy of
streets which balances the needs of all users in a safe and appropriate manner is of great value to both residents
and workers traversing Palo Alto roadways. Some streets in our community should be prioritized for bicycle
traffic, just as some are for automobiles.
There are residents who believe that the NTSBB phase1 improvements made on Ross Rd are not safe; though I
do not share their position, I do believe that they raise their concern sincerely and that it may be difficult for you
to allay their concern. The best way for our community to get through this is to slow down, both in our vehicles
and our rhetoric. Please proceed judiciously.
I ask that you re-affirm our long-established goals of creating a sustainable transportation system and reducing
single-occupancy automobile trips.
Thank you for your work maintaining our city infrastructure,
Ken Joye
Ventura neighborhood
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:buixote@gmail.com on behalf of Bill Michel <bmichel@alum.pomona.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, June 06, 2018 7:17 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Middlefield Bike Improvements
Dear Councilmembers,
It's never been clear to me how visible the activities of PABAC have been to the Council, or whether their proceedings are officially recorded. In light of these
questions, I'm copying you on some recent correspondence.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours truly,
Bill Michel
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
June 6, 2018
337 Lowell St.
Redwood City, CA 94062
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
City of Palo Alto
Hello PABAC Members,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 9:54 AM
2
I'm not sure what involvement PABAC has had with the recent changes to Middlefield, and/or whether and to
what degree cyclist input was considered.
I would like to share with you some of my reactions.
The project at Jordan has decreased cyclist safety. The pole in the road NB at the beginning/end of the dual-
flow lane is a collision hazard. Contraflow traffic past driveways on California is dangerous. Conditions for
cyclists travelling Northbound(sic) past the School are degraded; entry and exit to/from the “facility” are awkward.
I'm wondering if this thing conforms to any existing, bona fide design guidelines. I cannot imagine any proper,
safety-conscious design guidelines allowing such a facility.
At the North end of Town, there are also sign posts in the Roadway (SB Middlefield @ Palo Alto Ave.) these are un-necessary, and a clear hazard to cyclists. Better alternatives abound. Shoulder striping is un-necessary,
and tapering the stripe to the curb at intersections provides inappropriate visual cues to both cyclists and
motorists. The stripe should be eliminated and replaced with sharrows. The sidewalk on the East side (between
Palo Alto & Woodland Aves) needs to be widened, collision hazards removed. A curb-cut at the North End should be added. It might also be a good idea to consider a rolled curb, instead of a square one, to permit
“emergency escape” by cyclists.
Yours truly,
Bill Michel
cc: Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 11:19 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:George Jaquette <jaquette@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 06, 2018 10:38 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Stop the construction, insist that the traffic analysis is completed before doing any
more work
Gregory, Tom, Eric, Adrian, Karen, Liz, Lydia, Greg & Cory-
I requested (via the California Public Records Act) the traffic analysis that the city paid Alta Design to do in the design contract. The city cannot produce the data required under contract, and the data that was provided is insufficient to support the design elements built on Ross Road (let alone to justify the cost). Rather than a week of detailed information, there are two days of partial information. There is no analysis of the bike traffic, as specifically called out in the contract, and no count of pedestrians.
Traffic data collection will be conducted by the CONSULT ANT upon approval by CITY, and is anticipated to include:
• Seven days of vehicle speed and classification hose counts along each project route (up to 15 locations)
• Seven days of bicyclist and pedestrian counts using video including information on directionality, for each project, one
count will include approximate information regarding bicyclist type (age, gender, helmet use)‐ (up to 15 locations) ∙
• Where appropriate, intersection peak hour turning movement counts (up to 16 total)
The US Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration published a helpful document called "Roundabouts: An
Informational Guide". That guide has useful insights in Section 4.2 titled "Data Requirements". Knowing the number of vehicles,
bikes, and pedestrians is critical to designing traffic control measures. Alta Design did not collect this information, and obviously
cannot now collect data from the past.
The City of Palo Alto paid Alta Design $400,000 with the express mandate that they collect traffic data and analyze it. Alta Design did NOT collect the required data, and did not analyze it per the contract. The City of Palo Alto should stop all new construction until Alta Design collects the necessary information to justify the changes proposed for other intersections around the city. Changes are planned in front of an elementary school, and adjacent to (for Palo Alto) high density housing on Amarillo, and it is critical that they address this past shortcoming by collecting and analyzing the data that the city paid them to collect and analyze. Given data that was collected by residents living near the intersection of East Meadow and Ross Road and posted online, the
intersection has very high bicycle volume. The only suitable treatment would have been a mini-roundabout, where all islands are
traversable and the lanes should NOT be constricted to either a bicycle or a car -- the design as built has been shown to
increase the danger to bikers. The raised traffic circle should be removed, the bulbouts should be eliminated, and the rolled
curbs should be restored.
The announcement by the city on March 30th that they were re-evaluating all of these design changes turned out to be a misleading promise. Our chief transportation official was hired from Alta Design, and he assembled a group of consultants who make money off of city transportation projects to review the work done by his prior firm. Eight of the thirteen people participating in this review were city employees or Alta Design employees; the questions posed in the recently published analysis reflect the bias towards defending this project ("do you have any concerns...?"). The outside experts spent three hours reviewing a presentation, which does not reflect the rigorous and quantitative review that citizens expect when safety matters are being reviewed. Where was the devil's advocate questioning the whole project? Where was any discussion of accident analysis? Both
went missing.
Here are a few questions that were not asked:
1. The standard for roundabout design in the UK and Canada is for a minimum inscribed circle diameter of 90 feet;
below that, only a mini-roundabout with completely traversable islands would be considered. What justifies the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/6/2018 11:19 AM
2
exceptional design built at East Meadow and Ross Road? "In the UK the minimum size for roundabouts with raised islands is 28 metre diameter ICD with a 4-metre diameter island."
2. An international study on roundabout safety found that smaller roundabouts, and low-speed roundabouts, actually result in an increase in bike-car accidents. Why did we build a small, low-speed roundabout at the intersection of East Meadow and Ross Road?
o "converting intersections to roundabouts reduce the number of accidents and reduce accident severity. But the safety effects for cyclists are not so good. The overall picture is that studies indicate that bicycle safety is worsened when intersections are converted to roundabouts. However, intersection design, roundabout design and other characteristics of converted sites influence safety effects for cyclists and other road users. This influence is considerable and safety effects in Table 1 should not be generalised due to excessive heterogeneity
(Jensen, 2013)." Table 1 shows a 22% increase in bicycle accidents. The increase in bicycle accidents is especially high in lower-speed intersections. Table 2 shows a 109% increase in bicycle accidents for intersections with a speed limit of 25 mph (40 kmh). Last but not least, the report calls out small roundabouts
as dangerous: "Brude and Larsson 1999a find that the accident rate for cyclists is twice as high at small
roundabouts, where the central island including truck aprons is less than 20m, compared to larger roundabouts".
The article is titled: Accident Analysis and Prevention Safe Roundabouts for Cyclists by Soren Underlien
Jensen published September 13, 2016
3. If Alta Design did not collect comprehensive traffic data the city paid for and implemented these major changes, how is the city going to be able to show an improvement in bicycle ridership? What measurements does the city have to reflect an improvement, as anecdotal evidence indicates that riders are avoiding this intersection? 4. We have been unable to find a similar intersection retrofit anywhere in the United States. Can you provide a list of similar designs (under 90-feet ICD, with a 34' raised traffic circle and 15' travel lanes)? We would love to understand
the safety history of these intersections, because our anecdotal experience is that ours is dangerous. Can you point
to similar designs in the US, and can you attest that they have increased safety there?
5. Traffic safety is typically the justification for making this type of significant investment in bulbouts, roundabouts, and
barriers. How many accidents, and what type of accidents, have occurred in the past ten years at each of the
locations where construction has happened and where it has been proposed?
Until Alta Design completes their traffic analysis, the city really should stop implementing these designs. It is clear that many residents oppose the changes, and they may really be dangerous. We do not have the necessary traffic analysis to support the investment nor the design, so we certainly should not rush forward reproducing these changes in other parts of the city. We should consider undoing the changes that have been made, based on our design agency's failure to collect the information required under contract. Alta Design should pay for the restoration of our bike lanes on East Meadow, and should be asked to explain and document why they did not perform to the clear expectations of the City's contract with them. Thank you for your service.
George Jaquette
-- George Jaquette
email: jaquette@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lily Lam <lamily@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 07, 2018 8:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Rd and Amarillo Ave Changes
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING BIKE ROUTE OPTIONS
While my family and I support the city’s effort to build bike boulevards in Palo Alto, we ask that you please reconsider the bike route
design and construction for Ross Road as well as for the roundabout at Amarillo/Greer, and the construction currently underway at Louis/Fielding/Moreno, and Bayshore near Greer Park.
Or at the very least, please ask for more input from community members who actually use these roads before proceeding further.
My family uses Ross Rd and Amarillo/Greer routes daily. And in the spirit of supporting city efforts, we have practiced biking along
the new Ross Rd bike boulevard on Saturday mornings to help our child acclimate to the new Ross Rd bike boulevard.
ROSIE’S ASSISTANCE
We have met your colleague, Rosie, who wears the orange pylon “detour”costume. And she has kindly answered my questions about how to ride and navigate Ross Rd and its roundabout. And I appreciated her kind offer to bike with my child to help us better
understand the changes.
Rosie reminded me that both cars and bicyclists “share the road” on Ross. Unfortunately, that has not been the case – at least, from
what we’ve experienced on the new Ross Rd bike route. When my child and I bike along Ross Rd., we have seen how drivers do not abide by the “share the road” rules. And it makes it for unsafe situations for everyone on the road.
I think Rosie’s efforts are admirable but she alone cannot educate the masses. And there needs to be more mass education for residents and also visitors driving through our community as to how to “share the road” with bicyclists and how to use the narrow roundabouts.
Does the DMV provide this kind of training? How are the drivers being informed about how to share these bike routes with my budding law-abiding child bicyclist? I trust parents are teaching their kids but who’s training the drivers?
Here are the reasons why my family is no longer able to currently support the construction of bike boulevards in their existing design – especially the proposed roundabout at Amarillo/Greer. We live a block away from the Amarillo/Greer intersection.
SHARE THE ROAD – BIKE DOWN THE CENTER OF THE ROAD
My family would really like to make the bike boulevards work. To give it one more try, on the morning of Memorial Day, my child and I tried biking down Ross Rd. once again only to see the same unsafe behavior of drivers. For example, I biked down the
center of Ross Rd to show my child the proper way to “share the road.” Several cars throughout the route passed me on my LEFT – crossing over the double yellow lines and onto oncoming traffic! I do not want that kind of unsafe driving behavior modeled in front
of my child. More importantly, I do want my child or me biking in this kind of situation – putting bicyclists' and drivers’ safety at risk.
Some observations from my 7th grader:
Prior to the Ross Rd construction, he preferred to bike on Ross Rd and East Meadow to get to JLS Middle School rather than take Greer/Louis / East Meadow. In his words, he likes Ross Rd because “Ross Rd is straight. And Greer is curvy.” According to him, now
Ross Rd. is "curvy” – describing how the sidewalks go in and out and makes the street narrow, wide, narrow... He no longer prefers to bike on Ross Rd. In fact, he now avoids Ross Rd. And if he does bike on Ross Rd, it is with family and I have given him permission to
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:45 AM
2
ride on the sidewalks. I do not trust the drivers and their cars on Ross Rd. And it is very disappointing to build something so elaborate
that people do not feel safe to use because it is not safe.
ROUNDABOUT AT ROSS/EAST MEADOW
There is not enough space for a roundabout at Ross/East Meadow and Amarillo/Greer – it is too narrow. And it makes for unsafe
situations.
I saw a tour bus get stuck and had to hop onto the roundabout at Ross/East Meadow one morning because there was not enough
room in the roundabout to cross. While I have read that firetrucks can fit through the roundabout, I find it hard to believe they can do so in an emergency. I have seen a tour bus and a van drive onto the roundabout instead of around the structure as they make their way
through the intersection. There are a variety of tiremarks on the roundabout structure.
While on our bikes, my child and I yielded to a van who did not slow down nor yield to us as it made a left turn at the roundabout. It also hopped onto the roundabout as it sped past us. The concept of “yield” does not seem to be something drivers do in
this community. And I have had to teach my child to make sure he yields at all times whether he has the right of way or not. My youngster cannot insist on his rights as a bicyclists when more often than not, drivers are not paying attention and do not yield.
Another example of not yielding – as I was driving my Prius car around the roundabout, I was surprised to find an adult bicyclist ride up from behind me on my right and then ride along side me as we both went around the roundabout! There is not enough space to
ride side by side! I had to slow my car to almost a halt to allow this bicyclist to pass me in the roundabout. This bicyclist made it unsafe for me as a driver. I was grateful that I was aware of his proximity. Had I not been aware, I could have hit the bicyclist because
it’s too narrow going around the roundabout. Granted, the rules for the roundabout are that cars and bikes do not travel side by side. But this is what people do when they don’t know or they ignore the rules of the road -- and also when the road has been constructed
without adequate “safety net” spacing to take into account the things people do when they’re not aware or mindful.
ROUNDABOUT & PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT AMARILLO/GREER & AMARILLO/LOUIS
There is not enough space for the roundabout at Amarillo/Greer – it is too narrow. The sand bags have already been run over by
cars. Please learn from the experience at the roundabout at Ross/East Meadow. Both are unsafe. Please do not build the roundabout at Amarillo/Greer.
At Amarillo/Greer, three out of the four corners at the proposed roundabout intersection are obstructed by hedges (of legal height) making it hard to properly see pedestrians crossing at the newly marked pedestrian cross walks. The placement of the cross
walks are closer to the intersection than are the new crosswalks at Louis/Amarilllo/Fielding/ Moreno – which are further away from the corner. And this closer proximity to the intersection at Amarillo/Greer makes it especially unsafe for pedestrians crossing because
they may not be seen by cars making swift right turns. This is unsafe and quite dangerous. Where are the stop signs for these crosswalks?
Since the roundabout at Amarillo/Green has been mocked up, I have seen cars make fast turns as they come south on Greer off Oregon Expressway and also off Amarillo from Bayshore. Cars have not slowed down nor yielded at this roundabout.
One morning, I saw a young Ohlone elementary student confused and hesitant about crossing the street on Louis Rd at the
Amarillo intersection. The crossing guard was on Louis and Fielding (the east side of street) and the youngster was on Louis closer to Bruce St (the west side of street). Fortunately, the crossing guard noticed her waiting at the opposite cross walk and tried to reach her.
I can totally relate to the youngster’s hesitation and confusion because there is no stop sign at the cross walks! There is ample confusion and no communications on the roadside (visual or verbal) or in the community news as to how one is to use what’s being
constructed at Louis/Amarillo. And shouldn’t there be 2 crossing guards for the school kids? One crossing guard can handle an intersection because s/he’s right at the intersection. But when the crosswalks are not at the corner and further down the block, who’s
helping the kids cross the other crosswalk when the crossing guard is at the opposite crosswalk? And will there be crossing guards at Amarillo/Greer for students because there are no stop signs?
Why are there no stop signs at the new pedestrian crosswalks down on Louis and away from Amarillo? Is the City aware that,at
the T-intersection of Louis/Amarillo with its former 3-way stop sign, it has been a dangerous T-intersection? Members of my family have witnessed and have been nearly hit by drivers who constantly run the stop signs at Louis/Amarillo. I stand corrected -- as of
today, my husband informed me that there are now temporary stop signs at the crosswalks on Louis. The construction area around
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:45 AM
3
Louis and Amarillo is currently very confusing – no one seems to knows how to use it. Neighbors and I are confused and frustrated by
the lack of clarity and sense.
"BULBING" SIDEWALKS, ISLANDS & LOSS OF STREET PARKING
The “bulbing” sidewalks have removed valuable parking spaces. And this does not make sense especially for parking on
Amarillo to drop off kids at Ohlone Elementary and/or for school parent volunteers.
When I was recently driving north along Bayshore Rd and came to make a left turn onto Amarillo, I found an island bisecting
this corner. Fortunately there were no cars parked on the north side of Amarillo near this corner. There usually are parked cars. Otherwise there would not have been enough space for my car -- plus an island plus parked cars -- to clear the left turn! This made me
wonder if the planning has been properly thought through here? When I made the same left turn a few days later, the city had put up construction signs to block off the parking. All this made further me think that the City is merely reacting – instead of proactively
studying, surveying, getting community input, planning, anticipating and clearly informing, conveying and communicating its intended design and usage to our community.
SPEED BUMPS & BIKE LANES
I appreciate your patience and time in reading my lengthy narrative of concerns regarding the construction of the bike boulevards. As
you can see, I feel very strongly about how unsafe the new bike boulevards and roundabouts are because my family uses these roads daily.
Please do not build something that does not ensure safety and also lacks the clarity of usage. It will be a disappointing waste of time, effort and resources. And it will be frustrating. Please do not force us to use something that does not makes sense nor has ease of use.
While it would be nice to have bike boulevards for kids to bike safely to and from school, the current bike paths construction do not provide enough space to safely share the road. They actually create unsafe situations instead of safe ones for bicyclists – and drivers.
Before investing in further construction of elaborate bike boulevards, perhaps try installing a simpler solution like speed bumps and bike lanes – and see how that goes, as a first step. The speed bumps that were installed on Greer Rd between Oregon and Embarcadero
Expressways a few years ago have made drivers slow down. So that’s working.
Please remember who your users are. They are young bicyclists going to and from school and they are drivers also whose patience and
mindfulness is highly limited after needing to deal with dense congestion and traffic throughout the bay area. These are the people sharing these bike boulevards.
Please make the bikes routes easy and clear to use. Currently, there is a lot of confusion, lack of clarity, frustration, and no communications or guidance as to how to use all of the above mentioned proposed bike route construction.
I appreciate that there will be a City Council meeting on June 12 to discuss the bike path construction. This will give me another opportunity to ask you to either reconsider, redesign and/or halt all current construction at all of the above-mentioned bike route sites.
Thank you again for your time and kind consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely,
Lily Lam
a Midtown Resident -- and daily user of Greer/Amarillo/Louis/Moreno/Bayshore and Ross Rds
Lily Lam
cell: 650-387-4231 lamily@yahoo.com
..........................................................................
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:45 AM
4
"Be fearless in your pursuit of what sets your soul on fire."
- Weekly planner saying
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:William Robinson <williamrobinson@goldenworld.com>
Sent:Friday, June 08, 2018 6:17 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Pro comments for Ross Study 6/12 - with YouTube
Attachments:Amblur review 20180612.pdf
Honorable Council Members: Hand surgery prevents me from taking two minutes to speak. Plus I
made a 1 minute GoPro video of the circle mockup at Greer-Amarillo.
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
‘Rob’ William Robinson 650-464-8933
Members of the City Council: Thank you. We like Ross improvements but…
My wife and I, members of the Ross Road Y, sometimes disagree about the
benefits of the Traffic Calming and Safety Improvements along Ross, Meadow,
Louis, Amarillo, Greer and other areas. She necessarily drives a car but
appreciates my absolute love of using a bicycle every day.
1. Her complaint is about the bold entrance and exit driveways on the north
side of the Y. When exiting right I encourage her to make sure there is no
northbound traffic so she can drive a bit over the line. The catchment
basins adjacent to those driveways will be invaluable during storms. They
should not be removed.
2. Danger to cyclists is a YMCA tantrum often heard. “Cyclists are in the road,
where they shouldn’t be”. Motorists don’t realize that the bulb outs set
aside parking space on BOTH sides of the street. Instead of using bike lanes,
which encumber parking, the roadway is shared. Sidewalks are dedicated to
walkers, not bikes.
3. The favorite: the traffic circle, elegant and safe. The left turn conflict I often
experienced biking left from Meadow to Ross on my way to the Y is happily
eliminated.
4. My final subject: Outreach with 2-D drawings did not predict reality. On
May 20 with a GoPro on the handlebar, I joined southbound motorists on
Greer through a “pop up” circle on Amarillo. Motorists “go it” and so did I.
Please enjoy the 1 minute video. https://youtu.be/n0Db8JpG4Co
William Robinson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:45 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kniss, Liz (internal)
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 9:38 PM
To:Elliot Margolies
Cc:Planning Commission; Council, City
Subject:Re: Ross Road concerns
Thx! Agreed
On Jun 9, 2018, at 9:11 PM, Elliot Margolies <elliotspark@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Kniss, Council Members and Planning Commission Members,
I would like to share my concerns about the changes recently made along
Ross Road. I go to the Family YMCA almost every day by car or by bike and I
have experienced challenges that worry me with either form of
transport. The out-juts along the road force bikes and cars to share the
lane. As a driver I must suddenly slow down - sometimes to 10mph -
whenever a bicyclist stays near the middle of the car lane. Sometimes that
can go on for a couple of blocks. Even when the bicyclist pulls over to the
right edge of the lane, I am nervous about passing on the left and making
the cyclist feel crowded, so I drive partway into the oncoming lane until I'm
well past. When I'm biking, I'm well aware of the frustration drivers are
feeling behind me when I'm forced into their pathway. I'm not comfortable
about how drivers may react to the situation.
I know the intentions are to keep drivers from driving too fast along Ross
Road and probably to help bicyclists in some way I haven't figured out. I
don't mind the speed bumps. I don't mind stop signs.
But a dedicated bike lane would provide much more safety for both bicyclists
and drivers.
I saw a map of upcoming plans with Arastradero Rd. and it looked like they
include a few places where bicyclists are routed into the driving lane. If that
is indeed the case, I hope you will reconsider that method of "calming"
traffic.
Respectfully yours,
Elliot Margolies
3858 El Centro St.
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net>
Sent:Saturday, June 09, 2018 11:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporters of the Case for Reconsidering the Parking Garage Projects and related
Funding and EIR
Attachments:Letter to Council re Cal Ave Parking Structure.pdf
Honorable Council Members,
The following people and organizations, would like to be known as additional supporters of the attached letter from
Carbon Free Palo Alto, that was sent to you on June 3rd, 2018.
Amie Ashton
Pat Burt
Justine Burt
Peter Drekmeier
Robyn Duby
Kathy Durham
Barry Katz
Adina Levin
Drew Maran
Lynnie Melena
Jeralyn Moran
Debbie Mytels
Robert Neff
Peter Phillips
Peter Rice
J Rosten
Yoriko Kishimoto
Steve Schmidt, Former Mayor, Menlo Park
Anne and Ed Schmitt
Adam Stern, Executive Director, Acterra
Sven Thesen
Jennifer Thompson, Executive Director, Sustainable Silicon Valley
Lisa Van Dusen
Dennis Wilkinson
Diane Bailey, Executive Director, Menlo Spark
Organizations
Acterra
Friends of Caltrain
Menlo Spark
Sustainable Silicon Valley
Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto's Green Sanctuary Committee
Honorable Council Members,
We would like to reiterate the need to evaluate alternatives to moving ahead with the planned
California Avenue and Downtown parking garage projects.
These two projects make up the majority of the 2018 budget shortfall that is causing the City to
explore politically and economically detrimental ways to raise taxes in order to fund them. The
budget crisis is also forcing the City consider deep cuts to its operations in 2019. The proposed 1
garages were conceived of before 2014, prior to the current proliferation of alternatives to
driving and parking demand management techniques. To our knowledge, there has been no
formal consideration of the other available courses of action to address the demand for parking
that ostensibly justifies the building of these structures.
This situation alone should compel the Council to carefully reconsider the garage projects. But
the projects are also prohibitively expensive (on a per parking space basis). And they are huge,
single purpose, car-centric investments that run counter to our community’s recognized
transportation and infrastructure strategies and goals. Among the much better alternatives
described below, the most obvious is to expand the Palo Alto TMA to reduce parking demand.
That approach completely aligns with our transportation plans at a tiny fraction of the cost of
building new parking garages.
The garage projects represent $65M of the capital budget shortfall.
The March 20, 2018 Finance Committee Staff Report presented the enormous potential savings
from cancelling or deferring the garage projects based on the 2018 budget in the table below.
The savings are even higher now as project costs escalate. The California Avenue project cost
stands at $47M in the 2019 budget and it quite likely could exceed $50M due to cost escalation 2
and overruns before it is complete.
1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65197
2 2019 Fiscal Year Capital Budget, p110: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64860
The garage projects are prohibitively expensive on a per space basis.
The California Avenue garage, for example, was proposed in large part to satisfy the demand
for parking during the limited, lunchtime peak. In its January 22 presentation to Council on the
City Infrastructure plan, City staff described it as a “$75,000 per space for a 2-hour need”
solution (see slide below) . 3
The cost rises to $120,000 per space if one considers only the 335 net new spaces created.
The cost of building new parking is prohibitively expensive while we have proven means of
reducing the demand for such parking that cost on the order of one tenth as much.
The Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) offers an alternative that is
far cheaper and much more flexible and valuable to our community.
The TMA is already successfully promoting the use of alternatives to driving and parking in the
downtown area. It provides hundreds of small business and service employees incentives to
use transit, carpool, bike, walk or rideshare instead of driving to downtown. Highlights from this
3 Jan 22, 2018 City Council Meeting staff presentation, Potential Solutions section, p10.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63341
March 2018 Palo Alto Online article reveal the TMA’s impact and how it plans to build on its
success :
4
●Rate of workers driving alone declinedby 10% (from 80 to 70%) in just one year (2016 to
2017)
●Goal is to shift 30% or 1,650 drivers to other modes in the next several years
●Budget is $450K for 2018
●Aims to increase transit pass use from 200 in 2018 to 700 in 3 years and 1000 in 5 years
●Scoop and Waze carpooling programs currently serve 160+ users and aim to serve 300
users in 3 years and 600 users in 5 years. These are the TMA’s cheapest programs to
provide.
●Aims to add 100 to 150 riders to shuttles in 3 to 5 years
●TMA board will consider expanding to the California Avenue business district if funding is
available
We should consider expanding the TMA to the California Avenue district. We conservatively
estimate the cost at $4.8M over 10 years (10 times the current TMA’s 2018 budget which covers
a much larger zone). The TMA results noted above indicate that this could reduce parking
space demand by the hundreds. This is commensurate with the size of the proposed California
Avenue garage at 335 new spaces yet would cost 10 times less!
Subsidized ride hailing alone could eliminate the need to build more public parking.
Cities are working with Uber, Lyft and others providers to achieve this today. It is a flexible way
to reduce parking demand and avoid building garages.
● Summit, NJ is an example of a town that uses subsidized ride hailing to avoid building a
parking lot.
5
● Neighboring Mountain View and Menlo Park are already pursuing this option to reduce
parking demand in their downtown districts . Using the Mountain View example of a 50%
6
subsidy, the cost for Palo Alto to provide enough rides to avoid the need for the
California Ave. garage could be about $418k. That is less than 1% of the cost to build
the new garage. This assumes 335 rides per day avoids 335 parking spaces at up to $5
per ride within Palo Alto 250 business days a year.
● Volume and fixed arrangements with ride hailing companies reduce the cost to the City
and users of subsidized services. For popular routes, fixed shuttles are on offer at ride
hailing companies. They are being tried in San Francisco using Lyft Shuttle. The 7 8
service is still being tested but is getting good reviews and is expanding. It costs 2 to 3
times less than a standard Lyft Line ride.
4 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/14/palo-alto-nonprofit-revs-up-efforts-to-reduce-traffic
5 https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/3/13147680/uber-new-jersey-free-ride-parking-lot-train-commute
6 https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2017/07/24/menlo-park-city-could-help-pay-for-uber-lyft-rides
7 https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/New-Lyft-Shuttle-service-launches-with-fixed-SF-11049922.php
8 https://www.lyft.com/shuttle
Ride hailing, carpooling, micro-bus and shuttle services from private providers will continue to
proliferate because they use existing infrastructure to generally deliver better service at a lower
cost than driving and parking. They will likely play an important role moving forward as Palo Alto
improves its transportation options in its commercial districts.
Other measures that will reduce driving and parking demand.
Palo Alto’s bike share program will bring hundreds of bikes and scooters to the streets starting
in 2018 at no cost to the city. Paid parking also motivates drivers to think about alternatives.
Metered parking is already the norm in many Peninsula cities. Palo Alto could introduce
metered parking in commercial districts and expand permit programs where needed to preserve
it for neighboring residences. Finally, the electrification of Caltrain is projected to increase daily
ridership by 21% overall and should be operating by 2022. Caltrain serves both downtown and 9
California Avenue areas.
Funding alternatives to driving and parking. Funding new parking structures from general tax
money is regressive in nature including the current favorites, increased hotel and real estate
transfer taxes. In the words of Donald Shoup, Research Professor in the Department of Urban
Planning at UCLA, “A city where everyone happily pays for everyone else’s free parking is a
fool’s paradise” .
10
The less costly alternatives to the garages give Palo Alto more funding options that more
effectively target the beneficiaries of such services, for example:
● Instituting a business tax. Palo Alto is one of the few cities in the region that don’t collect
this tax.
● Institute a district tax for each business district to help pay for transportation services
The garage projects run counter to our official community transportation development
plans. The Comp and Sustainability Implementation Plans (CP and SIP) reflect years of
consensus building effort with city leadership, staff and community members. They direct us to
responsibly invest public funds in efficient and flexible alternative transportation modes and
services that lower costs and bring other quality of life, productivity and economic benefits. They
recognize the hidden cost of public parking and the trends that are moving us away from a
car-centric infrastructure. We should accept their challenge to find more intelligent and effective
ways to improve our transportation services than building public parking facilities.
In conclusion, we believe that both garage projects are probably unnecessary and a waste of
money and real estate. We recommend that the City Council at least delay these projects and
9 http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Electrification/PCEP+Fact+Sheet+Nov+2017.pdf
10 https://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2016/cutting-the-cost-of-parking-requirements/
call for a more complete analysis of the costs and benefits of cancelling them in light of the
much more promising and beneficial alternatives at hand.
Sincerely,
Carbon Free Palo Alto
Lisa Altieri
Bret Andersen
David Coale
Bruce Hodge
Walt Hayes
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:39 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keene, James
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 1:11 PM
To:Christine SELBERG; City Mgr; Council, City
Cc:Mello, Joshuah; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Keith, Claudia; Gaines, Chantal; De Geus,
Robert; Keene, James
Subject:RE: 281 Evertt x Bryant- photos
Ms. Selberg,
I apologize for the fact you haven’t received a response yet. The “ stuff” that you see at the intersection at the corner of
Bryant and Everett is a temporary installation of the approximate borders of new sidewalk “bulb outs” planned to improve
travel and safety at that intersection—Bryant being a key Bicycle Blvd. in Palo Alto. The City is piloting such “ previews” of
future installations. I’ll admit that this doesn’t effectively enough represent what would be the final ( no planters, a real
curb and corners‐to‐come, etc). In addition, the deterioration that has taken place is a problem, given the temporary
gravel filled burlap covering. I’ll have our staff clean that up. We were also supposed to put up a sign at that location
explaining the “pilot.” I am sorry that didn’t happen. I am copying our staff on that also. Our community always needs to
understand what we are doing when we make such changes.
You probably realize that intersection is a problem, which is why we are looking at some slight changes to improve
safety. There is no stop at Bryant and the high volume of cars that park along Bryant make sight lines for drivers and
cyclists difficult. We do need to improve that. I know this for a fact well, since I live in the Downtown North
neighborhood. Through this email copying our staff, I expect to keep you posted on our next steps.
If you are on Next Door in your neighborhood, you might consider posting my response, if you think it would help other
folks who may have similar questions.
Thanks for reaching out.
James Keene | City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email –Thank you!
From: Christine SELBERG [mailto:christineselberg@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 9:45 AM
To: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Fwd: 281 Evertt x Bryant‐ photos
I am forwarding this email since I didn’t receive a response Shahla Yazdy.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:39 PM
2
I have posted on Nextdoor and many neighbors also have concerns of the safety of this project and the Mess that is
currently at the intersection. Many people have difficulties seeing around the planters.
I would appreciate a response to my concerns as a resident.
Sincerely,
Christine Selberg
281 Everett Ave., PA 94301
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Dale, Dorothy" <Dorothy.Dale@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Date: June 5, 2018 at 1:52:17 PM PDT
To: Christine Selberg <christineselberg@gmail.com>
Cc: "Yazdy, Shahla" <Shahla.Yazdy@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: RE: 281 Evertt x Bryant‐ photos
Christine,
Since speaking with you, I received a response from our Transportation Division. Shahla will follow up
with you. Thanks for the photos.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Dale
Dorothy Dale Administrative Assistant
City of Palo Alto Public Works – Urban Forestry
3201 E. Bayshore Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dorothy.dale@cityofpaloalto.org
650 496‐5953
From: Christine Selberg [mailto:christineselberg@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 1:48 PM
To: Dale, Dorothy
Subject: Re: 281 Evertt x Bryant- photos
Hi Dorothy,
Thank you for return my phone call. Attached are the photos. I believe that the crosswalk was not taken
into consideration when this tubes where put in. Again, I find it awkward to have to walk around them‐‐
they create a safety issue for people walking or jogging. I am also disturbed that the street sweeper is
unable to sweep in front of my home. Currently, the area is a big Mess. I don't believe the Downtown
North Neighborhood was consulted or advised that this was going to be happening. It is an unsafe
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:39 PM
3
intersection with only people on Everett Ave. with a stop sign. I hear a Lot of honking on this corner. I
look forward to an update and explanation of what is suppose to be going on with this intersection.
Sincerely,
Chris
Selberg
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:39 PM
4
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:39 PM
5
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:39 PM
6
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:39 PM
7
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:39 PM
8
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 5, 2018, at 1:13 PM, Dale, Dorothy <Dorothy.Dale@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
<image001.jpg>
Dorothy Dale Administrative Assistant
City of Palo Alto Public Works – Urban Forestry
3201 E. Bayshore Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dorothy.dale@cityofpaloalto.org
650 496‐5953
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:40 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Anne Gregory <xagregoryx@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 2:03 PM
To:Council, City; Anne Gregory
Subject:Traffic Furniture and Taxes
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
Regarding new taxes on residents and visitors in the form of soda taxes, hotel taxes, etc., I am opposed. I'm not a Republican or anti
tax and I have always supported our Palo Alto school parcel taxes, but I won't vote for them any longer because of Palo Alto city government's mismanagement. I always hate it when I stay in a hotel in other towns and have to pay ridiculous amounts of local tax
and I don't want my town to rip off visitors either. Instead, we need hefty business taxes a la Seattle to fund major infrastructure plans. Why aren't big businesses being taxed to cover the huge impacts they cause?
Similarly, I am opposed the road furniture and roundabouts recently built on Ross Road and feel it is a waste of our hard earned tax
dollars. It is also dangerous. As a cyclist I use the roundabout at Park Ave. and Stanford Ave several times a week. The bulb outs force me into traffic and cars are not yielding. Visibility eastbound on Stanford is poor to the left which makes this a dangerous
intersection. Please put the stop signs back and don't build any more of this wasteful infrastructure.
Josh Mello has to go.
Sincerely, Anne Gregory
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:40 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Pietrofesa <markpietrofesa@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 2:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road Bike Blvd
To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood on Arbutus Avenue near the new Ross Bike Blvd. I have been living in Palo Alto and biking Ross for about 2 years now and have really been pleased with the new bike
Blvd. I have used Bryant prior but now having Ross on the east side of town has been very convenient. I have
noticed now that the construction has finished the road is working well for cyclists and cars alike. I travel Ross
at different times of day and it is pleasant to ride even during commuting hours, and I have enjoyed the new
roundabouts that stopping and starting alleviates. The kids seem to be enjoying it as well and my 10 year old now rides it to Ohlone both ways every day. It is much safer in my opinion as the cars and motorists are now
slowing and more aware of cyclists and children.
Thank you for continuing to work to make cycling safer in Palo Alto and I look forward to the continued
infrastructure for cycling in our community. It has been a wonderful addition to the neighborhood!
Thank you.
Mark Pietrofesa and Kerri Rieger
3589 Arbutus Avenue
Palo Alto 650-208-4010
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:45 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tamara Abrams <tabrams@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 7:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporting Bike Boulevards
Dear City Council,
I am writing this letter in support of the bike boulevard projects in Palo Alto. I am a frequent bike rider and my husband and children commute daily by bicycle to work and school. Of course, I am also a driver and a daily
pedestrian on the same streets. The bike boulevard projects help make these routes safe and comfortable for all
modes of transportation.
I am also a resident of Ross Road and I do support the work done on that specific route as well. I do think that there is a good bit of adjustment and education that needs to happen, so that bicyclists and drivers feel
comfortable sharing the lane. I know for me, it is much more intuitive to see everything neatly divided up into
separate spaces for bicycle and cars. But when there is not the width for that, the best ways to share are not as
obvious.
What I like the most is the roundabout at Meadow. I am sure you have seen the information already about the
safety and efficiency of this device used in intersections but I will point you to the Federal Highway
Administration Site in case you have not - https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/innovative/roundabouts/
If you scroll down you can see the diagrams showing the vastly reduced number of conflict points - 32 in a 4
way intersection and only 8 in a roundabout. The roundabout provides me as a driver, a bicyclist and a pedestrian much more protection.
As I final note, I would just add that feeling safer and being safer are not equivalent. The goal here is to
increase actual safety which may take some adjustment and education before folks feel safer. I hope the city
will continue to make these improvements and invest in safe transportation no matter what mode.
Thanks for you time
Tamara Abrams
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:45 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net>
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 11:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Traffic Safety / Bicycle Boulevard Study Session
June 10, 2018
Dear Honorable Members, Palo Alto City Council,
I am writing regarding the study session scheduled for June 12. I hope you will encourage staff to continue
their assessments of the Traffic Safety / Bike Boulevard program improvements, and to move ahead with construction as they intend.
I became civically involved, and a member of the Pedestrian / Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) in 2010, and have been a member of PABAC through the development of the 2012 Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the hiring of consultants to implement the plan, the two years of near continuous community meetings
considering 12 corridors for improvements, plus neighborhood plans, the completion of the first set of these plans, and now construction along these first 6 corridors, along with completion of plans for the remaining
corridors. There have been additional improvements throughout the city during that time, including our first
green bike lanes on Park, Channing, West Meadow and El Camino Way, the Charleston/Arastradero corridor, the contra-flow lane on Homer, and planning for the new bike overpass over 101 at Adobe Creek. I am
thankful to live in a city that has prioritized active transportation, by walking and bicycling, and complete
streets, that support all modes, through Goals in the Comprehensive Plan, council guidance to staff, and implementation by city staff.
Many of the ideas for ideal bicycle infrastructure are new to California in the past few years. For example, the first green bike lane in California was in Los Angeles, in 2011.
In Palo Alto, or anywhere with existing infrastructure, changing the character of a street is difficult. Of course
everyone is used to a street having its existing character, plus it also has its existing physical dimensions. There is relatively recent development of design guidance for street improvements to improve
bicycle and pedestrian safety on streets, but these must be adapted to the specific dimensions of Palo Alto’s streets. To be more concrete, the new roundabout at Meadow and Ross is unique - it combines a street with bike lanes (Meadown) with a bike boulevard without bike lanes (Ross), with the specific dimensions of that
intersection. There is guidance from a number of sources on different aspects of this design, so city Transportation and Safe Routes staff, with aid from consultants, and review with residents and PABAC,
combined these to create a safe, modern design that would fit in that intersection. In use, there seems to be a
short learning curve, since this is only the 2nd mini-roundabout in Palo Alto, but, as one driving resident told me today, once he had it figured out, he liked it better than the 4-way Stop it replaced.
This problem of taking new ideas, and adapting them effectively to Palo Alto’s streets is difficult to get perfect on the first try. The changes on Ross have already changed the character of the street, slowing average speeds, encouraging cyclists to take the lane instead of hiding among parked cars, creating safer pedestrian
crossings, and making it closer to a bicycle boulevard. The goal is to make it as comfortable and safe for cyclists as Bryant is on a similar stretch, from El Dorado to Oregon. Certainly there is room for improvement,
in the design of the YMCA access, and perhaps the bulb-out/speed hump dimensions. The staff report
contains an excellent review of the mini-roundabout, with ideas for revisions to future intersections. I expect staff to continue to evaluate all aspects of the traffic safety / bike boulevard program, publicly identifying what
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:45 PM
3
works best and what needs improvement on existing or future implementations. We should support them in
finding the best solutions that meet our goals.
There are exciting projects in development all over Palo Alto. We have a new kind of “protected” intersection
at Middlefield and Embarcadero, our first mixed use path using Santa Clara Water District right of way, a
“complete streets” redesign of Embarcadero/El Camino/Galvez, at least 5 new, safer pedestrian crossings planned along El Camino Real, and, by year end 2020, bike lanes across El Camino at
Charleston/Arastradero. I look forward to seeing these completed, and a complete network which creates
comfortable, low-stress pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout Palo Alto and to our neighboring cities.
Thank you for your efforts which make Palo Alto a wonderful place to live. Robert Neff
Emerson Street near Loma Verde
PABAC member from 2010 - present.
--
-- Robert Neff
robert@neffs.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:45 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Christina Detchemendy <cdetch@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 1:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike Boulevards Support!
Hi,
I will not be able to attend the Bike Boulevard Study Session tomorrow but I wanted to add my voice of support to the issue. I had previously emailed the council on how much my family likes the improvements. Below is
that email We still love the improvements made along Ross and are excited for the upcoming projects along the
Charleston/Arastradero corridor - especially as we will have kids biking to Gunn in just over a year.
I wanted to let you know my family is loving the new bike boulevard on Ross. We have lived near the corner of
Ross and Louis for 14 years. We have two kids who are currently at JLS and they bike to school daily. We
know there has been some animosity towards this project but wanted to tell you thank you for making this
project happen. Both our kids say they feel safer biking to school and they love the new roundabout on Ross and
Meadow. Our daughter regularly bikes on Ross from our house to her friend near Oregon
Expressway. She told us she feels safer biking the bike boulevard rather then biking all
the way down Louis in the bike lane. The fact that they feel safer was especially gratifying to hear
from our son - he was clipped by a car while crossing his bike in the crosswalk at Louis and Ross a few years
back. The car drove away without stopping - he was unhurt but still shaken by the experience.
We applaud all efforts to increase the safety of bike riders in Palo Alto!! Christina Detchemendy
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Eric Nordman <eric.nordman12@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 10:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike Boulevard Study Session
Attachments:Letter to council June 10 2018.doc
Letter to City Council: Bicycle Boulevard Network
June 10, 2018
Dear Council Members:
Building a bicycle boulevard network is critical to addressing key Palo Alto problems like
traffic and parking in a sustainable way.
This is not just my view. Sam Adams, the Mayor of Portland said:
“... we did a lot of research and we did a lot of focus groups on what it would take to get
from 8% to 25% of all trips by bike. What we learned is that bike boulevards ... are the
way to go.”
Palo Alto established the first Bicycle Boulevard in the United States on Bryant Street in 1982.
On average over 1,000 bicyclists pass through the barriers on Bryant at Lowell Avenue every
day and about 1,500 bicyclists are on Park Boulevard. Bike boulevards can be very effective at
reducing traffic and parking problems.
Bike Boulevards allow faster, safer and easier bike commutes. Next time you need to drive to
another city (5-10 miles each way) try taking back streets with stop signs every other block. I
suspect you will find such a trip frustratingly slow. While I have commuted by bike on Central
Expressway, most bicyclists would not consider this. Bike Boulevards are the pleasant
alternative.
The reduction in stop signs that make Bike Boulevards good for cyclists can make them
attractive for drivers. To minimize car traffic Bryant has four places where through car traffic is
diverted. Portland primarily uses diversions to minimize traffic volume and speed humps to
control speed. I was told that due to a City Council directive, blocking of streets was not an
option for the initial Bike Boulevards. Because of this, alternative approaches are used in the
current Palo Alto’s Bike Boulevard projects.
Diversions are harder to implement in areas of the city that have few parallel streets and may
not have been appropriate for Ross. However, to reduce costs for future Bike Boulevard
projects, Council might consider lifting this prohibition.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:46 PM
2
The alternate approaches used on Ross provide a variety of traffic calming devices. The design
also included pedestrian improvements such as bulb outs. Some traffic calming treatments are
likely more expensive and I think more extreme treatments such as raised intersections should
be avoided in the future to reduce costs.
Mini-roundabouts were also one of the methods used. Roundabouts were introduced into the
US in the 1990s but are largely new to Palo Alto.
It’s not uncommon for roundabouts to be initially unpopular. The Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety published a study titled “Long-Term Trends in Public Opinion Following
Construction of Roundabouts.” After interviewing 1,802 drivers in six communities, the
researchers reported that, on average, only 34 percent had supported roundabouts in their
communities before construction. But shortly after the roundabouts were in place, the number
rose to 57 percent. After a year or more, the number increased to 69 percent.
Traditionally, mini-roundabouts have a mountable center section to make it easier for large
trucks to navigate them. This probably comes as a result of being designed to improve traffic
flow. A planted center is common for traffic circles and the marriage of these seems
appropriate for Palo Alto.
Seattle has installed over 1,000 mini-roundabouts or traffic circles in the last thirty years and
has seen a crash reduction of more than 70%. They are very popular.
Numerous studies have also found that replacing lights and stop signs with roundabouts can
reduce harmful emissions by more than 30 percent because there is less starting and stopping.
The Bryant Bicycle Boulevard was contentious when implemented, but I think everyone now
realizes it is a great asset. I expect that a completed bicycle boulevard network as envisioned in
the City of Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Plan will
also be seen as a great asset.
Sincerely,
Eric Nordman
Member of PABAC since 2012 and currently chairman
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ken McLeod <ken@bikeleague.org>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 6:58 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Letter in Support of Palo Alto's continued commitment to bicycle improvements
Attachments:Palo Alto BFC Projects support letter_6-11.pdf
Dear City of Palo Alto City Council,
Attached is a letter in support of Palo Alto's continued commitment to bicycle improvements, including the
bicycle boulevard improvements that are to be discussed on June 12th. The League of American Bicyclists is sending this letter because we have been contacted by residents of Palo Alto and we want to let you know that we support the creation of bicycle boulevards as part of building a safe and accessible network for people of all
ages and abilities.
The League of American Bicyclists appreciates Palo Alto's long-term commitment to bicycling, including its participation in the Bicycle Friendly Community program since 2003. Palo Alto's current Gold award
recognition will be up for renewal in 2021.
If you have any questions for the League or would like to let us know more about your current efforts related to bicycling, please contact me at ken@bikeleague.org.
Best Regards,
Ken --
KEN MCLEOD, Policy Director
KEN@BIKELEAGUE.ORG | 202-621-5447
THE LEAGUE OF AMERICAN BICYCLISTS
We're leading the movement to build a Bicycle Friendly America for everyone. Join us.
June 11, 2018
Dear City of Palo Alto:
I am writing in support of Palo Alto’s proposed and ongoing development of its citywide bicycle and pedestrian network. The League of American Bicyclists (League)
has been proud to give Palo Alto a Gold Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) award
each of the five times that Palo Alto applied to the program, most recently in 2016. We appreciate Palo Alto’s involvement in the BFC program between 2003 and 2016
over that time.
The League stated its general support for Palo Alto’s proposed and ongoing
development of its citywide bicycle network in our Spring 2016 BFC report card
which urged Palo Alto to “continue to build a safe and accessible network for people
of all ages and abilities and address major roads with appropriate bicycle facilities”
as one of Palo Alto’s Key Steps to Platinum. The League believes the following projects are important components of building a safe and accessible network for
people of all ages and abilities:
» Palo Alto’s proposed bicycle boulevard network, including projects on Ross
Road, Amarillo Avenue, Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street, Louis Road, and Montrose Avenue. This proposed network has the potential to substantially
improve the safety and comfort for people who bike of all ages and abilities by
reducing automobile speeds and enhancing connections to residential neighborhoods and schools.
» The Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge. This proposed bridge addresses
the major road that is Highway 101, which currently makes access to the Bay Trail and other communities in Silicon Valley difficult for people who bike and
walk.
» Bicycle and pedestrian improvements along the Charleston/Arastradero
corridor. This proposed corridor improvement addresses a major road and will
improve access between south Palo Alto and other parts of Palo Alto. We are pleased to hear the construction contract for this project was recently
approved.
The League hopes that Palo Alto continues its commitment to improving conditions
for people who bike, as it has throughout its involvement in the Bicycle Friendly
Community program. Please contact me at ken@bikeleague.org if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Ken McLeod
Policy Director
The League of American Bicyclists
We’re leading the movement to build a Bicycle-Friendly America for Everyone
1612 K STREET NW, SUITE 1102, WASHINGTON, DC 20006
| phone 202-822-1333 | fax 202-822-1334 |
WWW.BIKELEAGUE.ORG
Rated by Charity Navigator as a three-star charity | CFC # 11563
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 3:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Vivi Tran Lee <vivitran9@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 2:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Dangerous Roundabout at Greer & Amarillo
Dear City Council Members,
The proposed roundabout at the intersection of Greer and Amarillo is extremely dangerous.
I cross Greer at this intersection as a pedestrian several times a day during the school year to walk my child to and from
Ohlone (specifically the north crosswalk). Most drivers do not yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. In fact, they speed
through it to try to get to Oregon. Crossing this intersection is terrifying.
One morning, after several drivers failed to yield to us, a driver in the roundabout finally stopped. We entered the
crosswalk and cautiously began crossing the street. A car driving southbound on Greer drove straight through the
crosswalk while we were in it and either didn't notice us or simply didn't care. We would have been hit if I hadn't been
staring at the approaching car and stopped in the middle of the street out of fear that it wouldn't yield to us. I yelled at
the driver as she passed, and she looked surprised when she saw/heard me. I don't know if her surprise was due to the
fact that she somehow didn't see us and almost hit us, or that someone was calling her out on her reckless driving. I was
pushing a large orange jogging stroller through a marked crosswalk. I'd like to think I'm pretty hard to miss. Had a child
been crossing alone, the child absolutely would have been hit by that driver.
One afternoon, I was crossing at the same location to pick my child up from school. A large truck made a right turn from
Amarillo onto Greer heading towards Oregon. The driver saw me standing on the curb waiting to cross and slammed on
his brakes so I could cross. That turn is nearly blind for drivers because of the shrubbery at that corner. The truck driver
was driving slowly and still had to slam on his brakes to stop in time. He did nothing wrong, and it was still extremely
dangerous. I again had my large orange stroller with me.
I'm not sure he would have noticed a small child.
Shortly after the temporary roundabout was installed, I believe a driver somehow hit the "yield to pedestrians" sign next
to the north crosswalk, making the crossing even more dangerous. I found the sign knocked over in the street, with the
boards separated from the stand.
I tried to fix it but couldn't.
A few days ago, I noticed the sandbags marking the roundabout were gone. It appears that someone ran over and
destroyed them. They're currently pushed against the curb. One of the signs marking the roundabout appears to have
been destroyed. Now, without the stop signs and the barrier of the roundabout, cars are just speeding through the
intersection. I was almost hit while driving in the roundabout yesterday morning because a car entering the roundabout
didn't bother to slow down or yield to me.
I spoke to Josh Mello when he was at an informational event at Ohlone to convey my concerns. He was very dismissive.
He said the city installed the temporary roundabout so people can't complain about not having notice about its planned
installation. He just kept saying that it takes six months for people to change their driving behavior.
My takeaway was that the city is moving forward with this dangerous project regardless of what the people who actually
use the intersection think and have experienced. The temporary aspect is simply for show.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 3:23 PM
2
The 4‐way stop signs were not perfect, but they were a lot better and a lot safer for pedestrians. When drivers see stop
signs, they know they are supposed to stop. Some admittedly roll through stop signs, but they know the rules, and they
do stop when I am actively crossing the street. Stop signs force drivers to slow down even if they plan to roll through
them. This increases the likelihood that they'll see a pedestrian. In my experience trying to cross Greer, drivers do not
slow for the yield sign. Yes, drivers are legally required to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, but in reality they do not.
They will yield to another car because they don't want to get hit, but they simply don't look for pedestrians. The driver
who almost hit us went full speed through the crosswalk. This happened during the morning drop off for school when
there are a lot of young children in the area, yet that driver ‐‐ with a young child in her backseat ‐‐ felt no need to slow
down.
The only people this roundabout could possibly benefit are cyclists who no longer have a stop sign, but most of the
cyclists I see going through this intersection don't stop anyway. They typically don't even slow down. And in any event,
there aren't that many cyclists at this intersection compared to young children and their parents walking to Ohlone. This
includes families in the neighborhood who are able to walk to school as well as numerous parents who drive to school
and park on Greer. With the reduced parking on Amarillo and Louis, more Ohlone parents will need to park on Greer,
which means more young children will need to cross at this intersection.
We need a realistic assessment of the safety implications for pedestrians. Vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic are
minimal during school breaks, so no good faith assessment can be made until school is back in session. Nothing
permanent should be installed until at least 6 months into the next school year so we can see if driver behaviors really
change. Drivers have already hit the yield to pedestrian sign, destroyed one of the roundabout signs, and run over and
destroyed the sandbags marking the roundabout.
The proposed roundabout is dangerous and needs to be removed. We need the stop signs back. We can't sacrifice the
safety of lots of young children so a much smaller number of cyclists can legally not stop.
Moreover, even with the roundabout, the cyclists are still not following the law, as they also fail to yield to pedestrians
in the crosswalk. If the roundabout stays, someone is going to get hit by a car or cyclist and be seriously injured, and the
city will and should be held liable.
Sincerely,
Vivi Lee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 3:23 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 2:59 PM
To:Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Mello, Joshuah; Cory Wolbach (paloaltocory@gmail.com);
DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal);
Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Tanaka, Greg; Tom DuBois
(tomforcouncil@gmail.com); Wolbach, Cory
Cc:Carnahan, David
Subject:FW: Bike/Ped
Please see below.,
Thanks,
B‐
Beth D. Minor | City Clerk | City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue| Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650‐ 329‐2379 E: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org
City Clerks Rock and Rule
From: Lydia Kou [mailto:kou.pacc@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 2:11 PM
To: Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: Fwd: Bike/Ped
Dear Beth,
Please forward to whole Council and involved Staff members.
Thank you,
lk
--------
Lydia Kou
My LinkedIn Profile
(650) 996-0028 | Email
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <bcm246@aol.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 11:44 AM
Subject: Bike/Ped To: Kou.pacc@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 3:23 PM
4
Thank you for the e-mail regarding the above subject Lydia. My husband and I met you when we were
volunteers for the Neighborhood Watch Program. Always felt you were a very sensible and concerned person and I would like to address some of my concerns.
I absolutely feel the City of Palo Alto is making our streets very unfriendly and unsafe for drivers. When we
were growing up we knew the streets were meant for automobiles and were taught to respect the laws when we
rode bicycles. We have many bikers in our family down to great grandsons now, so we certainly want them safe while biking. So that takes care of the anti-biker attitude.
The work on Ross Road is frightening when I approach the Y and there is a biker on my right and a car
approaching. I always come to a full stop as they move out in to the street in front of me but they are hesitant,
they are not sure I am that kind of driver. The approaching cars don’t pay that kind of attention to what is going on. Very few of the young children riding bikes obey the rules, especially if they are riding with friends. I visit
the Y three times a week so this is not a single incident.
The Jordan mess is really confusing. On three occasions I have seen motorists inside the posts on California.
My friends have reported the same thing. The shuttle bus that drives down California has to use more than their share of the road and on several occasions I have seen approaching trucks or large SUVs pull over in to the bike
lane when they are driving West to allow it to pass.
Traffic backs up on Middlefield every time their is a left turning automobile at the Jordan/California area and
usually only one car is able to move ahead. Heavy traffic time is dreadful.
On three occasions we have witnessed people “behaving badly” in the downtown area of Middlefield where
there are no left turns allowed on to Middlefield. They clearly want to go North on Middlefield, refuse to go
around the block and make a right turn on Middlefield and u-turn around the barriers to go North. My husband
and I have seen it twice and my daughter couldn’t believe it when we were in the car the other day.
Now the mess on Louis Road makes me think someone is not thinking clearly and paying attention to problems
being created, both for automobiles and bicycles.
Bonnie Miller 184 Lois Lane
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 3:23 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Ezbar <ezramoision@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 3:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road and Roundabout
Dear City Council members,
I am JLS middle school student. I think Ross Road and the roundabout are great ideas. Making Ross a bike boulevard creates a nice, safe environment and sometimes I will go out of my way to ride on it. I also like the
roundabout. It looks way nicer than a regular intersection and is way more effective than a regular intersection.
Once, I saw a huge pile of cars at the roundabout, but it disappeared in seconds. If it was a regular intersection,
it would have taken way longer.
Sincerely,
Ezra Moision
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 3:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 3:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:3 items: traffic impairment, utility increases, developer give aways
Dear Council Members.
EXISTING ROAD BLOCKAGES or "IMPROVEMENTS" FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY ARE
NOT SAFE
I am totally confused about why you would approve a traffic safety plan with absurd
construction. Even people I hardly ever agree with on many issues, think the new road/street
traffic calming construction on city/residential streets (what ever those barriers are called) are disgruntled. If the idea was so great, why is there such a loud backlash - and you have to call a special meeting to “study” what has received enormous thumbs down from so many citizens. The one that is now under construction and looks like a total mess (construction will only make the path worse) is reflective of why this is not working.
What will it take to use common sense and not “academic theories” . These look great on the computer but in reality doesn’t fit in to the space or accomplish the needed goal of safety and slowing down traffic. Personally, if I am out early in the morning when kids are going to school and adults have - coffee in one hand and phone in the other, rushing to work - I am going to look for another crosstown street . Then what ? When a new crosstown street starts to fill up and neighbors complain, are you (as CC) going to rush in and build another
roundabout as a solution?
I just noticed in the paper that the City Manager apologized for not communicating properly. What quickly comes to mind is
the apology for cutting down the trees on Calif and the choice of glass. We are told that when we hire for employees, we have
to pay high, + lots of benefits to retain the best……. no sarcasm intended, as I question if we are getting our moneys worth. Lenore Cymes
714 Wildwood Lane
I
item #2 - Utility increases
Utility #30027180 Bottom line, all this COSTS time and money. ———— next issue of not enough city money. Honestly, I am not a numbers person, however, it doesn’t take a genius to recognize that the city pays high salaries (some even get generous housing allowance that the private sector doesn’t give) and then hires consultants for so many projects. WHY? The utility rates increase over and over. This makes no sense. Where does all the money go from the previous raises in the last 2-3 years. The CC is hired to direct the City Manager and I
question who is leading who…… It seems more often than not, I read about how money is
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 3:46 PM
2
allocated, consultants hired, costs raised - it is time to genuinely tighten the city budget. Yes, some people living in PA can write checks without batting an eyelash - It seems you are banking on the knowledge of that financial freedom. Instead of looking for ways to approach a problem you increase a small % and call it a solution. Yes, some of us
are lucky to have lived in PA for a long time - when there was fiscal “liberties” taken, but not
like today, and certainly not to this irresponsible degree.
Are we getting our monies worth from the salaries+benefits paid with our tax dollars…….the question comes up often in
general discussion over coffee out in the real world of Palo Alto.
Lenore Cymes 714 Wildwood Lane
Item #3 New development at Public Facility parcel
The 57 unit new development at a Public Facility parcel. Parking spaces being decreased
because people will live near the “transit hub” is absurd thinking. If the majority of the
Council thinks this will work, they are naive. For every middle income person earning
$100,000 - to $150,000 and qualifies for the lower rental units and those who pay market
price need to sign an agreement that they will NOT own a car. Since it has to be parked
somewhere and where else but, in front of someone’s home closest to their unit. By signing
such an agreement and if are found to own a car - will there be a penalty or be asked to move? Your carrots are enabling people behave badly.
People with that level of income usually find jobs via headhunters or referral… Only the signs all over town, are for HELP WANTED…….. usually for retail sales, service people, waiters, janitors etc - jobs that pay a barely livable wage in this city. Why are you not up in arms that there is a shortage of people to fill these slots and, don’t forget teachers? In case you haven’t been in a classroom for a while - visit one These people do not earn enough to live here. What you are approving to be built costs too much and there are not enough low income worker units being built. The City Council is not sincere when it speaks about
housing, the subject is really insufficient housing affordability when units get built.
My thanks to Lydia Kou and Karen Holman for voting NO on this issue and recognize it is
time to stop giving our city away to the developers.
May 29th, 2018
Chief Transportation Official Josh Mello
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
... w:,, , '
Cl1Y Of PALO ALTQ. CEA
CITY CLERK'S OFFIC
I 8 JUN I I PM 3: 51
Re: East Meadow-Ross Road Roundabout
Dear Josh Mello,
I am Jay Kolence, a sophomore at Gunn High School in Palo Alto. In our United States
government class we have been studying and learning about public policy. I am writing to you
about the current roundabout at the East Meadow-Ross Road intersection.
Residents in Palo Alto have been vocalizing their concerns and giving feedback in response to
the roundabout. There is currently an online petition for its removal that has over a thousand
signatures. Along with that, there have been several posts and articles on Palo Alto Online and
the Palo Alto Daily Post discussing this traffic calming implementation. There has a significant
amount of negative feedback from the online Palo Alto community, many residents have brought
up their concerns and observations about the roundabout and its effect.
It is a focal point of discussions about the roundabout of how large and emergency vehicles
must react to the roundabout, and how they must maneuver around it. It has been reported by
several students at Gunn High School that the VTA buses can not properly drive through the
roundabout without partially moving onto the gutter and sidewalk. Larger trucks and vans also
face this problem in which they do not completely fit into the road in the intersection left by the
roundabout. For emergency vehicles such as fire trucks or ambulances, it is a troublesome
subject as to how they could maneuver through the roundabout at high speeds while they can
not fully fit on the road space. When larger vehicles are forced into bike lanes and gutters in
order to go through the intersection, bicyclists are also pushed onto the sidewalk in order to
make room for cars. This shift in traffic poses a threat to pedestrians on the sidewalk, as traffic
invades the sidewalk as a result of the narrow road left in the intersection.
The East Meadow-Ross Road roundabout was apart of the 8.6 million dollar Bicycle Boulevard
project orientated towards protecting bikersand easing car traffic. The safety of bicycles and
pedestrians alike is incredibly important, and should not be devalued. The roundabout at the
East Meadow-Ross Road intersection is to promote increasing safety for bikers, and due to the
specific circumstances, is not effective in what it wants to achieve. In my opinion, the
roundabout gives too little space for bikers and cars to share the intersection. Removal of the
roundabout would be the safest and most beneficial action to take for the community, and would
dissolve any dangers the implementation could potentially have in the future. A speed table
would be a reliable replacement, and cost within the range of 2,000 to 20,000 dollars (PBIC).
This is much less than the average 250,000 for the roundabout (Federal Highway
Administration). Discussion of an alternative implementation being thought of after the current
implementation of the roundabout should not be taken as a negative subject. Rather, being able
to listen to public opinion and take action to fulfill and work towards a better solution is to be met
with gratitude. Although it is only being thought of after the implementation of the roundabout, it
would be a great solution to traffic concerns.
This traffic calming implementation and its effects on the community is important to me becal
I am a resident in Palo .A.Ito who is faced with the roundabout on a weekly basis. Thank you fc.1
taking the time to read my letter.
Jay-
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 6:36 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 5:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Initiative and Roundabouts
To the Palo Alto City Council,
I urge you to put the initiative on limiting growth back to the historic level on the
ballot. As we can all see, and experience, the historic level has already caused many
problems that we have not solved.
I see we have a meeting tomorrow at Mitchell Park on the roundabouts, which may work
well
in a large city, and in Europe, but do not in Palo Alto. Listen to the residents of Ross Rd.
and
anyone else who uses, our used to use it. Plus 8.6 million dollars? When P. A. is in a
financial
crunch. Use that money for people, again for a place for the motor homes, and cars to
park
that is safe, with showers etc. Now that would really help people who work here, that
cannot
afford to live here or commute home.
Thank you for responding to these issues positively.
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
Palo Alto, 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 6:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:craig <ckyana@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 4:54 PM
To:Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Mello, Joshuah
Subject:Another accident Lincoln/MF, 3pm
Attachments:IMG_20180611_145504.jpg
That's twice this month already. Airbag deployed. Police came.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 6:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Olivia Ellson <oellson@brandeis.edu>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 5:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road
Dear City Council Members,
I'm a recent Gunn graduate, and I bike Ross Road twice a day going to and from my summer job. It’s a quiet, enjoyable bike ride.
The roundabout works great, and I've never experienced any problems on the road.
Thank you for making the road safer for bikes
- Olivia Ellson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 11:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:C Wytmar <wytmar@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 7:55 PM
To:Council, City; Keene, James
Subject:City Council Bike Boulevard Study Session June 12
Dear City Council and Mr. Keene,
I am writing to express my full support of the Ross Road bike improvements. I live on Mayview Ave and often use the
Ross Road bike boulevard as a biking route.
Until these recent improvements, Ross Road felt quite dangerous for a cyclist because of the high speeds by drivers and
the need for cyclists to weave around parked cars. Even had there been a designated bike lane, Ross Road was not a
safe road to bike on. I have avoided cycling on Louis Road for the same reason.
Since construction has been completed, driving speeds have been greatly reduced as have the number of cars on Ross
Road. In addition, the expectation that bikes share the same part of the road is much safer, especially as there isn’t a
need to weave in and out of a driver's line of sight due to parked cars or other obstructions. It allows cyclists and drivers
to have highly predictable behavior, which I believe will reduce the likelihood of an accident.
I also really like the roundabout. Let’s be honest, many drivers and cyclists do not stop or fully stop at stop signs. The
roundabout forces slower speeds and efficient traffic flow. I followed our neighborhood fire truck and ambulance
through the roundabout and was pleased to see these larger vehicles easily navigate the roundabout at the expected
speed.
Going forward, I hope our city leaders will be patient, and allow the community time to adjust to the new bike routes
and improvements; not just the ones on Ross Road. The more the city can support alternate and safe transportation
options, besides cars, the better our city will be. Improvements for cyclists, young and old, are an essential component
to get more cars off the streets.
If the city were to focus on one additional aspect of these improvements, it would be education. Drivers need reminders
on properly yielding to cyclists, and cyclists need to be aware that on the bike boulevards they should be riding in the
center of the street.
Thank you for continuing to support of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard Projects. As someone
who has started doing much more than recreation on my bike in the last few years, these new improvements with
established bike boulevards really help to me to ride more and drive less.
Catherine Wytmar
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 11:35 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Rachel Milliken-Weitzman <rachel@weitzman.net>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 9:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road Bike Blvd.
I am writing to let you know that I am not a big biker, but I am really enjoying the Ross Road bike Blvd. I am someone
who only cruises around town. I do ride down Ross Road often on my short rides. Now that the Blvd. is finished I feel
much safer riding down Ross. I feel that most drivers know that they need to yield to me and the circle is much easier to
navigate than a four way stop.
Thank you for doing this project.
Rachel Milliken‐Weitzman
2497 Ross Road
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 11:35 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:jweitzman <jweitzman@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 10:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:bike boulevards
Unfortunately I can’t make the workshop tomorrow night at Mitchell Park. I wanted to again express my support for the
improvements to Ross Road and the plan to expand bike boulevards in south Palo Alto.
Now that the work on Ross is complete and people are getting used to the changes, the increased safety and rideability
are becoming clear. I’m an experienced bike rider (and driver for that matter), so to be frank, the changes weren’t as
important for me. But my wife is a reluctant bike rider, and she is thrilled with the safety improvements. She’s riding to
yoga and the Eichler club and feels far more comfortably on the roads.
In my experience, cars no longer blow through the stop signs at Moreno and Ross. Everyone seems comfortable
navigating the circles, and cars have stopped trying to pass bikes on the bulbout sections. Overall traffic seems calmer,
just as intended.
I drive Ross more than I bike it, and as a driver, I enjoy the improvements as well. I don’t think it has changed the time is
takes me; the better traffic flow makes up for a slightly slower speed.
I fully support continuing with the plan.
Jeff Weitzman
Ross Road
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 11:35 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Frank Holland <dutch_06@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 10:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike Boulevard - Ross Road - Disappointing
The study session report prepared for the June 12th meeting and the entire project to date is disappointing. I expected
that the Council members would require a clear statement of benefits and trade-offs before spending the taxpayer's money.
The study reported "In 2012, the Council adopted a bold, ambitious, and visionary Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation
Plan." The adjectives that I would use are reckless, poorly analyzed, wasteful. If the staff wants to use colorful adjectives then they should back-up the adjectives.
The report does not have a clear table showing the "before" truck, car and bicycle usage rates as well as the current
accident rates compared against the future estimated "usage and accident" rates. What exactly are we buying for this significant expenditure?
My observations as frequent traveler on Ross Road is the road is now less safe. The staff report indicated that a fire truck
and other large vehicles can maneuver the new roundabouts. It may be true in a controlled experiment these vehicles did maneuver through the roundabout but I have seen fire trucks and Granite company trucks fail to maneuver the
roundabouts. I suggest the Council go and look at the roundabout curbs and see the black tire marks and by how much these vehicles failed to successfully navigate the intersection.
It seems other cities are implementing bike lanes at a significantly lower cost. I am encouraging to the Council to revisit
this project and define clear objectives and lower the cost of the project.
Frank Holland
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 11:35 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Maria Abilock <gotdna@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 5:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please proceed with Bike Plan projects
Dear City Council,
I am writing to share my experience with the Ross Rd Bike Blvd and ask for your support to prioritize the completion of the next phases of the Bike Plan projects.
I live in the Palo Verde neighborhood, about a block from the new Ross Rd Bike Blvd. My family recently sold
our second car and now our main modes of transportation are walking, biking, and driving our one electric
car. My kids independently walk, bike, or ride the VTA bus to JLS/Gunn.
After completion of the Ross Rd Bike Blvd construction, I switched from bicycling down Middlefield to using
the Ross Rd. Bike Blvd. My commute to Greendell School where I teach is now safer, more pleasant, and
faster. In particular, I love the roundabout at East Meadow and Ross Rd and would like to see more of them.
Since the recent education efforts by City staff, I have noticed JLS students biking along Ross Rd properly-- in
the middle of the travel lane and navigating the traffic circle with other road users (cars/pedestrians) safely.
In addition to training my sons how to navigate the Ross Rd Bike Blvd, I have also trained some friends and
neighbors.
The Bike Plan projects that have already been approved are important to continue with full funding and without
delay to improve connectivity for people on bikes and foot through the city. We need this network of routes to
provide novice and experienced road users alternatives to getting through town on car-prioritized streets,
reducing traffic congestion.
Also important is to allocate sufficient resources to educate the community on the importance of these changes
and how to use the new facilities. The infrastructure for some of the education already exists:
Safe Routes to School Curriculum in K-2 (Pedestrian Safety), 3rd/5th/6th grade (Bicycle Safety), and
8th grade (Getting to High School).
Middle School Bicycle Skills classes with the City of Palo Alto & WheelKids partnership.
Reinstate the Family Cycling class that was piloted in the summer of 2015
Annual Bike Palo Alto event where routes can feature new infrastructure.
Partnership with PAUSD, including PTA Safe Routes Champions at each school site.
Infographic Posters that get published as ads in the Palo Alto Weekly.
It is time to connect the dots and complete the approved Bike Plan as well as prioritize aggressive education
outreach.
Please see my Guest Opinion published in the Palo Alto Weekly in March 2017 where I responded to the
weekly's question: What can the City do to help make Palo Alto streets safer?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 11:35 AM
6
Thank you,
Maria
https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/17/guest-opinion-safer-streets---whats-been-done-whats-possible
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 11:35 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Christy Moision <cmoision@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 8:28 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for the Bike Network
I’m writing in support of the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the build-out of the bike network.
I’m not a long-time bicyclist. I didn’t even own a bike before moving to Palo Alto four years ago. It never
occurred to me that my kids could ride their bikes to school or that I could do my errands by bicycle. Palo Alto’s culture and bike friendliness got me and my kids out of my car.
As a new bicyclist, I had to learn how to ride on the road safely. Everything I’ve learned -- from my own
research and the classes I’ve taken -- tells me that the best way to be safe on a bicycle is to be visible and
predictable. While it may be counterintuitive, on a residential street, riding in a consistent straight line away from parked cars is the key. Riding too far to the right presents a whole host of problems: you’re less visible to
drivers backing out of driveways, there are often hazards in the road, and swerving out around a parked car puts
a bicyclist at a great risk of harm.
I enjoy riding on Ross Road because the new design supports safe cycling practices, and the traffic calming elements moderate vehicle speed so that bicyclists, drivers, and pedestrians can share the road safely.
The roundabout at East Meadow and Ross addresses many of the problems I saw when I first started biking that
route to school with my boys two years ago. During school commute times, the four-way stop was pretty
chaotic. The kids often ride in large groups, and the vast majority did not stop at the stop signs. Left turns were particularly dicey, and bicyclists in the bike lane on Meadow were in danger of being hit by drivers turning right
without seeing them.
The roundabout forces everyone to slow down, drivers can clearly see the bicyclists in the shared lane, and
everyone is moving in the same direction so head-on and T collisions are no longer possible.
Prior to the changes on Ross, even though it is a residential street with a 25 mph speed limit, it was often used
for cut-through traffic trying to avoid Middlefield. Both speeding and failure to comply with stop signs were
problems. Since the construction was completed, many people have adjusted to the new elements and vehicle
speeds have reduced. While I’ve had a couple of experiences with impatient drivers (on all of our bike boulevards), most of the time I am treated courteously by drivers on Ross.
It’s important that the build-out of the bike network continue so that in the years to come even more people are
encouraged to leave their cars at home for errands, school or work commutes, and other bikeable trips. Bicycle
commuting addresses so many of the challenges we face including traffic congestion, climate change, and childhood obesity. I appreciate Palo Alto’s past efforts to be a more bike friendly city and I hope the endeavor
continues.
Christy Moision
Louis Road Resident --
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 11:35 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:kc griffin <kc.griffin@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:19 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road Bicycle Blvd.
Dear City Council Members.
I am writing you to express my support for the Ross Rd. Bicycle Blvd. Project. I reside
on Ross Rd. so from the beginning of this project I have had my own concerns besides hearing the concerns of neighbors and other Palo Alto residents.
First let me say that the concepts of the plan are working. After the initial uproar, due mostly
to the traffic mess caused by all the construction, traffic is less and more calm, the street is very attractive, and bicyclists and vehicles are learning to navigate safely.
There are drivers who do not want to slow down or share the road. I would hope measures
could be taken to inform these drivers what the new rules of the road are. And there are bicyclists who are nervous about how to navigate and chose to move up unto the sidewalk.
In time I believe they will learn to take their rightful place on the road.
I like the roundabouts. They work and are safe. I like less stop signs. This will be safer for bicyclists.
Thank you for being bold in your actions.
In the end most of us will like most of this project.
We need easier and safer routes for bikers. And we need more people biking.
I hope you will continue to invest in the future.
Sincerely,
K.C.Griffin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 11:35 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Jessica Yang <jessyang325@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 10:53 AM
To:Council, City; De Geus, Robert
Subject:Stop the bike boulevard project for residents' safety!
Dear PA City Council,
Unfortunately, I can not make it to the meeting tonight. However, I want to continue to press the city to stop the bicycle boulevards project and listen to the residents' feedback.
I live right next to Ross and my kid bikes to school every day on Ross. From the conversation I had with the
neighbors, majority people HATE the project. It makes the road unsafe for bikers and pedestrians. Yesterday, at the roundabout between Ross and East Meadow, I tried to cross the street, a car came around the roundabout and stopped only 5 feet way from me! I was scared! If the stop sign were still there, the car
would stay on the other side of the road until I finish crossing the road. The bike boulevard design is a
complete failure and Ross should be restored back to its original condition for bikers and pediatricians'
safety!
Best,
Jessica Yang
408-802-1760
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 11:35 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Lynn Drake <lynnhdrake@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thumbs up on new Ross Road Bike route improvements
Hi City Council-
I've routinely driven and biked on Ross Road and had a positive experience. I especially like the roundabout on E. Meadow x Ross . We no longer have bikes and cars running stop signs!! How great is that?
I also like the new trees and landscaping. South Palo Alto has been loosing their Tree Canopy and it's nice to
see some new trees planted.
I think once people get used to it, it will be fine for everyone.
Thank you for your service to the city.
Lynn Drake
3415 Louis Road
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 11:35 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Bill Higgins <Bill_Higgins@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:26 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Penny Ellson; Bill Higgins
Subject:Palo Alto homeowner and voter in favor of bike boulevards
Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am hoping to attend the study group meeting tonight and if given the opportunity speak plan to say something
along the lines of this:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of traffic calming in Palo Alto and specifically the Ross
Road project. I am a longtime Louis Road homeowner who lives near Palo Verde school and the Eichler swim
and tennis club, as well as a frequent user of the YMCA on Ross. As a frequent road and sidewalk user for
automobile commuting, bike errands and pedestrian use I applaud the Ross Road improvements. I look forward to continuing to enjoy the phase one improvements in the Ross Road corridor for many years to come. I sincerely hope that the council will continue to study and implement similar improvements throughout Palo
Alto and continue to make it an attractive place to live. Frankly, my biggest regret about the Ross Road project
is that it is not the Louis Road bicycle boulevard. In other words, I hope that in the future it will be appropriate
to extend the community friendly elements of the project to include Louis Road. Thank you for your time.
Thank you again, Bill
Sent from my phone using my thumbs to type
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 2:59 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lydia W. Lee <lydiawlee@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 1:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thanks for making our local streets safer for bicycling!
Dear Councilmembers,
I am a Menlo Park resident, but I bike to and through Palo Alto several times a week. I can't imagine getting around town without the bike boulevard on Bryant St., the separated bike path along Alma, and various other bike lanes around town. More recently, driving to the Y on Ross Road, I
appreciated the roundabouts, speed bumps and other street features that slow traffic down through
the design of the road itself.
As a member of Menlo Park's Complete Streets commission, I can tell you that we frequently reference Palo Alto as a model for bicycle infrastructure. Please continue to be a model for the Bay
Area and make alternative transportation attractive by increasing bicycle boulevard mileage by 13.1
miles, and redesigning streets to support active and non-SOV modes of travel, as set out in
your thoughtful 2018-2020 Sustainability Implementation Plan.
Thank you for your service to your own community as well as surrounding communities--your efforts touch a
lot of people.
Best,
Lydia Lee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 4:27 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lawrence Garwin <lawrencegarwin@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:18 PM
To:Planning.commision@cityofpaloalto.org; Mello, Joshuah; Gaines, Chantal; Council, City;
Phillips, Peter
Subject:Lincoln/Middlefield Intersection
To All Concerned,
I'd be happy to be part of the process defining the underlying issues and possible solutions to the dangerous
intersection at Lincoln Ave and Middlefield Road, here in Palo Alto. Please let me know how I might be involved.
In any case, please also consider my following observations and suggestions (in bold, below), as I won't be
able to attend Wednesday's Planning and Transportation Commission meeting to submit them myself.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration of my observations and conclusions.
Lawrence Garwin
Palo Alto
I have a few suggestions based on my interviews with a number of car drivers "responsible" for recent
automobile collisions at the Lincoln/Middlefield intersection. (These drivers were all crossing Middlefield on
Lincoln.)
One driver (heading towards Alma) said they were not aware it was only a two way stop. A van was parked
shortly before the stop sign, making it difficult to see the "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" sign. Also, due to a
large tree, the Stop and CTDNS sign are significantly before the cross walk and Stop line, making it impossible for a driver to see the CTDNS sign once they've stopped. Perhaps the CTDNS sign could be moved closer to the intersection and/or be larger.
Another driver (also driving towards Alma) said they didn't see any car approaching from the right. It was late afternoon, so they were looking towards the sun and the approaching car likely would have been in the shade
without headlights on. A cleaner windshield and cars driving with headlights on in the daytime could help
with this. Also, I suspect the speed issues mentioned next were a factor.
The other 3 drivers (going in both directions) all said they saw the approaching car, but thought there was plenty
of time to clear the intersection.
I notice that there is a drainage dip on the Alma side of the intersection that causes cars to take much more time to cross Middlefield than at other intersections. (I invite each of you to stand near the intersection to watch cars
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 4:27 PM
2
crossing for 10-30 minutes some time to corroborate this.) I surmise that folks aren't used to driving across
intersections so slowly and therefore don't properly factor in their reduced speed owing to the dip, so a car that
looks plenty far away (and would be if their was no dip slowing them down) hits them.
A larger storm drain pipe was put in along Lincoln recently, and gas and electrical utilities were moved to
accommodate it. I suspect a street storm drain could be added on the Addison School corner of the
intersection, perhaps plumbed into the new drain pipe under Lincoln, and the dip filled in.
White lines painted across Middlefield to define the crosswalks would encourage drivers to look for and be
aware of pedestrians and likely slow down and even notice cars that are in the process of crossing, as the
crossing cars would partially block the view of the further crosswalk.
Tall vehicles (and trailers!) parked on Middlefield within 3 houses to the left of the car approaching on Lincoln
make it very difficult to see oncoming traffic. The first parking spot has already been bollarded off from parking
on both sides. Perhaps the next few parking spots beyond the bollarded off ones could be marked to exclude tall vehicles. I have personally asked a renovation crew to move their trailer into the driveway or
further from the corner, as I believe it was a contributing factor to today's accident. I encourage other neighbors
to do the same.
If the above measures do not reduce the incidence of collisions, how about about we add to the "School" signs
some lights (flashing during the day, steady on in the dark hours of evening, off at night, and narrowly
focused onto the street so as not to bother residents) to encourage Middlefield drivers to carefully heed the
speed limit as they approach the intersection?
Another suggestion I've heard is to have a flashing Caution light pointing along Middlefield in either
direction to give folks the heads up they're approaching a dangerous intersection.
I am NOT in favor of a traffic light, because the waiting vehicles would fill my house with fumes, as I
ventilate my home most of the day. As well, I often find Palo Alto's traffic lights are red for long periods when
there is no cross traffic, so I'd rather not add to the vehicular gridlock.
---------------------------------
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 4:27 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 3:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike Boulevards Study Session Tonight
Honorable City Council Members,
I bike or drive on Ross a couple times a week and occasionally walk there. My daughter bike
commutes Ross twice daily to her summer job. I have used and observed the road before and
after the project. My personal experiences with the changes have been overall positive.
Palo Alto’s Comp Plan establishes support and priority for providing a safe place on the street
for growing numbers of people of all ages and abilities who walk and bike for recreation and
transportation. The city has just begun to implement the plan’s vision for a city-wide network of
facilities that support safer environmentally sustainable active commutes.
Adjusting to Change
There are two phases of adjustment that occur with transportation projects. First, construction
comes with disruptions and delays. Second, road users need time to adjust to new treatments
once they are complete. We have seen with other projects that it takes three to six months for
people to fully adapt to road changes, depending on the project. I hope the city will allow
adequate time for new patterns of behavior to be established before evaluating whether the
improvements are performing as planned. It has only been a matter of weeks since Ross
construction was completed.
Lane Positioning—Being Predictable & Visible
Bike boulevards are not designed exclusively for bikes. There are four lanes that motorists may
use for travel and parking on Ross. Bicyclists share the two travel lanes with cars—just like
Bryant. Because traffic diversion (as was done on Bryant) was not an option on Ross, the city
used other hardscape facilities to moderate auto speeds and to stimulate drivers to be more
attentive to the road.
These include sharrows to cue road users to expect bicyclists to ride in the travel lane outside
the dangerous “door zone” where they will be visible and predictable to drivers. This is safer
than weaving in and out of the parking lane around parked cars.
Why Roundabouts Work Better Than Four-Way Stops
Replacing four-way stops with roundabouts has been a huge improvement. Right-of-way rules
for four-way stops are complicated. When multiple vehicles arrive at a four-way stop
simultaneously, deciding who goes first becomes a challenging negotiation—especially for
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 4:27 PM
4
kids. Bicyclists and drivers often used to run the four-way stops, creating risk for
everyone. Roundabouts require looking one direction and yielding to traffic that is already in
the roundabout, a simpler interaction. They provide the convenience of not having to stop
unless another vehicle is already in the roundabout. Importantly, roundabouts reduce the
number of potential points of collision in the intersection--a real safety improvement.
I have heard some people express concern that the roundabout design requires bicyclists to take the lane just before the roundabout. It is designed this way for safety. Bicyclists
should never ride through a roundabout next to a motor vehicle, in case the driver swings too
wide on the circle. Taking the lane is an essential bicycling skill for making a left hand turn on
any street—whether or not there is a roundabout. For younger students who may not yet have
mastered this skill or who may not yet feel confident doing it, the Ross roundabout design
provides a ramp to the sidewalk where bicyclists may dismount and become pedestrians to use
the crosswalks.
A Request for Observation Finally, I have observed some drivers making wide turns out of the YMCA north exit,
encroaching on an oncoming lane. Observation and an adjustment to the bulbout turning radius
might be considered if this continues to be a problem after drivers have had time to adjust to the
new turning radius.
A Request for Enforcement
While most Ross Road drivers are well-behaved, a few cross the double yellow lines between
the chicanes near the YMCA either to avoid the speed hump by using the emergency vehicle
slots or to pass illegally. This is flagrantly illegal and should be ticketed. Please ask PAPD to
do some spot enforcement at this location.
Traffic Safety Education Works
Some people say that if the new facilities require people to be taught how to use them, then
they must be designed wrong. Yet, in PAUSD schools we teach students how to ride on the
right, navigate four-way stops and signals, and more. People are not born knowing vehicle code
and road skills. They are taught. A little more outreach to local drivers might be helpful.
We Need This Network
As both auto and foot-powered traffic increase, we need a city-wide transportation network with
physical infrastructure that encourages people to share the road legally and safely and to choose
alternatives to driving solo more often—as our Comprehensive Plan envisions.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Penny Ellson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 4:27 PM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Amie Ashton <aashton@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 3:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Bikes!
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I had to throw my support behind Palo Alto's Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the bicycle
infrastructure described within.
My husband and I love living in Palo Alto because we don't have to drive anywhere. Rinconada Pool,
grocery stores, Downtown, Cal Ave, Stanford, Town and Country -- all are accessible to us on bike. I
feel happier, healthier, and more connected to my community when I am on two wheels. I am especially excited for the bulb-outs at the dangerous Bryant Street/Everett Avenue intersection,
which I bike through at least twice each day. The temporary plants and paint at the corners
(simulating the permanent bulb-outs) have already significantly increased visibility and safety for cars,
pedestrians, AND bikes. What a win! Please continue to support the amazing bicycle infrastructure that makes Palo Alto a unique and
exciting place to live.
Thank you, Amie Ashton
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Boardmember
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 4:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Terry Barton <terry.barton@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporting Traffic Calming and Bike Boulevards now and for future
Dear Council Member,
The future is moving away from frequent short car trips where the city subsidizes parking. pedestrians are maimed, residents endure polluted air, friends die early due to lack of exercise, and people around the world
suffer consequences of carbon induced climate change.
Please bring us into the future with improved infrastructure to support biking and walking. Change is not
always welcome, but is becoming a necessity to avoid an undesirable future.
Everyday I commute the length of Palo Alto to my job in east Menlo Park. I choose to ride my bike most days,
but many of the hundreds of co-workers living near me in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos are still
choosing to drive because they don't feel comfortable due to gaps in bike lanes and infrastructure.
I look forward to a complete network of connected Bike Boulevards and encourage you to complete the
network soon.
Terry Barton
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephen Chan <stephen.chan.paloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 09, 2018 1:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Raising several concerns regarding the Palo Alto Caltrain crossing grade separation
plan
Dear Council Members,
I am a resident living in Palo Alto. I am paying close attention to the grade separation plan at the Caltrain crossings and opinions from different sides. While there have been heated discussion around the impact of the plan on the Palo Alto residents, I am expressing several concerns that I am still hearing from residents living near the rails. My Stanford schoolmate previously shared some of these with the city planning and transportation departments, so forgive me if you have already seen this or similar concerns.
I understand that different options have pros and cons, and I appreciate your patience in listening to different voices. However,
there are still deep concerns or even anxiety that the requests from the residents nearby the rails may be sacrificed because
they are minority compared to the majority of the people that do not live so close to trains. While being minority, the negative
impact on these people nearby the rails are the most serious. For example, although the electrified trains may be quieter, the
increased train frequency increases the noise pollution in another dimension, and the increased speed of the trains raises higher safety threat for the nearby residents (many houses are within 20 or even 10 meters from the rails). The grade separation plan should try to minimize these negative impacts or even potential dangers instead of increasing them. We hope that the safety and health of the residents along the rails to be considered as the highest tier factor in the decision making even if the voices from them may be minority compared to the rest. In regard to the financial budget consideration of the projects, while it may be reasonable to use budget as a reason to hold some of the options, it is not ok to use the budget to rank the options. These big construction projects were meant to improve the life of the people in the long term, which was one of the major justifications of starting these projects. Many residents along the
rails will live beside the rails almost every day for tens of years. The temporary financial need should never be weighed above
the longterm safety and health of these residents.
Thank you in advance for listening to these voices which you may have heard from other people. I sincerely hope these
concerns to be explicitly and properly addressed in the decision making.
Best regards,
Steph
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 11:44 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 | 6/13/2018 9:22 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:20 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:palo alto indian market
I was candidate (or still am) for Human Relations commission and five of you (Mr. Fine, Mr. Filseth, Mr.
Dubois, Ms. Holman, Ms. Kuo) interviewed me, as a public record, apropos of that.
I mention the idea of a Palo Alto Indian Market. To celebrate the arts. Diversity. Capitalism. I noticed today I had written about this idea -- not a public record, but searchable -- on August 11, 2011, seven
years ago.
In a related realm, I pledged $100 to Palo Alto Rec Foundation in honor of City Manager Jim Keene
who I met with at the Palo Alto crafts fair (better than I expected). Keene is running the 10k of the
Palo Alto Weekly Moonlight Run and if he either breaks 50 minutes or places in his age group (he just
turned 60) I will pay up. (Similarly, I once pledged $500 if Police Chief Dennis Burns could learn a
particular bird call, ala the Piedmont High students — longer story). Keene was wearing a Navajo
silver bracelet and said that he was the former City Manager for Flagstaff, AZ. This fact begets yet
another Earthwise Production: the Palo Alto Indian Market. Details, teepee announced.
excuse the pun.
Also, many Native Americans prefer to be referenced by their actual tribe or group. For example,
Hopi, Navajo. People from San Ildefonso meanwhile now prefer Okay Owengwe or something.
My blog is called Plastic Alto which is a pun on our name but not a slur. It references modernity and
malleability, not fakeness. Also, Ornette Coleman played a plastic alto. The jazz musician (I promote
jazz concerts).
Thinking of you.
I would go to the HRC meeting tomorrow but I have tickets to take my nephew (or my wife's nephew)
to see Julian Lage at SFJAZZ, a non-profit arts venue in San Francisco.
Thanks for your public service. And thanks to any common citizens (or we 90 percent who are above
average here, as Gary Fazzino riffing onn Garrison Keiller used to joke, almost serially) who can read
these words, in the public record.
The Indian Market would be like a crafts fair, but with workshops.
mark weiss
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/13/2018 9:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Grace Pariante <grace_pariante@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bikable Palo Alto
I am sorry I could not stay late for an opportunity to speak at the council public meeting at the Mitchell Park
Community Center. Here is what I was going to say:
You are hearing mostly from people who don’t bike and people who are avid
bicyclers. So I thought I would offer my point of view because I think I am that
person who, with the right design, you will be able to get out of my car and on my
bicycle more often.
My message to you is not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Tonight I have heard a lot of negativity about Ross Road changes, especially the
East Meadow roundabout. Perhaps it is a bad design. As a member of the family
YMCA, I notice my own behavior, and the changes have made me drive more
slowly and have made me more aware of bicycles and pedestrians. I’ve ridden my
bike through the Ross Road roundabout for the first time last weekend, and I found
it very pleasant.
Please do not rely on our reports here tonight. I hope you have done and will do
independent observational research to see if the street and intersection redesign are
in fact reducing car speeds and increasing safety for all who use the roads. Or not.
And then base the future designs on this data.
The overall goal is laudable for all the reasons mentioned earlier, traffic congestion,
safety, pollution, etc. Please keep working on solutions to these problems. Keep this
as one of the community’s highest priorities.
I hope we get the bridge over 101 at San Antonio built before I retire so I can bike
to work, which is just on the other side of the freeway.
Unlike the gentleman earlier, I do vote regularly for city council members and will
continue to do so.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/13/2018 9:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sara woodham-johnsson <sawoodham@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike boulevard and traffic calming improvements
Council,
I attended this evening to weigh in on the improvements being done around the city to improve bike safety. I am a
supporter of this work. Please keep it going. While Ross Road is a source of complaint for many, it seems to me that the
City has been open to modifications and adjustment. Please continue to collect data and share with the community.
My family of 5 avid bikers live on Bryant Street and Palo Alto Ave. My rising 3rd grader is an Ohlone student, and we
have biked to school on occasion. The traffic circle at Amarillo and Greer is effective. As a carpool driver, I often park
there and the children use the crossing areas to get to and from the car. It works. Please make it permanent.
Traffic circles make sense as it improves the predictability of traffic flow, which is key. I would love to see one at Bryant
and Everett, as it seems like the downtown community is very used to this traffic calming mechanism. Nonetheless,
though this does not seem to be on tap for this intersection, I am relieved that the City will take steps to significantly
slow dow the traffic at that dangerous intersection. I pass it several times a day, either on a bike or in a car, and it
requires extra focus to navigate.
That there are detractors of these improvements should not come as a surprise. Acceptance of change takes time. Our
neighborhood was “up in arms” about the modifications to Middlefield between University and Willow. I hear nothing
now, and I have only seen a few of the illegal turns residents have referenced. I can say though that our family has biked
on Middlefield with these changes, when we would never have thought it possible before. Traffic is predictable. The
middle turn lanes are a great buffer area as one crosses Middlefield. Please make this change permanent, if it is not
already.
There were many detractors of the bike lanes around Jordan/Greene Middle School. I hear nothing of it now. I see my
child and so many other middle schooler using this area, along with myself, and it is clearly safer. Cars need to slow, and
that inconvenience that forces cars to drive at the speed limit cannot be contorted to look like a bad thing.
As the streets have become more bike‐friendly, my biking increases every year. Our family has questioned the need for
2 cars. One car is left parked for several days every week. This traffic calming work is important. This is the lifestyle we
aspire to, where we can feel safe walking and biking for as much of our daily activities as possible. Please continue to
make this happen.
Finally, my observation is that there is an marked increase of students riding motorized scooters and skateboards. I
worry about this growing demographic. They are often as fast as a bike, and they are children. This traffic safety work
needs to support this growing mode of transport by children as young as 12 years old.
I look forward to continued expansion of our bike network across the city.
Take care,
sara
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/13/2018 9:07 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Samuel Chang <changsn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Wednesday, June 13, 2018 7:59 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike Boulevards
I have followed and been involved in this debate and am appalled that the city council is
not moving fast enough to CANCEL this project. The overwhelming majority of residents
oppose this and for good reason. There are few bikers on Ross Rd (I know as I am one) to
justify this dramatic an action. Also, as a biker I refuse to be used as a calming
influence since this puts my life at risk. Keep in mind the speed limt on Ross doesn't
change, the bikers are simply blocking the cars. The neighborhood meeting held by Mr
Tanaka showed that a few bike activists (many who do not live in the area and some who
aren't even residents) make it seem like there is lots of support for the bike boulevard,
but there isn't.
If you guys can't find better ways to use this money, I can assure you my vote in the next
election will go to someone who will. This project is a HUGE waste and I personally
believe whoever thought this up should be fired.
Sam Chang
3694 Ross Rd
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/13/2018 12:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 13, 2018 11:43 AM
To:Shikada, Ed; Yazdy, Shahla; Robert.degeus@cityofpalaoalto.org;
Joshuahmello@CityofPaloAlto.org; Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; jaquette@gmail.com; Becky Sanders
Subject:Bike Meeting / Middlefield Road Project Post-Mortem
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 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 | 6/12/2018 11:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:22 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shelly Kosak; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto
Subject:CEDAW ordinance
To the Palo Alto City Council:
Please stop postponing taking up the CEDAW ordinancet. The situation will not get easier because
you procrastinate.
Half of all the residents of Palo Alto are women. Half of the voters are women. All of us have
mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and daughters who suffer discrination, domestic abuse, and worse.
What are the arguments for keeping the status quo what is often so destructive to women?
Do you know that Indian American women who are pediatricians have had to form their own support
group to enable them to divorce abusive husbands?
Do you think we are somehow better off because we keep women from making contributions to
improving the worlds of business, technology, and politics?
Your part of solving this problem is WHY YOU WERE ELECTED! You do not have the luxury of the
ostrich approach. Remove your heads from the ground. Take up your responsibilities.
STOP discrimination against women.
We did not elect you so you could put things off.
Live up to your responsibilities. Imagine YOU are the beaten woman!
DO SOMETHING! NOW!
Chuck Jagoda
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Friday, June 08, 2018 5:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:CEDEW Ordinance
Dear Council Members,
Why are you pushing up this issue to August? We have been waiting and planning to attend first the June 4, then June 11,
and now August 20th Council Meeting! Let's act on this ordinance NOW. Gender equity is a major issue in our
city
and the country at large.
Subcerely,
Roberta Ahlquist, WILPF and CEDEW supporter
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 1:38 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:halle mori <hallemori@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 10, 2018 9:35 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Discrimination against women
City council of Palo Alto
President Jimmy Carter signed the UN CEDAW Treaty, eliminating all forms of discrimination against women, in
1979. In lieu of action by the US Senate all these years since, local activists have won passage of CEDAW
Ordinances in San Francisco (city and county), Berkeley, Santa Clara County, and San Jose to embed the CEDAW principles of non-discrimination into city’s and county’s policies and procedures. It is time, past time, for Palo Alto to stand up in support of its woman and families. I urge the city council to approve the CEDAW ordinance.
Sincerely, Halle Mori
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:41 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Beheler <elizabeth.beheler@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 06, 2018 12:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of CEDAW
Dear Council Members, I’m a devoted volunteer at close the gap CA, a campaign dedicated to recruiting progressive women to run for the CA Legislature and reach gender parity by 2028. We just had a great evening yesterday in 8 of our 10 targeted districts.
President Jimmy Carter signed the UN CEDAW Treaty, eliminating all forms of discrimination against women, in 1979. In lieu of action by
the US Senate all these years since, local activists have won passage of CEDAW Ordinances in San Francisco (city and county), Berkeley,
Santa Clara County, and San Jose to embed the CEDAW principles of non-discrimination into city’s and county’s policies and procedures. It
is time, past time, for Palo Alto to stand up in support of its woman and families. I urge the city council to approve the CEDAW ordinance.
Thank you very much for your work and time, Elizabeth Beheler 420 Alder Lane
closethegapca.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/13/2018 10:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:craig <ckyana@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 13, 2018 10:02 AM
To:Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Mello, Joshuah
Subject:Lincoln/MF 6/13
I hope you can see the urgency here and do something before your break.
2 cars, no police. 9:40am today
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, June 07, 2018 10:18 AM
To:elewis@ci.atherton.ca.us; Ivar.Satero@flysfo.com; jcastaneda@sforoundtable.org
Cc:Karen.Chapman@mail.house.gov; Council, City; dennis.roberts@faa.gov;
daniel.elwell@faa.gov; Bert Ganoung (AIR); Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org;
dpine@smcgov.org; Ahsha.Safai@sfgov.org; digres@ci.pacifica.ca.us;
jborgens@redwoodcity.org; awengert@portolavalley.net;
john_murray@feinstein.senate.gov
Subject:My comments last night at the SFO Roundtable
Dear Members of the SFO Roundtable,
Thank you for holding regular meetings, and I also greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak during public
comment. Since January 2017, many of us have been appealing for the quick standing of the follow up body to the Select
Committee. After the over 18 month delay which I have heard will still take months before anything happens
(to get a forum - if at all), I realize I can write emails to elected officials but with nearly two years passing, and
many emails written, the concerns and questions are urgent. Also, they affect everyone, not just Palo Alto and so thank you for taking input into consideration.
Last night I referred to FAA PBN Community Involvement Initiative and "Working Group," I'm following up
with some references for getting noise impact assessments early in the process to achieve sustainable
procedures which are not negatively impacting people. SFO's announced commitment to early engagement with affected people is excellent, but we need published
Timelines, an articulated plan and robust community outreach. I've heard the Roundable fiercely advocate for
the need for alternative metrics and to make noise a priority. This needs to begin with you. Nothing prevents
SFO and the SF Roundtable developing a set of alternative metrics for community discussions. HMMH is your consultant and they could recommend an approach to employ these and to develop AEDT maps.
Please see the following references. These all offer a solid framework for Community Involvement "2.0." I am
not seeing enough credit to FAA for developing these ideas which should be embraced. They offer a
framework, but logically it is up to the local areas to execute and achieve. #1 FAA PBN Community Involvement Initiative is a Blueprint for Community Engagement which was
presented by FAA at the Aviation Noise and Emissions Symposium (ANE), Long Beach, CA earlier this year.
FAA Air Traffic Organization Community Involvement Plan FAA Community Involvement Manual
Community Involvement page on FAA website #2 "Working Group" was explained in FAA's PHASE TWO Initiative with the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:43 AM
2
FAA Order 7100.41A Creation/amendment of instrument flight procedures
FAA reported in their most recent update (page 3) that on May 8th a Working Group was convened to discuss a southern arrivals procedure to be done for noise reduction reasons for the region (as you already have
operationally feasible procedure). Yet no noise impact modeling analysis or PBN Involvement is happening on
this highly controversial route - controversial because 9 criteria go together with regional consensus and unless
met, preliminary estimates demonstrate more noise could be caused for already badly affected people and for new people. At any rate, any and all people who will be impacted by this route merit early engagement and
with advanced impacts assessments.
# Model Community/FAA engagement - employing advanced noise assessments is being done in Massport.
Massport CAC
MIT RNAV presentation
The MIT study is sponsored together by FAA and Massport.
My questions last night, were primarily about how will Noise Impacts Assessments and Community
Involvement happen for the various PBN procedures currently being worked on?
The SFO Roundtable has a Technical Sub-Committee; however, it is not something that the general public is aware of or engaged in. From having attended these sub-committee meetings over that last three years, they
address SF Roundtable member concerns (primarly Departures), and these forums do not have noise modeling
maps. We once got close to discussing the topic of alternative metrics - which is essential to more robustly
address community concerns - but there was no follow up.
Both Departures and Arrivals communities would benefit from employing Alternative Metrics, which are
clearly supported for use in community discussions - as they are being used in Boston.
I offer the following additional ideas.
- Work with FAA to very soon add a "Community Involvement" section in the SFO Airport - SFO Nextgen
webpage, with a list of the procedures under development (for example, of impact to our area are SERFR,
BDEGA, OCEANIC)
https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/snapshots/airport/?locationId=46
Publish:
- Timeline of when the community will see noise impacts assessments (AEDT modeling)
- Dates and times of meetings for PBN Community Involvement - Description of scope/Objectives of FAA Working Groups for PBN procedures
- Status of environmental review process
Lastly, If a barrier to achieving a "2.0" for community involvement is costs, I strongly urge you to reach out to
affected cities to chip in. Virginia and Maryland County have recently started an effort which also looks promising. Arlington and Maryland Study.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:43 AM
3
I look forward to ideally everyone working together to achieve progress on the above and I am devoted to
helping in any way I can.
Thank you for your attention,
Best regards,
Jennifer
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 11:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Merrill Newman <seamerrill@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 11, 2018 8:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking
I strongly object to the proposal of reducing the number of available parking spaces within Palo Alto.
I have been a resident of Palo Alto for over 60 years and see no reason to reduce spaces available for residents
and their necessary support staff who, unfortunately, can no longer afford to live here. Please vote AGAINST reducing the available parking.
Merrill
850 Webster, apt 1032
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/12/2018 11:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rohit Relan <rohitrelan7@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:25 AM
To:Rohit Relan; U.S. Senator Rand Paul; Press_Harris@harris.senate.gov; San Francisco
Asylum; KlinckMV2@state.gov; Police; info@parl.gc.ca; consular.moscow@dfat.gov.au;
environmentalcrime@interpol.int; publicinformation@da.sccgov.org;
mjr@stanford.edu; Office of the President; Council, City; recruitment@opcw.org;
inspector@unhcr.org; Unhcr Washington; Luisa Bianco; OTP InformationDesk;
PublicAffairs.Unit@icc-cpi.int
Cc:hcenquiries@parliament.uk
Subject:Re:
Attachments:Screen Shot 2018-06-12 at 5.59.07 pm.png; Screen Shot 2018-05-29 at 4.13.33 am.png
this looks like the second time palo alto police is publicly celebrating criminality, white house counsel.
a lot of people are having very severe problems with your country counsel.
white house counsel
us senate
secy state defense dhs commerce treasury can aus uk parl
police
da santa clara county
president trustees stanford
city council palo alto unhcr italy
unhcr dc
opcw head
interpol head
icc head unhcr head
~ Palo Alto Police 0
f/IJfll @PaloAltoPolice
Gearing up for the weekend?
We're always here if you need us.
6:04 PM -15 Dec 2017 from Palo Alto, CA
( Blocked ) v
ft\ Palo Alto Police 0 "'1J!il @PaloAJtoPolice
( Blocked ) v
Maria Hsiao was kil led in #PaloAlto 17 years
ago tonight; her case, tragically, remains
unsolved.
Someone knows the truth about what
happened that night. Please share this video
and call us with *any* info.
Thank you for keeping Maria and her family
in your thoughts today.
Can You Help Us Solve a Cold Case Homicide?
6:13 PM -10 Jun 2018
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/13/2018 9:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robin Jeffries <robin@jeffries.org>
Sent:Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road bike boulevard
I want to add a bicyclist''s perspective to all the noise I have been hearing about the bike boulevard
improvements.
I have lived in the Midtown area of Palo Alto for 35 years. Recently I have been trying to decrease my car
usage by biking as much as possible for errands. I primarily use Bryant or Waverley (to go to the downtown
area) or Ross Road (to go to the JCC). I make about 15-20 trips a week of 2-4 miles on my bicycle. This has
resulted in me being able to typically go over a month on a single tank of gas. I find that at certain times I can
get to my destination as fast or faster on a bike than in my car. I hope to be able to organize my life to bike to errands of even longer distances, as the traffic just gets worse and worse every year here.
I have found the improvements to Ross Road (which I have to admit that I was skeptical about when I biked
there during the construction) to be a great improvement. It's taking a while, but it's cutting down on car traffic
as compared to before the changes, and for the most part, cars are willing to share the road with bicycles. A lot more could be done in the way of education, specifically:
- it seems like most of palo alto does not know the traffic laws pertaining to a traffic circle. I meet people
every few days who think it operates like a stop sign for whatever direction they are NOT going. I think I must
cycle by every traffic circle in Palo Alto, and I've seen near accidents at all of them.
- when I use the middle of the road for roads signed with a sharrow (including those huge sharrows on Ross Road), some drivers feel obligated to drive on the wrong side of the road in order to pass me immediately. I
don't feel unsafe, but I worry about bikes and cars coming the other way. (FYI, I return to the edge of the road
when I feel it is safe to do so, but the sharrows usually mean that I am safer and more visible in the middle of
the street at that location).
- I see children and adult cyclists riding on the sidewalks, which I find heartstoppingly dangerous. I stopped one child doing this and was told that his mother had instructed him that this was the best way to ride on Ross,
so I think there is an educational issue there too.
I would love to see the current bike routes improved (have you ridden a bike on Waverley recently? It's a good
way loosen a few fillings) and additional bike routes added. The routes I have seen in the Bicycle transportation plan would do a reasonable job of enabling me to go from my home to most places in Palo Alto, and would
encourage me to use my bike even more.
Most of what I have seen on Nextdoor (where a lot of the ranting goes on) has been by people who do not ride a
bike, don't want to ride a bike, and see cyclists as accidents waiting to happen. Please don't let those voices override those of us who want to live in a bike-friendly city and who are replacing or want to replace car trips
with bike trips within Palo Alto.
Thanks for listening,
Robin Jeffries
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/11/2018 11:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Janet Cook <janet.teazel.cook@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 06, 2018 1:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:support for CEDAW Ordinance
A vote in favor of passage of the CEDAW ordinance on 6/12/18. It’s time—no—it’s past time— our city removed
barriers to women and families in it’s policies and procedures.
Thanks,
Janet Cook
Close the Gap CA
dedicated to recruiting progressive women to run for the CA legislature and reach gender parity by 2028
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/13/2018 9:07 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Brian Strope <bpstrope@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 13, 2018 7:04 AM
To:ross road; Council, City
Subject:thanks for coming out
It was great, and depressing, to see standing-room-only turnout for a city discussion about a road. Thanks to
everyone who cares enough about it to show up.
I was impressed by the number of people who like the project. One common theme was that support for biking
is a good thing, and it was great to feel that support.
Sadly, comments on this discussion group have included too many personal attacks, to the point where some
key people are no longer interested in communicating here. It's another sad reality that thinly-veiled personal attacks are now the accepted norm online. As a society, we'll learn to transcend that, but it will take time.
That said, I worry that many of us may have missed one of the best comments last night, so I include it here:
""" 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.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/13/2018 9:07 AM
2
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.
"""
And if you didn't make it last night, or had to leave early, here are the notes for my statement.
"""
The new bike bridge to Google in Mountain View, and the new bike path across Google were both immediate
successes. More people are on bikes. Bryant in Palo Alto is a stunning success.
Ross is a failure.
The novel design was rationalized through recent research recommendations, and the end product has not been
sufficiently evaluated. The recent review is a progress report, made mostly by the people doing or influencing the work, and it is not an independent review.
The one statistic the project should have measured (and was apparently required to measure but never did) is the
change of the amount of bike traffic, before and after the work. I'm there most days, and my sense is that bike
traffic is down.
We've been told, that those of us opposed to the project are:
1) a fringe group who will never be happy
2) that we'll like it when we see the whole thing 3) we'll get used to it
All 3 are false.
1050 people have signed a petition against the project, hardly fringe. The problems we saw in the beginning remain, and they're not getting better with time.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/13/2018 9:07 AM
3
We've also been told that the pinch points are the same as having parked cars on either side of the road. That's
not true. I measured.
A typical parked car takes up 14% of the usable street. Two parked cars on either side is 28%. The pinch points
take up 44%.
The main administrative mistake of this project is not fixed with more community outreach. The administrative
mistake is a lack of critical design review from someone at Stanford, Google, or even a small sample of those of us who ride it regularly.
The main practical mistake is not seeing that mixing bike and car traffic is stressful for bikes. People on bikes
will reflexively avoid the extra stress when we can. We're very happy biking on Foothill Expressway with cars
going 50-70, and stressed about riding on Ross. Imagine if bikes on Foothill were forced to merge with cars, to calm the traffic, to make the road safer for bikes. It's Orwellian logic.
Someone could have asked: Will you like merging into traffic? Will you like holding up cars? It's that simple. As a regular biker, I'm tired of carrying the extra stress for this failed design.
The inability of this council to recognize and correct the failure of this project creates a campaign issue.
Please fix Ross now. """
Thanks again to everyone who made it there, everyone who wrote, and everyone who spoke.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 6/13/2018 12:22 PM
2
If Bollards had been used on parts of the phase I project, it would have given the neighborhood and
users of these streets an opportunity to see and evaluate the Transportation staff’s ideas, to give feedback before the expensive concrete construction work. They could be moved. added or even removed with relatively little cost. In fact, small bollards have been placed on top of bulbouts and box
planting boxes and because of some complaints about lack of visibility of those structures - for
cyclists and motorists.
And then, at some later time, if the city were flush with money, and if the most of the community was happy with the final designs, the City could remove the bollards, dig up the roads and pour concrete
to make the changes permanent.
Maybe this is too late for Phase I – if so, it’s too bad. But I think it should be a focus for Phase II and future bike projects.
2. Outreach is Two Way. ..'Outreach' means finding out what people want, not just informing them of
what the City and its consultants has decided is what is best for them. There were lots of complaints
about how this was handled for this project, but the untold story is that the City knows how to do this -it has been doing this on a different project: The Grand Boulevard Caltrans project along El Camino
in the CalAve area (to enhance the experience and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists). The
Transportation Division has made a great effort to solicit ideas and suggestions from the community.
They were recently at the Farmer's Mkt asking for community's ideas. It is essential to get input from
the community and find out what the community wants before projects are developed and designed, and not only – as was the case with the Phase I plan - after so much time and effort and money was
invested in engineering designs and staff time.
Maybe this is too late for Phase I – if so, it’s too bad. But I think it should be a focus for Phase II and future bike projects.
Arthur Liberman
751 Chimalus Drive
\6\-Al_
""'*·
17'."l! Kq,'\ ·.;.~ .~ ,. . .,e~ J!EETING -\~ .. ...-.-_ c,.. .:· 6' ( 7 0
· 1 [ ) ~aced Before Meeting
Junel 2 Rail CrossingTraffic Vehicle Counts at Embarcadero Underpass~ [ LYR~ceiv;d at ~e~t~ng ~ oV f....t.//ITft<Lt
Embarcadero Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound J
8:00 -8:15am 207 145 4:0Q-4:15pm 141 294
8:15-8:30am 192 149 4:15-4:30pm 163 305
8:30-8:45am 263 218 4:30-4:45pm 151 291
8:45-9:00am 287 237 4:45-S:OOpm · 175 282
9:00-9:1 Sam 219 206 5:00-5:15pm 162 299
9:15-9:30am 207 181 5:15-5:30pm 154 306
9:30am-9:45am 202 166 5:30-5:45pm 150 286
9:45-1 O:OOam 208 169 5:45-6:00pm 170 294 ?'4·· ..
B ~ ~o ...:Y '"NJ\ 1785 1471 4f IY) -iofM 1266 2357
Churchill Ave Rail Crossing Vehicle Traffic June 12
Westbound Eastbound
8:30-lOam 608 408
4:00-6pm 726 951
1
. . ,._ ··• .. •.
.·
' ' .
N. Our community has not been immune to the challenge of unhealthy weight gain and
obesity. IR.2088 !51, sw1 18% of Bt l:elsy~tb gn1i1n, :a uec:eoeiglil a) st&lii.
These overweight and obese children have a much greater chance of being obese
as adults, with all the health risks that entails .
M. There are afso economic costs. In 2006, for instance, overweight and obesity-related
cost& in California were estimated at almost $21 billion.
0 . Tooth decay, while not as life threatening as diabetes or obesity, still has a
meaningful impact, especially on children, In fact; tooth decay is the most common
childhood disease, experienced by over 70% of California's 3rd graders. Children
who frequently or excessively consume beverages high in sugar are at increased
risk for dental cavities. Dental problems are a major cause of missed school days
and poor school performance as well as pain, infection, and tooth loss in California.
Section 2. Purpose and Intent
A. Based on the findings set forth above, the purpose of this Ordinance is to diminish
the human and economic costs of diseases associated with the consumption of
sugary drinks by discouraging their distribution and consumption in Berkeley through
a tax. Specificaily, the purpose of this ordinance is to tax the distribution of sugary
drinks and the products used to make them.
B. This Ordinance is nof intended for the purpose of regulation.
C. This Ordinance does not authorize the conduct of any business ot activity in the city,
but merely provides for the taxation of distribution of specified products as it occurs.
D. This Ordinance imposes a general tax on the distribution of sugar-sweetened
beverages such as high-calorie, low-nutrition products, like soda, energy drinks, and
heavily presweetened tea, as well as the added caloric sweeteners used to produce
these sugar-sweetened beverages, such as the premade syrup used to make
fountain drinks. Certain drinks containing sugar are exempted, including infant
fotmula, milk products, and natural fruit and vegetable juice.
E. This Ordinance provides for a small pusiness exemption for Retailers who transport
sugar-sweetened beverage products into the City themselves and then sell those
J:>roducts directly to consumers.
F. This general tax will provide rev~9J1e to ~l:ble for the general governmental
needs of the pebple of .lierlteley~ .
G. This Ordinance provides for a Sugar Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of
Experts, composed of experts in the areas of public health, child nutrition, nutrition
education, and food access programs. The Panel will make recommendations on
how and to what extent the City should fund programs to further reduce the
consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in ~ and address the
consequences of such consumption. r pJlo ~
2
..
A. "Added caloric sweetener" means any substance or combination of substances that
meets all of the following four criteria:
1. Is suitable for human consumption;
2. Adds calories to the diet if consumed;
3. Is perceived as sweet when consumed; and
4. Is used for making, mixing, or compounding Sugar-sweetened beverages by
combining the substance or substances with one or more other ingredients
including, without limitation, water, ice, powder, coffee, tea, fruit juice, vegetable
juice, or carbonation or other gas.
An Added caloric sweetener may take any form, including but not limited to a liquid,
syrup, and powder, whether or not frozen. "Added caloric sweetener" includes,
without limitation, sucrose, fructose, glucose, other sugars, and high fructose corn
syrup, but does not include a substance that exclusively contains natural,
concentrated, or reconstituted fruit or vegetable juice or any combination thereof.
B. "Alcoholic beverage" means any beverage subject to tax under Part 14
(commencing with Section 32001) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, as
that Part may be amended from time to time.
C. "Beverage for medical use" means a beverage suitable for human consumption and
manufactured for use as an oral nutritional therapy for persons who cannot absorb
or metabolize dietary nutrients from food or beverages;· or for use as an oral
rehydration electrolyte solution for infants and children formulated to prevent or treat
dehydration due to illness. "Beverage for medical use" shall also mean a "medical
food" as defined in Section 109971 of the California Health and Safety Code, as that
definition may be amended from time to time. 11Beverage for medical use" shall not
include drinks commonly referred to as "sports drinks" or any other common names
that are derivations ther:eL ~
D. "Business Entity" means an t'erson except for a natural person.
E. "City" means the City of y, California. .R'~ {i_(2;:;t-o
F. "City Manager'' means the City Manager of the City ,elf Serkahy or his or her
designee.
G. "Consumer" means a natural person who purchases a Sugar-sweetened beverage
product in the City for a purpose other than resale in the ordinary course of
business.
H. "Distribution" or "Distribute" means the transfer of title or possession (1) from one
Business entity to another for consideration or (2) within a single Business entity,
such as by a wholesale or warehousing unit to a retail outlet or between two or more
employees or contractors. "Distribution" or "Distribute" shall not mean the retail sale
to a Consumer.
I. "Distributor" means any Person who Distributes Sugar-sweetened beverage
products in the City.
J. 11Milk" means natural liquid milk, regardless of animal source or butterfat content,
natural milk concentrate, whether or not reconstituted, regardless of animal source
or butterfat content, or dehydrated natural milk, whether or not reconstituted and
regardless of animal source or butterfat content, and plant-based milk substitutes,
that are marketed as 1T1ilk, such as soy milk and almond milk.
4
K. ''Natural or common sweetener11 means granulated white sugar, brown sugar, honey,
molasses, xylem sap of maple trees, or agave nectar.
L. "Person" means an individual, trust, firm, joint stock COlJlpany, business concern,
business trust, government, receiver, tn.tstee, syndicate, social .club, fraternal
organiiation, estate, corporation, including, but not limited to, a, limited liability
company, and association or any other group or combination acting as a unit.
M. "Retailer" means any Person who serves Sugar-sweetened beverage products to~
Consumer.
N. "Simple syrup" means a mixture of water and one or more Natural or common
sweeteners Without any additional ingredients.
0 . "Sugar-sweetened beverage" means any beverage intended for human consumption
to which one or more Added caloric sweeteners has Qeen added and th~t contains
at least 2 calories per fluid ounce.
1. "Sugar-sweetened beverage" includes, but is not limited to all drinks and
beverages commonly referred to as "soda,11 "pop.'' "cola," "soft drinks," "sports
drinks," ''energy drinks," "sweetened ice teas," or any other common names that
are derivations thereof.
2. "Sugar-sweetened beverage" shall not \_ncJude any of the following:
a. Any beverage in which milk is the primary ingredient, i.e., the ingredient
constituting a greater volume of the product than any other;
b. Any beverage for medical use;
c. Any liquid sold for use for weight reduction as a meal replacement;
d. Any product commonly referred to as "infant formula" or"baby formula"; or
e. Any alcoholic beverage.
P. "Sugar-sweetened beverage product" means a Sugar-sweetened beverage or
Added caloric sweetener.
'/-. ft,S:,a 'fO
Section 7!.Tl:l 10 Duties, Responsibilities and Authority of the City Manager
A. It shall be the duty of the City Manager to collect and receive all taxes imposed by
this Chapter, and to keep an accurate reco[d thereof.
B. The City Manager is hereby charged with the enforcement of this Chapter, except as
otherwise provided herein, and may prescribe, adopt, and en~orce rules and
regulations relating to the administration and enforcement of this Chapter1 including
provisions for the reexamination and correction of returns and payments, and for
reporting. Such rules and regulations may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. The determination of the frequency with which a Distributor must calculate the
tax. This determination shall not constitute an increase of the tax.
2. The determination of the frequency with which a Distributor m~st pay the tax.
This determination shall not constitute an increase of the tax.
3. The determination of whether and how a Distributor must register with the City.
4. The determination of whether and how a Disfributor who receives, in the Qjty1
Sugar-sweetened beverage products from another Distributor must report to the
City the name of that blstributor.
5. The determination of whether a11d how a Distributor who receives, in the City,
Sugar-sweetened beverage products from another distributor must report to the
I \ ,,...,.-
w I
c/-;,('.G~
Section J.72.680 Not a Sales and Use Tax.
The tax imposed by this Chapter is a tax upon the privilege of conducting businesjj.
specifically, Distributing Sugar sweetened beverage products within the City of r 9.ila ~
Be ' rder. It is not a sales, use, or other excise tax on the sale, consumption or use of
Sugar-sweetened beverage products.
4-: "'· tf/1' /.~ v-.s ~ Section 7.<72.890 Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of Experts (., ~ "' 1> ~ •
A. There shall be established t~e Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of lo~~)
Experts to make recommendations on hoW and to what extent~ City should
establish and/9J'~1mrams to reduce the consumption of sugar-~weetened
beverages in Se · an to address the effects of such consumption,
B, An officer or employee of the City designated by the City Manager shall serve as
secretary of the Panel.
C. In accordance with Chapter M4; the Panel shall be composed of nine members
appointed by the City Council.
D. Terms shall expire and vacancie&,~hall be filled in accordance with the provisions of ....... ;,, .. Section 2•1.c ao through 2.01 .1 tS.ofthis Code.
E. Eact:J member of the Panel rnust: !..
1. Have experience in community-based yoµth food and nutrition programs; or
2. Have experieJW!J&:eb.ool-based food and nutritjon programs and be referred by
the Bw' ' D' ~ ~ -ael District; or
3. Have experience in early childhood nutrition education; or
4. Have experience in researching public health issues or evaluating public health
programs related to diabetes, obesity, and sugary drink consumption; or
5. Be a licensed medical practitioner. en) ~
F. In accordance With Section 3:001110, members of the Panel may be reappointed t:>ut
shall ,not serve more than eight consecutive years.
G. The Panel shall, by majority vote, do each of the following:
1. AnnuaHy appoint one of its members as chair and one of its members as vice-
chair;
2. Approve bylaws to facilitate the proper functioning of the Panel;
3. Establish a regular time and place of meeting. All meetings shall be noticed as
required by law and shall be scheduled in a way to allow for maximum input frohl
the public. Minutes for each meeting shall be recorded, kept, and maintained;
and
4. Publish an annual report that in9ludes the foUowing:
a. recommendations on how to allo~te the City's general funds to reduce the
consumption of sugar sweetened beverages in~;f!_n_d to address the
results of such con!?umption; =-~ ~
b. information, if available, concerning the impact of this Chapter on the public
health of the residents of the City; and
c. any additional information that the Panel deems appropriate.
H. Within 15 day$ of receipt of the publication of the Panel's annual report, the City
Manager shall cause the report to be published on the City's Internet website and to
be transmitted to the City Council and the Governing Board of the Berltelej Ua clfteJ
Sc~sal l?>i~trict. f' A-U SCb
7
I. The City Council shall consider, but need not follow, the Panel's recommendations
and shall annually inform the Panel as to the extent to which it has implemented the
Panel's recommendations.
IJl.Qo: '" Section 1-rf2.4ee Increase Appropriations Limits
Pursuant to California Constitution article XlllB, the appropriation limit for the City is
increased by the aggregate sum authorized to be levied by this tax for each of the four
· fiscal years from 20W1 S through 2i 1 i 19.
jf.trr. l/O tf 1~ 9-t :' a,. .,
Section 1179:119 Amendment
The City Council, without a vote of the people, may, either permanently or temporarily,
increase the dollar amount of the threshold for the small-business exemption in Section
Zell:: 8.
/1.'·~· o~
Section 4. Duration. ~
This Ordinance shall be effective on January 1, lill!i.~he last effective date of this
Ordinance shall be December 31, J J j and it shall terminate as of January 1, lld
7 1
J
Section 5. Severability. ,P~ ~ .
The People of the City of B.-al;slSV hereby declare that they would have adopted each
section, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words, or portions of
this Ordinance, or any application thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable and, to
that end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any section, sentence,
clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or any application thereof in any
circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable py a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remaining sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words, or
portions of this Ordinance, and applications thereof, shall nonetheless remain in full
force and effect.
Section 6. Municipal Affairfoi., ~
A. The People of the City of ,Jh tl 1l1y hereby declare that the taxation of the privilege of
distributing sugar-sweetened beverage products and that the public health impact of
sugar-sweetened beverag~ products separately and together constitute municipal
affair~. f"' d flfbt-o
B. The People of the City of 9 I l2y hereby further declare their desire for this
measure to coexist with any similar tax adopted at the county or state levels.
Section 7. California Environmental Quality Act Requirements.
This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code section 21000 et seq., including without limitation Public Resources
Code section 21065, CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) and 15061(b)(3), as it can
8
T
•
be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity authorized herein may
have a significant effect on the environment and pursuant to Public Resources Code
section 21080, subdivision {b){B) and CEQA Guidelines section 15273 as the approval
of government revenues to fund existing services.
g
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
TO: City Council
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
FROM: James Keene, City Manager
AGENDA DATE: June 11, 2018 ID#: 9324
City Council
[x] Placed Before Meeting
9
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: to Hear Objections to the Levy of Proposed Assessments on the Palo
Alto Downtown Business Improvement District; Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the
Report of the Advisory Board and Levying Assessments for Fiscal Year 2019 on the Downtown
Palo Alto Business Improvement District
Attached to this At Places Memorandum is a copy of the contract between the City and Palo
Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association. The contract was inadvertently not
attached to the staff report.
I ,.
Sos1og/poo
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AND
TBE PALO ALTO DOWNTOWN BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
FOR THE OPERATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE PALO ALTO
DOWNTOWN' BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
~L THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on the 2.S'~ day
lArj.e.. , 2004, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a
municipal corporation ("City") and the Palo Alto Downtown Business
& Professional Association, a California nonprofit mutual benefit
corporation (the "Corporation").
WHEREAS City Ordinance No. 4819, adopted February 2, 2004 (the
"Ordinance"), established the Palo Alto Downtown Business
Improvement District (the "District") under the provisions of the
Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, Section 36500 et
seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Law"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Law and the Ordinance, the City is
authorized to levy and collect an annual assessment (the
Assessment") from non-exempt businesses in the District for the
purpose of acquiring, constructing, installing or maintaining
improvements and promoting activities which will benefit the
business located and operating within the District; and
WHEREAS, the City has appointed the Board of Directors of the
Corporation (the "Board of Directors") as the advisory board for
the District; and
WHEREAS the Corporation has available personnel, resources and
expertise to undertake improvements and implement activities within
the District which are permitted under the Law and the Ordinance to
be funded with proceeds of the Assessment; and
WHEREAS, the Corporation is qualified to undertake and
administer such improvements and activities within the District and
is willing to do so.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
promises contained herein, the City and the Corporation hereby
agree as follows:
1. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION.
A. Except as expressly provided herein, the City's Economic
Development Manage~ or his or her designated representative shall
be the City's representative for the administration of this
Agreement. All activities performed by the Corporation shall be
coordinated with this person.
040528 sm 0100241 1 Co4--D33
B. The Corporation shall designate a person, to be the
Corporation's representative for the administration of this
Agreement and, subject to the direction and authorization of the
Board of Directors, to be the contact person for and in. charge of
all actions to be taken on behalf of the Corporation pursuant to
this Agreement.
2. TERM.
A. Initial Term. The term of this Agreement commences on the
date first written above and shall continue until June 30, 2004,
inclusive, unless earlier terminated 9r renewed in accordance with
this Agreement.
B. Automatic Renewal. Approval by the City Council of the
Corporation's Annual Report (defined in Section 3, below),
including the proposed District budget, for each subsequent July
1st -June 30th fiscal year shall automatically renew this
Agreement with respect to such fiscal y~ar.
C. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement
immediately upon any breach of Sections 15 (Insurance Requirements
or 17 (Conflict of Interest). In addition, either the City or the
Corporation, upon at least 90 days prior written notice, may
terminate this Agreement with or without cause. Within 45 days of
the effective date of any termination, the City shall reimburse the
Corporation for work which has been performed as of the termination
date or which is in progress and cannot prematurely be terminated
by virtue of contractual conunitments. Unexpended and unencumbered
funds provided to the Corporation by the City pursuant to this
Agreement and all tangible assets purchased wholly with such funds
shall be immediately returned to the City. It is the intent of the
Corporation not to purchase assets using a combination of funds
derived from Assessments and other resources available to the
Corporation (a "Mixed Purchase"). In the event, however, that any
Mixed Purchase shall be made, the Corporation shall provide the
City with prior notice of the Mixed Purchase, and the City and the
Corporation shall agree, prior to the Mixed Purchase, on how such
asset shall be ~!located in the event of a termination of this
Agreement.
3 . SERVICES TO BE RENDERED; ANNUAL REPORT AND BUDGET.
A. Except as provided in Section 3.B. below, on or before
May 1st of each calendar year the Corporation shall submit to the
Economic Development Manager, on a form approved by the City, a
report setting forth in general terms: the proposed improvements,
activities, programs and events for the ensuing fiscal year
commencing on the following July 1st; the proposed Assessments for
the ensuing fiscal year; a budget for the ensuing fiscal year.; and
any other information required by the Law (each collectively, an
"Annual Report"). To the extent feasible, specific improvements,
activities, programs and events shall be identified. The proposed
040528 sm 0100241 2
budget for the District for the ensuing fiscal year shall list the
proposed expenditures and the amount designated for each proposed
improvement, activity, program and event. Pursuant to the Law, the
City Council may accept or modify the proposed Annual Report,
including the budget. The Corporation agrees to carry out such
improvements, activities, programs and events as are contained in
the City Council approved Annual Report, including the budget, in
accordance with all applicable laws. The Corporation shall not
spend any funds derived from Assessments except in accordance with
the Annual Report approved by the City Council. If funds are
disbursed to the Corporation in any fiscal year on other than a
reimbursement basis, the Corporation shall submit to the Economic
Development Manager by the 15th o.f the first month of each quarter,
beginning October 2004 a progress report containing a description
of activities for the previous quarter and an expenditure report
for the previous quarter.
B. In any year when the Corporation proposes that the City
Council increase the Assessment and/or expand the boundaries of the
District for the ensuing fiscal year, the Annual Report shall be
submitted to the Economic Development Manager on or before February
1st of the calendar year preceding the start of such ensuing fiscal
year.
4. MODIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT.
The parties understand and acknowledge that the Law requires
that each year:
A. The City Council approve the Annual Report as filed by
the Corporation or as modified by the City Council prior to
adopting the resolution of intention to levy Assessments and
setting the public hearing on the levy of Assessments; and
B. The City Council confirm the Annual Report as originally
filed by the Corporation or modified by the City Council following
the public hearing on the levy of the Assessments.
In the event it appears at any stage of the proceedings (initial
approval of an Annual Report or confirmation of an Annual Report)
that the City Council intends to modify the Annual Report submitted
by the Corporation, the City Manager shall recommend to the City
Council that further action be stayed in order to allow time for
the Corporation to respond to the City Council's concerns and for
City staff and Corporation's staff to meet and discuss the matter.
It is understood and agreed that the public hearing to conf irrn the
Annual Report shall not be continued beyond a total of 30 days from
the initial date set for the hearing. The foregoing shall not apply
to a case in which a majority protest against the furnishing of a
specified type or types of improvement or activity within the
District has been made which requires elimination of the
improvement or activity.
040528 sm 0100241 3
5. REPORT ON APPROVED ASSESSMENTS.
Each year, within 10 ·days following adoption by the City
Council of a resolution levying Assessments, the Corporation shall
submit to and in a form approved by the Economic Development
Manager, a list of the Assessments, by business type, approved by
the City Council for levy in the then-commencing July 1 -June 30
fiscal year together with a complete and updated list, in
electronic form or database, of businesses, with business name and
address, in the District for use by the City in the preparation of
the Assessment invoices.
6. CORPORATION ·AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
The Corporation, in the performance of the rights and
obligations existing pursuant to this Agreement, shall act as and
be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the
City. The City shall not exercise control over the Corporation's
method of performance of its obligations or duties, except as set
forth herein, and desires to obtain only an end result. The City
shall have no liability or responsibility for payments of any wages
or benefits to the Corporation's employees, for whom the
Corporation shall bear sole responsibility and liability.
7 . BOOKS AND RECORDS.
The Corporation shall keep all related books and records in
connection with the services performed under this Agreement for a
period of at least three years, and agrees, upon the City's
request, to make them available to the City or any authorized
representative of the City for inspection during normal business
hours.
8. PUBLIC MEETINGS.
A. All meetings of the Board of Directors or any group of ·
representatives of the Corporation that would constitute a
"legislatiye body" as defined in California Government code section
54952 (a •committee or subcommittee") where proposed or approved
District activities and/or expenditures (collectively, "District
Matters") will be discussed shall be open to the public, including
without limitation meetings held at District businesses, as
required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government .Code Section 54950,
et seq. (the "Brown Act"). Prior notice of such meetings,
including an agenda prepared and posted in accordance with the
Brown Act, of the District Matters to be discussed and the time and
location of the meeting, shall be given in accordance with the
Brown Act. No District Matters shall be discussed at any meeting
of the Board of Directors or a committee or subcommittee unless
such public notice has been given.
B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board of Directors
shall be permitted to meet in sessions closed to the public, so
040528 sm 0100241 4
long as nay such closed session conforms with the requirements of
the Brown Act.
C. The City shall, at the request of the Corporation, post
notices and agendas prepared and provided by the Corporation for
Corporci:tion meetings on the City'·s website and other locations
along with notices of other City meetings.
9. DATABASE OF DISTRICT BUSINESS.
A. Upon the reasonable request of the City, the Corporation
shall provide the City with the most current list, in electronic
form or database, of all businesses located within the District.
The Corporation shall make reports regarding closed businesses and
delinquencies available upon request by the City. The Corporat~on
shall provide the City with street and address ranges within the
District.
B. The Corporation agrees that it shall be the responsibility
of the Corporation to maintain a database of District Businesses.
The Corporation shall use reasonable efforts to maintain a complete
and accurate database, but the Corporation and City acknowledge and
agree that constant updating of such database could require an
unreasonable use of Corporation resources. Accordingly, the City
and the Corporation agree that the Corporation shall update such
database on at least a semi-annual basis.
C. Each party, upon the request of the other shall make
available to the other any additional information in their
possession as may be reasonably necessary to operate and administer
activities within the District.
10. COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS.
A. The Corporation understands and agrees that the levy of
Assessments by the City shall be in the sole discretion of the City
Council. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed as a
promise, warranty or agreement by the City to levy Assessments
against businesses in the District. The City shall have no
liability to the Corporation for its decision to not levy
Assessments or in connection with the amounts of any Assessments
levied. The Corporation understands and agrees that the Ordinance
may be amended· from time to time by the City Council.
B. In any fiscal year, if the City levies Assessments
against businesses in the District, pursuant to the terms of the
Ordinance, the City shall bill and collect Assessments from
businesses in the District to finance District improvements and
activities. For each fiscal year subsequent to fiscal year 2003-
2004, the City shall, prior to each July 1st generate and print a
written invoice for each assessable business within the District
for that fiscal year. Each invoice shall provide the amount of the
Assessment, that the Assessment is due and payable on or before
040528 sm 0100241 5
July 10th of that fiscal year and that the Assessment shall become
delinquent 30 days thereafter. The City shall provide such invoices
to the Corporation, and the Corporation shall collate and mail such
invoices, along with any notices requested by the City, by July 10th
of each year. Each fiscal year, the City will prepare and send a
second invoice to those business owners within the District that
have not paid their Assessment by the 30th day following the date of
the original invoice. Any costs incurred by the City or the
Corporation to be borne by the District for the generation,
printing and mailing of such invoices shall be included in the
District's annual budget submitted and approved in accordance with
Section 3.
C. After 90 days of delinquency upon the written request of
the Corporation, the City shall assign past due Assessments to the
Corporation for collection action by the Corporation, and shall
assign the right to receive any amounts so collected (net of
reasonable expenses incurred in such collection) to the Corporation
for benefit of the District.
To the extent any past due Assessments are assigned to the
Corporation pursuant to this Subsection 9.C, the Corporation shall
submit a written report to the City detailing the status of all
then-on-going collection actions undertaken by the Corporation upon
the City's reasonable request, but no more frequently than
quarterly. At the City's option, to be exercised by written notice
to the Corporation, the Corporation's authority from the City over
any collection action that has continued for more than 12 months
without resolution of the delinquent Assessments may be terminated
by the City.
11. DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS; AUDIT REQUIREMENT.
A. So long as the Corporation is not in breach of this
Agreement, the City (i) shall disburse at least quarterly to the
Corporation all collected Assessments, or (ii) alternatively, if
the Corporation so requests, the City shall disburse such funds to
the Corporation on a reimbursement basis upon proof of expenditures
by the Corporation satisfactory to the City. Disbursements shall
be made in such manner and timeframe as the parties shall mutually
agree in writing. The Corporation may expend any funds received
pursuant to this Agreement only for the purposes authorized by the
Ordinance and only in accordance with the Annual Report, including
the -budget, as approved by the City Council for the applicable
fiscal year.
B. If funds are disbursed to the Corporation in any fiscal
year on other than a reimbursement basis, the Corporation will
establish and maintain on a current basis an adequate accrual
accounting system in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles and standards. The system shall detail all costs
chargeable to the District under this Agreement and shall
substantiate all such costs, meeting acceptable standards for major
040528 sm 0100241 6
public entities in Northern California and complying with any
applicable Federal standards. The system shall meet the minimum
fiscal and internal control requirements as reasonably determined
by the City. In addition, within 120 days after the end of such
fiscal year or the effective date of a termination pursuant to
Section 2 above, the Corporation shall submit to the Economic
Development Manager an audit report, prepared by a person or
company reasonably approved by the City in accordance with the
City's policies, of the District's expenditures and completed
activities for the preceding fiscal year.
12. ASSIGNMENT.
The parties agree that the identity, expertise and experience
of the Corporation are material considerations for this Agreement.
The Corporation shall not assign or transfer any interest in this
Agreement nor the performance of any of the Corporation's
obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the
City.
13. NO OTHER CONTRACTS.
During the term of this Agreement, City agrees that it shall
not contract with any other person or entity to operate and
administer the District.
14. INDEMNIFICATION OF CITY.
The Corporation agrees to indenmify the City, its officers and
employees against any and all claims, damages or liability arising
out of or resulting in any way from activities or improvements
undertaken by the Corporation pursuant to this Agreement.
Acceptance of any work or services of the Corporation by the City
shall not operate as a waiver of such right of indemnification
15. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
Without limiting the Corporation's indemnification of the
City, the Corporation agrees to have and maintain the policies set
forth in Exhibit "A", entitled INSURANCE which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference. All policies,
endorsements, certificates and/or binders shall be subject to
approval by the Risk Manager of City as to form and content. These
requirements are subject to amendment or waiver if so approved in
writing by the Risk Manager. The Corporation agrees to provide the
City with copies of said policies, certificates and/or endorsements
before work commences under this Agreement. The City shall have
the right to treat any violation of this Section as a material
breach of this Agreement, and shall have the right to terminate
this Agreement immediately and pursue any and all legal or
equitable remedies for such breach.
II
040528 sm 0100241 7
16. NONDISCRIMINATION.
The Corporation shall not discriminate, in any way,. against
any person on the basis of age, sex, race, color, creed, sexual
orientation or national origin in connection with or related to the
performance of this Agreement.
17. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
The Corporation shall at all times avoid conflict of interest
or. appearance of conflict of interest in the performance of this
Agreement. The Corporation shall disclose to the City any conflict
of interest, or potential conflict of interest, which exists or
arises at any time during the term of this Agreement within a
reasonable time after discovery of such conflict of interest by the
Corporation. The City shall have the right to treat any violation
of this Section as a material breach of this Agreement, and shall
have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately and pursue
any and all legal or equitable remedies for such breach.
18. WAIVER.
The City and the Corporation agree that waiver by the City or
the Corporation of any breach or violation of any term or condition
of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other
term or condition contained herein or a waiver of any subsequent
breach or violation of the same or any other term or condition.
19. NOTICES.
All notices and other communications required or permitted to
be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
personally served or mailed, postage prepaid and return receipt
requested, addressed to the respective parties as follows:
To City:
To Corporation:
040528 sm 0100241
Office of the City Manager
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to:
Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Palo Alto Downtown
Professional Association
542 High Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attention: President
8
Business &
. .
With a copy to:
Palo Alto Downtown
Professional Association
542 High Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Business
Attention: Chairman of the Board
With a copy to:
&
Thoits, Love, Hershberger & McLean, P.C.
245 Lytton Ave., Suite 300
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Anne E. Senti-Willis, Esq.
or to such other address or addressee as may be designated by
notice in accordance with this Section. Notice shall be deemed
effective on the date personally delivered or, if mailed, upon
receipt.
A copy of any notice of a legal nature, including, but not
limited to, any claims against the City, its officers or employees
shall also be served in the manner specified above to the following
address:
City of Palo Alto
City Attorney
250 Hamilton Avenue, 9th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
20. PRIOR AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS.
This Agreement, including all Exhibits attached hereto,
represents the entire understanding of the. parties as to the
matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding
shall be of any force or effect with respect to the matters covered
hereunder. This Agreement may be modified only by a written
amendment duly executed by both parties to this Agreement.
21. GOVERNING LAW.
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California.
22. TIME OF ESSENCE.
Time is of the essence of each and every provision of this
Agreement.
23. ATTORNEY'S FEES.
If a legal action or proceeding is brought by any party
because of default under this Agreement, or to enforce a provision
040528 sm 0100241 9
:.
May 29, 2018 CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFF ICE
The Honorable Palo Alto Mayorl 8 JUN -6 PH 3: 58
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Palo Alto's SRTS five-year work plan
Dear Mayor Liz Kniss
(-,~·6 . , \ (-r . ~'} I .. -. . ,'\ i.i I·· \ . . ,,._, /
~t ~~#
ZUIB .JUN -6 PH I: 54
My name is Lionel 11111 I am a student at Gunn High School in Palo Alto, California,
where we have been studying public policy. I would like to offer my opinion about adding
public bike repair stands, as mentioned in Palo Alto's SRTS five-year plan.
Currently, there are eight privately-owned bike repair shops and most are located on El
Camino Real. Tend to have more commercial use, these workshops settle around downtowns and
shopping centers. Their locations severely limit access to the majority of those who utilize the
biking trails. No public bike repair stations have been constructed on any of the existed biking
routes.
As stated in the SRTS plan, bike repair workshops would not be introduced until 2019.
As a biker, this is a great inconvenience. Currently, anyone who regularly travels the biking trails
are subject to unexpected breakdowns and may be forced to walk to their destination or abandon
their bikes all together.
In the city of Palo alto, a large .number of students commute to school by bike.
According to the 2016 Secondary bike count graphs, 838 students(43% of total population) at
Gunn high school bike to school. As biking becomes a more prevalent form of transportation in
Palo Alto, biking safety also becomes an important concern. With the increasing use of the
biking trails, accidents and breakdowns are inevitable. Therefore, the need for bike repairs will
increase proportionally. In these cases, wide availability of public bike repair stands would prove
highly convenient and highly efficient. In tum, more people may be encouraged to start biking
thereby justifying the city expenditures on the five-year plan.
Not only would this help your administration meet the goals of the SRTS five-year plan
more easily, it would also help make biking trails safer. In addition, when building bike repair
constructions, the two most important elements to consider are the usage cost to patrons and
ample availability. Compare with large workshops, these bike repair stands are way much
cheaper. Low cost repair stands leads to adequate availability. With dense coverage of bike repair
stands, bikers could avoid unnecessary troubles with timely repair.
For example, students often start their commute to school before daylight or their
commute home in the early evening; consequently, students, many of whom lack the basic bike
mechanical skills, often travel alone. Under these conditions, something as simple as a flat tire
puts that individual in danger of unnecessary risk. With the ability to reach the closest repair
stand, students could repair their bike easily.
As a survey taken at Gunn high school, 6 students of 11 randomly chosen biking students
have fixed their bike using the repair stand at school. While all 11 students replied that they find
difficulties to use it without any instructions.
I believed that more people will start biking as bike repair stands become more widely
available. With the same expenditures on bike repair workshops, it could construct six times
more number of repair stands. Its availability will greatly promotes biking using in Palo Alto.
This possible solution matters me as a Palo Alto residents, as a biker, and as someone
who cares about student safety. Thank you for taking time to read my letter.
Sincerely,
Lionel ..
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone:
C\TY OF PAL9 ALT?icf t
May 29, 2018 CITY CLERKS OF
\8 JUN -G p~ 3: 58
The Admirable Liz Kniss
ZOIB .JUN -6 PM I: Sk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Transition Homes For Homeless
Dear Liz Kniss,
My name is Ninallll and I am a sophomore at Gunn High School this year. I an1 writing to you
about how Palo Alto should start a tiny house community to combat the homeless problem here.
As you may know, the homeless population has risen 26% in the past two years and it may keep
growing due to rising rents, housing prices, and lack of affordable housing in this area. Most of
the time people are kicked out of their houses, because the jobs they work aren't able to cover
their cost ofrising rents. So they usually are kicked out of the house with nothing and maybe a
job. And when they are kicked out of their house, they more likely to Jose their jobs too. I was
thinking that we can create temporary housing for those who have to live on the streets. They can
use the chance that we gave them to earn enough money to move elsewhere in the country. This
way we aren't funneling the our homelessness problem to another state for them to deal with.
A few things that you might say back to me is, why can "t they go live in the mobile housing
community, or where are we going to get the funding for this. First thing is, the mobiling housing
community is a low income residents go. For my purposes, the tiny house community is a place
where we can transition people to live elsewhere in the country. And even though Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park is a place who low income residents go, we do not want to add more people
to there, because th..e mobile housing is crowded enough. Second, as for funding I thought that
we can make it invest in buying the land using funds or something. I think that if we invest in
this project, we can make our city a more beautiful place, add a new thing that people might
come to see, and have to see less homeless people on the streets wandering around, with nothing
to do. Buy also making the tiny houses we are able to put more people back in the workforce
making them more useful in society.
Places where I thought that we can stru1 these tiny housing communities were in empty lots, like
the one near the comer of El Camino and Maybelle. It is such a waste ofland, they only have
one billboard on it and nothing else! Although this may not be an ideal place to start, it will be
able to show off what we are doing to try and solve our homeless problem and might lead others
in the Bay Area to do the same.
A few things about why I thought that tiny houses were a great solution to the problem, was that
it was low cost to build and maintain. Tiny houses also don't take up that much space, since the
whole point of it is to downsize the amount of things you own. They are also a better place for
homeless to be rather than a homeless shelter, because they are going to be separate individuals
small houses for people to live in. This means that people will be more focused on finding a job
and earning money, rather than trying to figure out how to keep their belongings safe and trying
to figure out where they were going to sleep at night.
I was inspired by this video that I saw in youtube about how this high school in Seattle started
building tiny houses for homeless, using what they learned in their wood workshop class.
Although we may not have any wood workshop class here at Gunn, we can use the basic algebra
skills that we learned at school and see how it can be used in real world situations. Being able to
build homes for the homeless will be a win-win situation. Students will learn how to apply their
skills, earn community services hours which might help their college applications look better,
and the homeless will have shelter and be able to move out of Palo Alto and to a better place
where they can actually afford things.
Just to restate everything that I have said, I think that we should create temporary tiny houses for
the needy. This way the homeless can save money to move out of this ridiculous expensive area
and also so that we can have Jess homeless on the streets.
I hope you take this idea into consideration and thank you so much for taking some time out of
your busy day to read this letter! Thank you so much!
Sincerely,
Nina ..
Palo Alto, CA, 94306
May 29, 201s CJ[r\°lL~R9sAoLl~iccr'
The Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss I 8 JUN -6 PH 3: 58
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto, CA 94301
2018 .JUN -6 PM J: 54
Re: The Silicon Valley Housing Crisis
Dear Mayor Liz Kniss,
My name is Zev . I am a sophomore at GUIUl Hi4gh School, where we
have been learning about public policy. I am writing to talk to you about affordable housing, as
you have expressed a desire for faster and more affordable development.
About a year ago, my family and I, along with many other members of Barron Park, went
to city hall and protested the imminent closure of the Buena Vista trailer park. When the city
agreed to pay 40 million dollars to purchase the land and save the 400 residents from eviction, it
was a triumph in the endless struggle for affordable housing in the tech capital of the world.
Silicon Valley has long admitted that it has a housing problem, both in tenns of supply
and in terms of demand, but opinions vary as to its degree. To address that, when the people who
founded Silicon Valley wouldn't be able to live here today, and neither can Palo Alto's city
planner, the degree is clearly extreme. Others can't agree on what actions need to be taken, and
on what scale. Some support expansion of such projects as CaJtrain and BART, some support
pockets of affordable housing provided by the government, and some support ignoring the issue
entirely and simply building more $3,336,418 houses (the estimated median price of Palo Alto
housing), relying on the power of the free market and technology to answer our S.O.S. call.
I believe that the second option of the three is the only option. While increased
transportation is app~aling, mid would indirectly cut down on car usage, heiping the
environment, the hassle of having to go on a 1 hour train ride just to get to work, not to mention
the extra time required to drive or walk to the train station if one doesn't live directly by the
tracks, could be crippling to blue collar workers' sleep and health, or if they choose to wake up
later, to their working hours. This adverse effect would make it so that even the houses further
out from the Palo Alto epicenter could be out of buying range, requiring a further expansion,
longer commutes, and increased housing prices, Ad Infinitum. It's important to avoid this
sinkhole.
The third option, ignoring those who can't afford to buy a Palo Alto house, would be
even more devastating. Since so many people who make a society tick, like police officers,
teachers, and firefighters, not to mention cleaners and local retailers and cafeteria cooks, don't
make enough money to buy an average priced house, they would either have to move somewhere
else, leaving our intellectual haven a shambles, or buy a hou;.;;e they can't afford, and eventually
default on it, further hurting them and the housing market. There is no reason to put housing
prices above people's lives.
Some other simple solutions are feasible to one degree or another. Skyscrapers are
dangerous while we live near an active fault, and so is underground housing, but perhaps it will
be needed if housing gets worse. Trying to decrease the large tech companies' wages in order to
decrease housing prices for everyone would simply make the employees move elsewhere.
Increasing truces in order to pay for affordable housing, or the less simple alternative of relaxing
regulations, however unpalatable, are the only solutions.
Places like the Buena Vista trailer park are saving Palo Alto. By providing affordable
housing for the blue collar workers needed to run a society, they are keeping the prices of the
houses around them up. No tech employee would ever want to buy a house in a town with no
cooks, and while they themselves may not want a housing complex near their perfect property, if
it means keeping society alive, the returns are definitely worth the cost.
Even if the city doesn't want to pay for such housing projects, you can still concentrate
houses, by reducing regulations. While it may also decrease houses' value, it wouldn't cost true
dollars. Both approaches are probably going to be needed if Palo Alto wants to sustain itself as a
hub of innovation. Otherwise, at this pace, the middle class will continue to shrink, until Palo
Alto is a rotted out shell of venture capitalist millionaires, with the entrepreneurs and tech
companies gone forever.
While I'm aware that the voices of those who want to preserve or increase their own
property values may speak louder than those of the people who can't afford to be your
constituents, most people in Palo Alto are unified in support of affordable housing. Convince the
rest of Palo Alto's City Council to follow your lead, and not put housing prices over professional
lives!
Sincerely,
-
Palo Alto, CA, 943606
May 21, 2018
Cf TY OF PALO ALTO, CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
. 18 JUN-6 PM 3: 58 The Honorable Palo Alto Mayor Liz Kmss ,
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Palo Alto's Public Transportation
Dear Mayor Liz Kniss,
ZU/8 .JUN -6 PH I: 54
·-. ED
..... I Mil •Y"\tle,Jt'S /lf1f~
My name is Niko! -I am a student at Gunn High School in Palo Alto, California,
where we have been studying public policy. I am writing to you about the need of more public
transportation options in Palo Alto. I believe that it is necessary for there to be more
envirorunentally friendly and cost friendly shuttles that run more often and through popular
stops, such as Town And Country Village, Mitchell Park Library or University Ave.
Currently, there is the VTA bus 88 running from the Veteran's Hospital to Middlefield and
Colorado. This bus runs every hour. There are also the routes 88M and 88L that work to
accommodate Gunn students during the school week. They run at the beginning of the day before
school starts and after the school day ends. There is also the Stanford Marguerite shuttle system
that runs mostly on weekdays, but also sometimes on the weekends. Another alternative is the
Cal train that runs northbound with stops along the way to San Francisco and southbound with
stops along the way to San Jose.
As of the start of the year, 2018, a one trip bus fare had increased from 75 cents to a dollar for a
current student. This is a whopping 33% increase in a trip fare. I would argue that most of the
parents' salaries haven't increased that much in the last several years. There are many other
issues, such as the lack of understanding how the Palo Alto shuttles work, as well as the Jack of
desired routes. Based on data, 52% of those surveyed find that the bus routes don't drop them off
close enough to their desired stop and 47% would prefer routes closer to where they live.
These could be some of the factors that make Uber and Lyft such an attractive alternative for
some Palo Altans, especially students, when going to their desired destinations. The only issue is
that these personal transportations options, no matter how convenient, have detrimental effects
on the envirorunent as well as not being an easy choice for those living on a tight budget.
Cars running on gas have a particular negative impact as when it burns, carbon dioxide,
monoxide, and other carbon compound are released. Natural gas is more environmentally
friendly than most other fossil fuels when byproducts are in question, except when leaks occur.
Another issue with natural gas is that it can't be used as a long-term solution since it is
non-renewable. At the beginning of 2017, it was made required for refiners to make gasoline
with 97% less sulfur content. Some do argue that there are e-cars that are more environmentally
friendly than conventional ones, but it has been found that, due to the complexity of the batteries
used for these cars, more energy is needed to produce e-cars than for conventional ones.
VTA has made efforts to cut down the routes that seem to be in less use. Others argue that these
routes are essential and that there are still not enough routes in regards to timing and location.
My opinion is that more public transportation options are needed to be added and be more cost
friendly. The reason for this is that it would reduce traffic, and people can be productive while
using public transportation options, especially during longer commutes. Adding on to that is that
it would help with the environment and people would be in less stress as some people have found
to be living a more peaceful life after selling their car. Until major overhaul of public
transportation is done in San Francisco Bay Area, like the public transportation network that we
can see on East Coast, we need to see Palo Alto adding environmentally friendly shuttles that
would connect schools and major points of public interest.
This issue matters to me as a current and future resident of Palo Alto and I would like to see
changes be done. I believe that it is important to make critical changes that can help slow down
and hopefully stop harmful environmental effects that are in the process of forming, instead of
working to reverse something that has already been broken.
Thank you for your time for reading my letter and your consideration.
Nikol -
Palo Alto CA, 94306
May 29, 2018
CITY OF Pb.LO ALTO. CA
CITY CLEHK'S OFFICE
The Honorable Mayor Liz lt8id\JN -6 PM 3: 57
Palo Alto City Hall, 7th floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
2018 .JUN -6 PM I: Si
Re: Waverley and El Verano Two-Way Stop
Dear Mayor Liz Kniss,
My name is Jolaine -and I am a student at Gunn High School in Palo Alto,
California, where we have been studying public policy. I am writing to talk to you about
a problem concerning the intersection of Waverley and El Verano in Palo Alto. This
intersection has a two-way stop, has seen numerous car crashes, and lies one block
away from Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School. As a citizen who has lived in Palo Alto
for just over 13 years, I ask that either a four-way stop or flashing LED lights are
implemented to prevent dangerous situations several of my classmates and I have
witnessed at this intersection.
Though this is an important issue, there are possible negative impacts of
improving this intersection. For example, as stated in a report by the Federal Highway
Association, installing more stop signs might have negative effects because some
drivers drive faster in between stop signs in order to make up for "lost" time. Stop signs
also cost the city around $50 each, meaning two would cost somewhere around $100.
On top of this, stop signs embedded with flashing LED lights cost an estimated $1,775,
according to a safety page from the Federal Highway Association's website. If every
citizen of Palo Alto wanted to increase safety at all two-way stops with LED lights and
more stop signs, tax money would slip away from other important issues. Although this
is important to keep in mind, the positive impacts of changing the intersection of
Waverley and El Verano to reduce crashes far outweigh the negatives.
According to section 5.1 of a statistical evaluation from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, conversion from four-way stops to two-way stops would
result in a 68% decrease in total number of car crashes. The report also states that a
77% decrease in injury crashes would come along with replacing these two-way stops
with four-way stops. However, in the opinion of the Federal Highway Association, LED
lights or warning signs can be just as, if not more, effective than four-way stops at
reducing crashes. They cite a study conducted in Irvine, California, that shows that
crashes at two-way stops can be prevented by improving intersection visibility or
increasing awareness of a two-way stop. In addition to this, on a page regarding the
implementation of embedded LED lights on stop signs, the Federal Highway
Association notes a 28.9% reduction of the number of vehicles not fully stopping at said
signs and a 52 .9% decrease in the number of vehicles moving through the intersection
without significantly slowing.
Additionally, according to the JLS Middle School website, about half of students
across grades six through eight bike to school. JLS has approximately 1,200 students,
meaning that 600 of-these students bike to school, and many have to bike through this
intersection. On my way to the bus stop every morning, I see countless middle school
students passing through Waverley and El Verano and hold my breath for the few that
are almost hit by drivers who aren't slowing down to check for them. When I was a
student at JLS, I learned to be very alert at this intersection on my bike ride to school
due to the lack of driver attentiveness, but I had my share of near misses. Drawing
more attention to this intersection via LED lights or adding stop signs would help these
students feel safer and more secure on their way to school.
Overall, implementing either a four-way stop or installing LED lights on the
existing stop signs at Waverley and El Verano would greatly benefit this residential area
that houses many families and children by making the streets safer for drivers,
pedestrians, and bicyclists alike.
This issue matters to me because I, as a teenager learning to drive, see this
intersection's problem as something that can and will improve the lives of all residents of
Palo Alto once addressed and fixed . Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
Sincerely,
Jolaine -
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone:
Email:
May 25, 2018
Mayor Liz Kniss
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo ALto, CA 94301
Dear Ms. Liz Kniss,
CITY Of PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
I~ JUN -6 PM. 3: 58
Re: Palo Alto to Change Bike Roads
ZOIB .JUN-6 PH f:s4
My name is Rachel -I am a student at Gunn High School in Palo Alto, California, where
we have been studying public policy. I am writing to talk to you about creating designated bike
routes safer and more accessible in Palo Alto. This would be incorporated on roads such as
Arastradero/Charleston, Park Blvd., Bol Park Path, Hanover, and Matadero. These bike paths
will be separated and will be less involved in traffic, Image 1 below shows a map of the bike
roads I have chosen to add these separated bike paths. According to City Lab, the risk of injury
with separated bike lanes is cut in half. Separated bike lanes take place on the same roads as cars
except they are separated by more of a median or crossed out painted markings on the ground
with some type of dividers. To make these specific bike lanes stand out, we will paint them green
just in the intersections to stay cheap and decrease bike crashes in intersections, the main
destination for bike crashes.
Some may say this will affect traffic and car lanes, although most roads already have enough
room to add a small barrier for bikes, including Park Blvd. However, if there is not enough
space, parking may need to be limited, Image 2 below shows an example. In some places the
road is very narrow and no more room can be made without widening the road, therefore in these
places we can simply paint the bike lane green to make it safer and more noticable.
These "bike highways" will not only improve safety, but they will inspire more people to bike to
their destinations rather than driving and polluting the environment. Copenhagen, a city famous
for its separated bike roads, increased the amount of bicyclists by 20% after the installation
(according to a recent study). In contrary, a blog for a case against bike paths in Los Angeles
states how most people are biking on the actual road because because their specified bike paths
are too secluded and have no real destination. These reasons are why we need to create bike
lanes with specified destinations and meaning. Having a "bike highway" system on the roads I
mentioned above will create a safer environment for bikes and inspire citizens of Palo Alto to
bike to everyday activities, making our town a more earth-friendly place to live.
According to healthychildren.org, 815 students die from biking annually and 152,250 are injured
during regular travel between school and home. Also, based on a recent poll on students at Gunn
High School, almost 40% of students believe bike lanes in Palo Alto are unsafe. With safer and
more accessible bike paths, students will no longer have to put themselves at risk during daily
travels. These bike paths will lay out and connect important destinations in Palo Alto including
Stanford, Gunn and Paly High School, multiple middle and elementary schools, and downtown
Palo Alto. This way, students trying to travel safely to school and home will have safer bike
lanes on busier streets.
Overall, Palo Alto is innovating in many technological ways and attracting more people each
year. With the population growing and pollution becoming a large problem in popular cities like
Palo Alto, the need to update our lifestyle to fit a more earth-friendly future has increased
drastically. Implementing safer bike lanes for everyday travel in Palo Alto will increase the
number of bikers and decrease bike injuries. Thank you for your time, I hope you take my
proposal into consideration.
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone:
. "--
'
Image 2: Example of bike path
~~---'r9--f'io\:\-£71-d ev-v 12-ci .
---(.}nc"'r \-e. ~ Y\/ A l(V\{;:'\rth.0. cvo id-.
I
....
May 29, 2016 CITY OF f?~LO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S Off'ICE
Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss 18 JUM -6 PH 3: 58
250 Hamilton Ave,
Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto, CA 94301
2018 .JUN -6 PH I: 5~
Re: Adding a bike lane to East Charleston Road
Dear Honorable Mayor Liz Kniss,
My name is Kida-I am a student at Gwm High School in Palo Alto,
California, where we have been studying public policy. I am writing to you concerning the bike
lane on East Charleston road. For a majority of the road there is a functioning bike lane, but for
the block in between Fabian Way and San Antonio Road, there is no available bike lane (map
located at bottom). This makes biking to the large complex including REI, PetSmart, BestBuy,
and various other shops, very unsafe. Other destinations on East Charleston include Orchard
Supply Hardware, Costco Wholesale, and Michaels.
Palo Alto has done plenty to make biking safer, and I believe that this can be extended to
this section of East Charleston. Studies have been done showing that risk of bike injury is
reduced by half when a bike lane is present on a road. A protected bike lane, a bike lane that is
separated from traffic by planters, parked cars or other blocking structures to make it safer,
decreases the rate of injury even more: by 90%.
I understand there are three options for the addition of a bike lane: bike/car shared lane
indicated by sharrows, a striped bike lane, and a completely separated bike lane. Having a
protected bike lane, completely separated, would be the most expensive, due to the needed
addition of structures such as planters or curbs. It would also congest the traffic far too much
because narrowing of the roadway would be needed. Considering that East Charleston is a major
road this may not work for the motorists. This section of East Charleston has a speed limit of25,
but is intersected by Fabian Way and San Antonio Road, which both have speed limits above
30mph. This causes people to drive much faster malting the sharrows option a very dangerous
one for bikers. The most logical option is to add a normal bike lane. The cost of painting the new
bike lane would be anywhere from $5,000 -$535,000 per mile with an average of $130,000 per
mile. The cost to paint the 700 ft section of the road that is missing a bike lane is averaged at
$17,234.88.
May 29, 2018
Mayor Liz Kniss
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
."/>! •
' .. f. ..-,"1"1' . ... . I .
CIT'f OF PALO ALTO.CA
CITY CLERK'S Ofitnle6 ZOIS JUN -G PH I: Slf
18 JUN -6 PH 3: 58
RE: Lighting in Parking Lots of Cubberley Community Center
Dear Mayor Kniss,
My name is Giselle -I am a student at Gunn High School in Palo Alto,
California, where we have been studying public policy. I am writing to talk to you about the
poor lighting in the parking lots at Cubberley Community Center.
There are many organizations leasing out space at Cubberley that are for
elementary school, middle school, and even some high school students. Many of these after
school, sports, and education programs end after 6:00 in the evening, and during much of
late fall and winter the sun sets before 6:00 in the evening. In other words, the young
people leaving there after school activities are leaving in the dark.
The arguments could definitely be made that these young people have parents with
them, many of them are just walking to a car, and that before their parents get there, they
should be inside waiting with the adults from there after school program, however two big
issues come to mind. One, that not everyone does ride a car to and from after school
activities; many middle school and high school students bike and walk places, however the
only person I ever see walking home in the dark is myself. If anyone else walks home in the
dark, it must be on a day that I'm not there, and there isn't very much reason to put up
expensive new lights in a bunch of parking lots for one person. The second thing that comes
to mind is much more relevant to a majority. Plenty of the after school activities in
Cubberley are for middle school and high school students who do not have driver's licenses
and must wait for their parents to arrive by car to pick them up. Of course that doesn't
mean that the older students can't wait inside as well, but I have noticed that they seem to
be less likely to. For example, I have classes that I take at Cubberley that end after dark
most of the school year, and many of the older students as well as some of the younger
people in my classes wait outside at the edge of the dark parking lot waiting for their
parents to arrive.
Let's be honest, the dark never hurt anyone, so what's the big deal if they are waiting
in a slightly dimmer area? There is a perfectly simple answer; the likelihood of feeling
endanger and the likelihood of a crime' actually occuring are significantly higher when it is
dark. In a study that took place in Los Angeles two theories were developed for why crime
is less likely to occur when it is light outside. The first is that better lighting would increase
the ability of police, other Jaw enforcement, and other residents to better surveil and catch
someone attempting to commit a crime. The second theory made is that a well lit
community is one with "greater community investment leading to increased community
pride, cohesion and informal social control." While relatively few crimes occur in Palo Alto,
it is never a negative thing to be on the safe side. That is not the only issue though; many
people feel more anxious and possibly even scared when it is dark. For instance in an
article by Gail Conway a study was mentioned in which 7 4% of the Dutch children between
ages four and twelve that participated, had a fear of the dark. This study is definitely
important to proving my point, but it doesn't mention anything about adults. In a gallup
poll done on adults asking whether the adults would be afraid to walk home in the dark if
their house was within a mile of where they were. The result found was that nearly four in
ten americans would be afraid. Four in ten is certainly less than the 74% percent for
children, but it is still very important to note that there are plenty of adults and children
who are scared of the dark; we should help them with their fear by putting up lights in the
Cubberley parking lots.
In addition there are technically already lights in the Cubberley parking lots,
however the lights are very dim and far apart, so they barely light the ground below them,
let alone light the whole of each parking lot. I also realize that putting up a whole bunch of
brand new lights in the parking Jots would be incredibly expensive, but I believe that lights
would be very beneficial and supported by many members of the Palo Alto community if it
were to be brought up.
Sincerely,
Giselle-
Palo Alto, CA 94303
May 29, 2018 CITY OF 'PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
The Honorable City Manager Jam1j~ ~U~~6 PH 3: 58
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto City Hall
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: The Construction of Safer Roads for Palo Alto Bikers
Dear Mr. James Keene,
1018 .JUN -6 PH I: 54
My name is Parker . I am a student at Gunn High School in Palo
Alto, California, where we have been studying public policy. I am writing to talk to you
about an unnecessarily large sidewalk, multiple giant roundabouts, massive
speedbumps, and other frustrating obstacles being built near where I live that obstructs
the road for drivers bikers and makes it very difficult to get around.
I understand that the reason behind deciding to start the construction of these
obstacles is to protect bikers and provide them with a safer way to get to where they
need to go, which I know worries bikers because of how often I bike these roads.
However, by doing this, you have made it a nightmare for drivers to use the roads. I
experience this first hand every day when I am driving to school and any other place I
need to go. You are also making it so that drivers simply avoid these roads, and drive
very fast on other roads without the obstacles, such as Bayshore Road. I live on
Bayshore Road, and my mother tells me very frequently how fast people drive on that
road and how unsafe she feels anytime she has to use it.
The current policy was originally Implemented In order to make bikers feel safer
while they are biking to the places they need to go and make the roads less dangerous
for them. According to Bay Area Bicycle Law, "44% of high school students ... use bikes
to get around." This is a large amount of students when you consider that there are two
high schools in Palo Alto, with around two thousand students attending each of them.
The company also claims that "with so many cyclists on the road , bike accidents are
bound to happen in Palo Alto. In 2012, 746 cyclists were either injured or killed in
bicycle accidents in the Santa Clara County." This is a horrifying number when you think
about it --and it could be avoided by putting these policies and actions into place;
however, with all the things going on surrounding the construction of our streets and
ridiculous amount of barriers, it is actually much more dangerous that it was before for
drivers, as well as bikers. Drivers are forced to slam on their breaks until they are able
to recognize and remember the new traffic patterns, making accidents more likely; to
swerve out of the way of the ginormous roundabouts; squeeze past other cars on the
narrowed roads near the expande.d sidewalks; and more. The new obstacles that
drivers are not at all used to are making biking more dangerous because the drivers do
not expect the road obstructions, making them react suddenly and less likely to check if
there is a biker near their path of "escape."
A plethora of Palo Alto residents are unhappy with the new road designs. Palo
Alto Online says "The city of Palo Alto's effort to turn a south Palo Alto street into a
bicycle-friendly boulevard is encountering a chorus of complaints from residents who
say that the changes are making the road more dangerous." Everyone I have
encountered has complained about the new traffic patterns being extremely unsafe at
least once. The construction is a very unpopular idea that is costing the town a lot of
money; $8.6 million to be exact.
I truly believe that if these bike boulevards were not being built, that the city
would be much safer. If it is possible, I recommend that the city takes the obstacles out
of the roads and make them go back to the way they were before all of the construction
commenced. If that is not an option, then at least cease construction and leave the
roads how they are at this moment in time. Another way to fix this issue, while still
making an attempt at making safer roads for bikers would be to build a completely
separate "road" that intends for bikers to be the sole users.
Parker Rosay-Miller
Palo Alto. CA 94303
29 May 2018
Mayor Liz Kniss
250 Hamilton A venue
City Hall
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dear Mayor Liz Kniss,
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
18 JUN -6 PH 3: 58
Lane Reduction of Arastradero Road
ZOl8 .JUN -6 PM 1: 54
Hi, my name is William. I am a student at Gunn High School in Palo Alto, California,
where we have been studying public policy. I am writing to you to talk about the reduction of
Arastradero road. Many students including myself use Arastradero road for transportation on a daily
or sporadic basis. Furthermore, on the daily, there is always heavy traffic during the morning and
afternoon commutes which can be very frustrating, since many commuters are rushing to get from
point A to point B on time. In this letter, I am proposing a reinstatement of the old four lane
configuration of Arastradero road.
To start, it is important to address some of the reasons Palo Alto reduced Arastradero in the
first place. Firstly, one reason was the truncated amount of lanes should discourage cars from using
it and therefore reduce traffic. This encourages drivers to look for other routes to their destination
rather than using Arastradero. However, there are four schools on Arastradero road (Gunn High
School, Terman Middle School, Young Life Christian Preschool, and Bowman School), and
Arastradero road is the only legal pathway to all three of them. So, the idea of discouraging drivers
does not apply here, because Arastradero is the route for the majority of drivers who drive
southbound on Arastradero. To add, John Hirsch, a former planning commissioner who lives in
Palo Alto told the Daily Mail, ''News that the changes haven't done much to reduce speeding during
off-hours, but have left Arastradero a "mess" during the morning and evening commute. He said
the old four-lane configuration "worked reasonably well."' Clearly, the three lane configuration has
not improved, or even worsened the problems a lane reduction was trying to accomplish. Another
reason for the lane reduction was to create a safer environment for bikers. However, Arastradero
still has a dangerous connotation surrounding it, and is still very prone to accidents. Jon Affeld, the
president of the Barron Park Association, told Palo Alto Online, "his son was also hit at Arastradero
Road and Donald Drive, another location residents say is dangerous because of changes the city of
Palo Alto has made to Arastradero to slow traffic. The city added a "bike box" for cyclists at Donald
and Arastradero to wait in, but the box is too narrow and is at an intersection with visibility
problems, residents have said. Cars on Arastradero frequently run the light at high speed, they
claim." As stated by Affeld, the lane reduction has in fact created a more dangerous environment for
bikers and pedestrians as well. Also, the overwhelming majority of Gunn bikers take Maybell or Los
Robles instead of Arastradero, because many bikers and parents do not feel comfortable using
Arastradero for biking, even after the lane reduction. So, the initiatives for the lane reduction clearly
have had no affected, and have even backfired in some degrees.
Once again, I am suggesting a reinstatement of the old four lane configuration on
Arastradero road. As explained in the earlier paragraph, the two reasons to reduce the amount of
lanes of Arastradero, to discourage drivers and create a safer environment for bikers, have
prominent flaws that cause the three lane configuration to be counterintuitive. Usually, many traffic
experts agree that reducing lanes equates to less traffic because it would discourage cars. However,
for the drivers that are trying to access one of four schools located on Arastradero, it is the only
route for them, so they are forced to take Arastradero. Therefore, on Arastradero, less lanes would
actually create more traffic. So, reverting back to four lanes would ease some inevitable congestion
of Arastradero.
This is very important to many commuters who use Arastradero, including myself. Thank
you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
William Sun
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone:
1 May 29, 2018
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
. I A JUN -6 PH 3: 58 The Honorable Palo Alto Mayor Liz l<n1ss
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
2018 .JUN-6 PH l:SS
Re: Gravel on the Intersections of El Camino & Charleston/Arastradero and
El Camino & Maybell
Dear Mayor Liz Kniss,
My name is Alexandra -and I am a student at Henry M. Gunn High School
in Palo Alto where I have been studying public policy. I am writing to talk about the
intersection of El Camino & Charleston/Arastradero and El Camino & Maybell.
In these intersections, the bike paths and crosswalks where kids cross for school,
are layered in loose gravel on the right side of the road where bikes go. I bike through
these intersections every day to and from school with many other students who go to
Gunn High School, Terman Middle School and Juana Briones Elementary School.
These streets are unsafe, I have fallen because of the loose gravel on the right
side of the road and I've also seen and know at least 10 others who have slipped and
fallen too. The condition of the streets currently is making the process of getting to
school unsafe for children of all ages.
I spoke to others who use these routes to bike to school or to work to find out if
their lives have been impacted by this; I also spoke to people in my neighborhood and
the crossing guards who work there. One in every 4 of the parents and kids in my
neighborhood said they had either skidded and fell or seen someone fall on the
intersections of El Camino & Charleston/Arastradero and El Camino & Maybell because
of the loose gravel. When I spoke to the crossing guards, one said that they see
someone skid and/or almost fall on the gravel every week and see someone fall every
month or so. If the roads were cleaned up the children passing through wouldn't have to
be as nervous crossing and afraid of slipping and falling again. It would also make
parents feel safer.
I do understand that these intersections tend to be extremely busy because of
the large number of people who use El Camino. Although the clean-up crew would most
likely create more traffic and disruption, the whole process shouldn't create any sort of
impact for more than a day.
Clearing the intersection would make people biking feel safer going freely with
the flow of traffic and cars passing through so that bikes wouldn't suddenly slow down in
front of cars, risking an accident.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Although this may seem like a
small insignificant issue, but it does impact the everyday lives of elementary, middle,
and high school students as well as parents and adults. Taking care of this issue would
make people's lives much safer getting where they need to go without being afraid of
getting injured.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Smith
Palo Alto, CA
Phone
29 May 2018
Mayor Liz Kniss
250 Hamilton Avenue
City Hall
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Hi Liz Kniss,
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE'
18 JUN-~ PH 3: 58
Lighting is Key
1018 JUN -6 PM I: 5~
My name is Xuanyi-I am a student at Gunn High school in Palo Alto, California,
where we have been studying public policy. I am writing to talk to you about the lack of streetlights
and how the city of Palo Alto can implement some on a specific street around where many of the
schools are. The street that I am proposing to implement street lights is Maybell. This street in
particular I feel like is lacking in street lights as I bike or walk home at night Though my bike has
lights on it to help me get around, I feel like sometimes it is still way too dark on the street and when
people are walking without lights, it is almost impossible to see them. The main downfall of the lack
of lighting are the many accidents that occur.
According to the safety programs, the benefits of streetlights are to promote the security in
urban areas as well as increasing the quality of life by artificially extending the hours in which it is
light so that activity can take place. Also according to a survey taken, a study for the Department for
Transport in 2003 found that road safety was perceived as a key benefit for street lighting
improvement. In the study, 73% of respondents agreed that 'better street lighting would improve the
safety of children, and 63.8% agreed that 'improved street lighting would lead to fewer accidents on
the roads'. These numbers are quite high and most people agree that streetlights will improve the
safety and environment of the street that the lights are built on. Other than these personal opinion
taken on this survey, there were also solid facts that help support the building of streetlights.
Driving outside of daylight hours is more dangerous -only a quarter of all travel by car drivers is
between the hours of 7pm and 8am, yet this period accounts for 40% of fatal and serious injuries to
the same group . Pedestrians and vulnerable road users suffer from decreased visibility in the dark
too. For these reasons, ways of reducing the risk to all road users during the hours of darkness must
be found. In this data, one can see that many fatal and serious injuries occur in the dark, meaning
that lights are necessary.
My proposal to adding street lights to benefit the safety of pedestrians is to build a streetlight
every 50 meters on either side of the street This will add up to around 30 lights on Maybell, and
each light is around 3000-4000 dollars to buy and around 2000-4000 dollar to build each one. The
average cost of 6500 per streetlight times the 50 streetlights add up to around $325,000, which may
be a hefty amount, but it is well worth it. Especially during the winter, when the days get shorter,
there are kids running around on the streets, and these lights will help the kids too. I hope you will
consider this proposal and respond with thoughts and more questions about my plan.
Thank you for your consideration into my case.
May 29, 2018
Care of: Liz Kniss
CITY Of AP.ALO Al.TO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City of Palo Alto, Office of the Cityl'81~ _6 250 Hamilton Ave. , PM 3: 58
Palo Alto, CA 94301 •.
Re: Morning Traffic on Maybell Avenue
Dear Mayor Kniss,
~ c·' .··? ,~.>.,./ ~
-'!. ' ~
• ... \ t ;~, \ -r"/. ,. "'-;t t '~ __ ..... r
zn18 .JUN -6 PH I: 5~
My name is Claire -I am a student at Gunn High School in Palo Alto, California, where
we have been studying public policy. I am concerned about the of the four-way intersection on
Maybell Avenue and Coulombe Drive in Palo Alto, and the problem that it creates in terms of
morning traffic.
The current intersection consists of stop signs and a cross guard to help pedestrians cross. The
pros of this setup is that is it cost effective and it prioritizes safety for pedestrians. In 2017, the
City of Palo Alto planned to construct a raised intersection in place of four-way stop signs. It was
chosen to reduce speeding and further enhance safety for pedestrians. The problem is that both
plans are focused solely on pedestrian safety, but neither help vehicle traffic.
Every school day morning, I have been driven to school by my mother. At the beginning of the
year, we tried driving to school down Arastradero Road, but it took around 12 minutes to get to
Gunn. We tried Maybell Avenue, the only other route to Gunn, but it took around 8 minutes to
get through, on a good day. It all depended on how many cars are turning from Amaranta
Avenue, and how many kids want to cross the four-way intersection. Both are problems.
The morning traffic is caused by the crossing guard that dictates when cars should and
shouldn't go. She stops the cars everytime a kid shows up to cross. Because the intersection is
right next to Juana Briones Elementary School, students and their parents want to cross every
couple of seconds. The fact that there are also a line of cars in Amaranta Ave trying to get past
the same intersection along with the cars coming from El Camino only serves to make the
commute more difficult. Traffic gets twice as bad on a rainy day because more students are
driven to school, creating a line of cars that go all the way to El Camino.
I propose constructing stop lights to regulate the flow of traffic instead of having stop signs. The
stop lights would let kids safely line up and wait to cross, and at the same time, let cars go freely
without having to stop so often. Most other school intersections in Palo Alto, like Terman, Gunn,
and JLS have this type of intersection as well. According to a PDF from Palo Alto Utilities, it
costs $17.83 a month for the light switching service of a high pressure $Odium vapor lamp. But if
the lights are only mainly used between 7:30am and 8:30am every school day and from 2:45pm
to 3:20pm for afterschool, the cost would be reduced dramatically. Also having a crossguard
before and after school would be even better because it combines the efficiency of the stop
lights, and the benefits of a crossguard.
Some might say that the best way to deal with the morning traffic is to just tell the crossguard to
wait a bit before letting people cross, but there is a problem with that. There is always room for
human error. The cross guards aren't timing themselves every time they let someone pass, and
they won't try to because no one is going to bother correcting them while they're rushing to get
to work or school. Also, everytime there is a different cross guard, we need to trust that they
know exactly what to do, but it's very likely that every cross guard will have a different way of
doing things. This probability of mistakes can be prevented if a machine is in charge because
there is a routine and code that it follows. It would make going to school predictable and easy to
plan for. That being said, having a cross guard in addition td the stop lights would be more
beneficial. It would aid pedestrian safety as well as eliminate vehicle traffic.
In conclusion, the four-way intersection on Maybell Avenue and Coulombe Drive needs a
solution that benefits pedestrians and cars. It's been a problem for years, and no one has made
a move to fix it. The plans to create a raised intersection instead need to be reevaluated now
that the problem of morning traffic has been brought to your attention.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
Sincerely,
Palo Alto, CA 94306
May 29, 2018
CIJY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
The Honorable Mayor Liz Jtfti.JIJN :-6 PH 3: 58
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
.I c.., -~·"'.' ~.._r \J.
; '
I / •
/ . . ~~ ..... _ ....
10\S .JUN -G PM 1: 5\t
-u
an-v ~..;;1t,A~:. is tff'lat
Re: The Safety Standard of Los Robles
Dear Mayor Liz Kniss,
My name is Alan .. I am a 10th grade student at Gunn High School in Palo Alto,
California, where we have been studying public policy. I am writing to talk to you about the
issue of Los Robles as an unsafe bike road. Palo Alto should be a city where bikers feel safe
when commuting and are encouraged to do so.
Many bikers, including myself, appreciate the numerous painted bike lanes, as well as the
increased number of bike roads. These amenities were created to make bikers feel much safer
biking in Palo Alto, and this in turn encourages people to start biking, which is great for our
environment and our general health. However, as a student who bikes to school everyday, I
am constantly exposed to the unsafe environments that affect my morning and afternoon
commute. These hazardous environments include a great number of bumps and potholes,
unnecessary stop signs, illegal car action, and open creeks. These dangers are especially
apparent on Los Robles, a road that many students travel on.
In order to find out what others have to say on this issue, I created a poll on various social
media sites to collect information from Gunn High School bikers. In this poll, I questioned
student bikers about how safe they considered Los Robles to be for biking, and also what
things they think would improve the bike lane. From the question on what things they think
would improve the bike lane, I included 4 checkboxes that I believed were important: adding
a fence/repairing fence to prevent bikers to fall down in the creek, paving roads/remove
potholes, removing the poles by entry of bike lane from Gunn High School, and also an
"other" option for people to write down their own ideas.
According to this poll, Los Robles is the leading bike road that people use, having 46.8% of
people out of 62 responses biking on that road. As more people bike on Los Robles compared
Georgia/Maybell, Arastradero, and the Bol Park bike path, there is definitely a need for
concern to be looked over. From the poll, we are also able to see the responses concerning
the safety of Los Robles. Out of the 29 people who answered that their main bike road is Los
Robles, 18 put the 'Safety as a 3 or below on a 1 to 5 scale (1 being least safe, 5 being most
safe). The poll also shows suggestions on what they think would improve the bike lane. The
poll shows that many believe in the 3 first main checkboxes to improve safety: adding a
fence/repairing fence to prevent bikers to fall down in the creek, paving roads/remove
potholes, and removing the poles by the entry of the bike lane from Gunn High School. Out
of all 3 of these issues, the proposal of removing the poles by the entry of the bike lane from
Gunn High School had the most votes of the poll takers. From these survey results of
random users of the Gunn High School public, we are able to see that safety on Los Robles is
something to be considered. If changed, this would significantly change views on biking on
Los Robles and also improve the well being of others. The change that most people want
(pole removal) is also a quick and easy fix.
People may be against this proposal, and say that fixing this bike road is costly and not
necessary, as it will not create a huge difference in safety. Also, people may say that Los
Robles is not used frequently by bikers outside school hours and is used even less when
school is not in session, such as weekends, holidays, and the summer. However, I would like
to point out that the City of Palo Alto has the money to fix the bike roads. According to the
City of Palo Alto Annual Revenues and Expenses for biking, the 2018-2019 proposed budget
is $282,827 just for biking in our community. This money should be used more wisely on
prominent issues such as the Los Robles route. As it is a road that connects" to a elementary
school (Juana Briones), middle school (Terman), and also a high school (Gunn), safety
should be the utmost priority. To reiterate, having a safe way to get to school is essential, and
outweighs many of the ideas against the proposal.
Overall, the city of Palo Alto should take action on making Los Robles more safe and
welcoming as a road for bicyclists. As a bicyclist that bikes to school year round, I have heard
many complaints on how Los Robles is a "burden" to bike and how the many potholes and
bumps affect their commutes to school and from school. Because of this, many have resorted
to using Georgia/Maybell as their main route to bike to school. By making Los Robles safer, it
would bring more of the community to use Los Robles as their main route of transportation,
thus freeing up Georgia/Maybell. I hope you take these suggestions into real life, and in use.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Palo Alto, California 94306
Phone:
beauty of the world we live in should be motivation for the government to take action to
change our street lights.
If those reasons are not enough, amber LEDs also cut dowri on electricity expenses. Because
of their dimmer light, it takes less energy to power. However, this is not a setback. Although
their light is dim, amber LEDs still light up the night, and is even easier to see under than
white LEDs. Because LEDs are more cost efficient, there is a possibility that more street
lights can be added, therefore creating a brighter environment without creating more
distractions.
In contrast, people believe that the government's money should be used for other projects,
such as repaving roads. However, judging by the results of the Ross Road Bike Boulevard
project, repaving roads should not be the government's first priority. An article from Palo
Alto online brings to attention the dismay residents feel about the change in their roads. The
roads worked fine before, but with the new additions, kids are forced to bike closer to the
middle of the road, increasing the risk of accidents. If the city really wanted to promote safety
for bikers, they should use the 8.6 million dollars spent on the useless changes to the roads
on installing better light bulbs.
By installing these dimmer yet more efficient amber LEDs, the city will travel safer at night
and protect the environment, while also cutting down on electricity expenses. Now that you
know that amber LEDs are affordable and fix all these problems, it no longer makes sense to
choose white.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope this idea will be examined and eventually
implemented.
Sincerely,
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone:
\ \~
My name is Helen Young. I am a 55-year resident of Palo Alto, a founding
member of the CEDAW Coalition and the CEDAW representative for the
American Association of University Women (AAUW), Palo Alto Branch.
I am here to ask the Palo Alto City Council to encourage City Staff to prepare an
ordinance based on the principles of the U N Convention on the Elimination of all
forms of Discrimination Against Women, known as CEDAW, as requested in
February by the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission. The CEDAW Coalition
will be happy to give all the help we can to the City Staff on the preparation of the
ordinance.
Such an ordinance would go a long way to address and alleviate problems of
economic and social discrimination against women in Palo Alto. Now, with the
leadership of our Mayor, it is the right time for Palo Alto to take the lead on the
Peninsula and be the first of the smaller cities to join San Francisco, Berkeley,
Santa Clara County and San Jose in passing a CEDAW based ordinance. I
strongly urge moving forward on this in a timely manner and not allow another
postponement on the City Council agenda.
Since 1995 I have been working toward compliance with the principles of
CEDAW in the US, which is one of the last 6 countries in the world that have not
adopted this UN treaty. I fervently hope to see Palo Alto become a CEDAW City
in my lifetime.
Thank you. r.::cq~c~ MEETING ~ h. I '-/7l7) f3
[ ] Placed Before Meeting
l)cr Received at Meeting
Geoff Ball, 315 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA ghball@aol.com, 650-27g UNCIL MEEnNG
((2.~/;l.-/'l>---
Comments June 12, 2018 at Bike Path review, Mitchell Park [ ] ~d Before Meetin
• Andrew Sharpe, Downtown North [~Received at Meeting g
I cannot make it tonight, but a clear concise, cogent response to the question, "Why won't the
simple addition of two stop signs on Bryant and Everett solve nearly all the issues, and very
cheaply?" Do not accept any argument that it is a bike boulevard; stops signs are on that
boulevard, too, *where they are needed*. And they are needed at Bryant and Everett.
Added thoughts by Geoff Ball ... I have lived just down from this intersection for over
four decades and so have a pretty good historical view and lots of specifics.
My Overall focus: slowing the speed of the interactions among cars, pedestrians, and
bikers. Give drivers and riders and walkers the reaction time they need to keep safe.
Physical context:
The Bryant and Everett intersection is at the foot of a fairly steep hill coming down from
the creek. Even today bicyclists, knowing that there is no stop sign on Bryant Street at
Everett, come down the hill pretty fast. Without having a speed gun I would estimate that
20 mph is not uncommon. Because of the parked cars on both sides of Brian Street it is
relatively difficult to see bicyclists. I know this as someone who crosses that street very
frequently. I have a rule now that I look both ways twice and then pause to look at the
space right next to the cars. It's amazing how fast bicyclists show up . And the bike
Boulevard is busy, as it provides an easy connection from Menlo Park into downtown
Palo Alto and further south .
Having ridden a bicycle I know how irritating it is to have to give up all the momentum
you gathered coming down the hill.
Watching the motorists drive down Everett, especially in the mornings, I can see their
eagerness to get through the intersection at Bryant and Everett as quickly as possible.
I understand that the rationale for the bulbing out of the corners is to constrain the
openings as that does tend to cause drivers to slow down. One would think that the stop
sign at the corner would also have some effect, but I'm sure a test there would show that
as many as 50% of the drivers, especially in the morning, roll through the stop sign
slowing just enough to be able to look in both directions. Horn blowing at that corner is
fairly common. Accidents w)re people are hurt are not uncommon.
Possible actions:
1. The suggestion of Andrew Sharpe -"addition of two stop signs on Bryant and Everett"
2. Perform actual tests of multiple cars and UPS trucks and bicyclists going through that
corner in ways test 'the fit' when all show up at once with some making a turn's seareR
s.RQ1::1let.-
I agree with Andrew Sharpe --don't accept any argument that it is a bike boulevard; stops signs
are on that boulevard, too, *where they are needed*. And they are needed at Bryant and Everett.
Accident Severity
&Speeds3
Slower average vehicle speed$
and lower differential speeds
between the vehicles. cycf St$
and pedestrians significantly
reduce the accident severity
of calllsiens at Modem
Roundabouts.
Pedestrian Fatality Rates
ChanGe of death when a 85%
pedestrian Is hit by a vehlcla 450/o