HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180611plCC3 701-32
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 6/11/2018
Document dates: 5/23/2018 – 5/30/2018
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
RUMI PORTILLO, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
MAY 29, 2018
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN UPDATED SALARY SCHEDULE AND REVISED COMPENSATION
PLAN FOR UNREPRESENTED LIMITED HOURLY EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE JULY 1,
2018-JUNE 30, 2021
Please note that the adoption of an updated salary schedule and revised compensation plan for
the unrepresented limited hourly employees has been moved out to a future council date in
order to better align with other administrative actions.
s Director · Manager
1of1
7
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 1:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Tuesday, May 29, 2018 1:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:How to keep up with your problematic actions?
Dear Council Members and City Manager:
1. Why are you 'giving away' Avenidas $$? They advocated, against many residents, for this redevelopment. Let them pay for it. Further-more, they are NOT really very non-profit, look at the costs for classes, look at the
administrative salaries of these folks! Make them pay the going rate. Think of how much we could make for a
low-income housing if they were charged anywhere near the going rate. Get them fund-raising and use the $$
for city sponsored low-income housing.
2. You want to help keep the existing low-income housing stock? Then don't let Stanford demolish vacant rental
houses that could be easily repaired and used for low-income Stanford workers, not demolished and replaced
with high income housing for faculty. Commit to acting on your 'talk' of supporting BMR housing.
3. You've PRIVATIZED the Rinconada City PUBLIC Pool! It used to have many kids, parents, in both pools on Sundays. It was a festive, active place, full of kids learning to swim. This Sunday the kids pool was off
limits, (I think this is their regular schedule) and only a few swimmers were there at first (1pm), in lap lanes
only. When I left at 2:30 there were no more than 30 folks there, mostly adult lap swimmers, and only 1 life
guard on at 1pm, 2 later. Prices higher! Prices for lessons higher! What happened to our community pool??
Take it back. High school life-guards cost less, were very helpful, prices were not so high. Do a survey!
4. Once again, we are being asked to pay increased prices for our water! Every year or two we get increases for
either one utility or another. Stop it. You can't run a city off of the utilities, which although 'public', seem to be
not very economical. I oppose these increases. Nickel and dimeing the residents is not my idea of good
economics. Cut the $$ for the Council Chambers upgrade. It's way out of line.There are many ways to provide services for this community. Get creative and economical.
Sincerely,
Roberta Ahlquist
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:59 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dena Mossar <dmossar@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 28, 2018 8:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda Item #10, Connecting Palo Alto Rail Program Status Update
To: Palo Alto City Council
From: Dena Mossar
Subject: Agenda Item #10, Connecting Palo Alto Rail Program Status Update
I support Council’s efforts to deal with the City’s four at-grade crossings; future impacts of Caltrain service
enhancements; and the potential impacts of High Speed Rail.
You are looking at scenarios that may replace and widen roadway undercrossings at Embarcadero and
University, in combination with closing various intersections (Churchill and Palo Alto Avenue).
At first glance these options seem worthy of consideration, However, if you look at the criteria used to select options, you will see that the most important criteria (by design) are:
1. East-West connectivity (facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of transportation).
2. Traffic congestion (reduce delay and congestion for automobile traffic at rail crossings).
Solving automobile traffic problems is not the same as solving the problems created by Palo Alto’s at-grade
crossings. If you choose to prioritize movement of automobile traffic, you put existing residential arterials at
risk. Widening existing roadway undercrossings, in combination with closing at-grade crossings, will surely
create greater pressure on residential arterials and possibly future pressure to create regional arterials, like Oregon Expressway, for either/both Embarcadero and University.
This choice is contrary to City policy to protect residential neighborhoods, calm traffic and reduce reliance on
the automobile.
Think carefully about your priorities and what criteria you want to use for pursuing options to deal with these
issues. Make sure you understand the future implications for city-wide impacts before you move forward. Once
capacity has been improved on a roadway undercrossing, pressure to increase capacity on the rest of the
roadway could follow.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:59 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kellerman, Thomas W. <thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com>
Sent:Monday, May 28, 2018 10:30 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Mello, Joshuah; Rachel Kellerman
Subject:Connecting Palo Alto
Attachments:councilletterrail.docx
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please see the attached submission with respect to the discussion of the Connecting Palo Alto proposals. Thank you.
Best regards,
Tom
Thomas W. Kellerman
Emerson St.
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
DISCLAIMER This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an
attorney-client communication and as such privileged and
confidential and/or it may include attorney work product.
If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
e-mail and delete the original message.
1
Rachel H. Kellerman and Thomas W. Kellerman
Emerson Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Honorable Council Members:
We are writing as concerned residents of Palo Alto regarding the alternatives under consideration in connection with
the Connecting Palo Alto project. One of the alternatives proposed for consideration is the widening of the
Embarcadero Road underpass, coupled with the potential closing of the Churchill Avenue grade crossing (referred to
as the “CAX” proposal in the Connecting Palo Alto parlance). There are several potential problems with this
alternative, which will require careful study and consideration. As noted in the initial descriptions of the project, one
important goal for any solution is to minimize the impact on residential streets. The CAX proposal has the potential
to seriously impact the residential streets in Professorville that border Embarcadero Road and therefore runs directly
counter to this goal.
Traffic Impact of Closing Churchill Avenue
Closing the Churchill crossing will bring more traffic into Professorville as vehicles that currently cross the tracks
westbound on Churchill will be diverted onto Embarcadero Road. It should be relatively straightforward to gauge this
traffic impact as it seems highly likely that virtually all of the vehicle crossings at Churchill will move to Embarcadero.
Indeed, this would seem to be the intention of the CAX proposal. This traffic volume should be counted so the
proposal can be analyzed with the benefit of reliable metrics. This movement of traffic flow will have the logical
impacts described below.
Creation of a Busy Cloverleaf in Professorville
Closing the Churchill crossing to car traffic will result in a large increase in the volume of traffic that drives the
informal “cloverleaf” from Alma to El Camino Real via residential streets and Embarcadero Road (see illustration).
If Churchill is completely closed to vehicle traffic, vehicles would quite naturally want to take the next closest route to
access El Camino Real and Paly High. As reflected in the map below, there is currently an informal cloverleaf running
from Alma Street over to Emerson Street to access Embarcadero Road. It is a safe assumption that virtually all of the
traffic that currently turns right or left from Alma Street onto Churchill to cross the tracks will be diverted to this
informal cloverleaf via Lincoln, Addison or Channing Avenues and on to Emerson Street. The number of vehicle trips
involved should be counted and considered in making this decision. Each of the potentially impacted streets in
Professorville is currently a quiet residential street, not designed for this type of traffic flow. If the City elects to close
Palo Alto Avenue as well (PLX), traffic seeking to use the Embarcadero Road crossing will further amplify this serious
neighborhood traffic problem.
Already Existing Traffic Problem in Professorville
City leaders understand our neighborhood’s serious traffic problems, as they enacted permit parking a few years ago.
Permit parking has decreased congestion and increased safe school crossings as fewer cars are circling trying to find
parking spots. The City recognized traffic safety issues at the intersection of Emerson Street and Embarcadero Road
2
and proposed a specific modification to alter this intersection to improve safety that we have been informed has been
planned to be implemented soon. If Embarcadero Road is the only route available to access Paly High, this increase
would exacerbate an already problematic safety issue, particularly for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Clearly the City
recognizes traffic is a major problem for Professorville and specifically the 1100 block of Emerson Street, so plans that
increase traffic and safety hazards should be rejected.
Increased Traffic on Embarcadero Road.
The implementation of either CAX or PLX will result in a significant increase in the traffic on Embarcadero Road. This
impact is relevant for both eastbound and westbound traffic. However, the greatest concern will be the impact on
westbound traffic. Any widening of Embarcadero Road will likely add a second eastbound lane through the
underpass. In fact the greater traffic problem has been westbound traffic, which often backs up several blocks east of
the underpass. The proposed widening of the underpass will not address this traffic congestion problem at all.
Rather the closing of either the Churchill Avenue or Palo Avenue grade crossings will result in a significant increase in
westbound traffic on Embarcadero, without increasing the amount of westbound roadway. Note that in addition to
adding to traffic build-up on Embarcadero Road, this change would likely result in stalled traffic on the feeder streets,
most particularly on Emerson Street. As Embarcadero Road becomes more congested, one would naturally expect
overflow traffic to increasingly divert to residential streets bordering Embarcadero.
We urge you to reject any proposal that negatively impacts traffic in our already congested historic neighborhood
and to endorse proposals that have the least possible impact on residents. As the Council seeks to narrow the
number of alternatives under consideration, we urge you to remove proposals CAX and PLX from consideration. In
any event, it will be important for the City to study the alternatives and develop metrics on changes in traffic flow
prior to reaching any conclusions.
Sincerely,
Rachel H. Kellerman
Thomas W. Kellerman
3
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah W Johnston <debjohns@stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, May 27, 2018 8:01 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Embarcadero Road
I am against any and all proposals to widen Embarcadero Road. I have lived in PA all my life and traffic on
Embarcadero has steadily worsened. Not because it is too narrow but because too many people work here.
And no, we don't need more housing to accommodate them but fewer businesses to attract them.
Deborah Johnston
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:john.martin@bakerbotts.com
Sent:Monday, May 28, 2018 2:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Embarcadero Road
I am a Palo Alto resident, and I would like to add my voice to the objections being raised regarding the potential
widening of Embarcadero Road. Implementing this option would have a permanent and materially adverse effect on not
only the affected communities surrounding Embarcadero Road but also the cohesiveness of the entire city. Thank
you.
Confidentiality Notice:
The information contained in this email and any attachments is intended only for the recipient[s] listed above and may be privileged and confidential. Any dissemination, copying, or use of or reliance upon such information by or to anyone other than the recipient[s] listed above is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately at the email address
above and destroy any and all copies of this message.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Florence Keller <fkeller@trialanalysisgroup.com>
Sent:Friday, May 25, 2018 9:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Dear Council Members:
I have just concluded reading a long article in the Palo Alto Weekly about the extensive and costly transformation of the
Charleston‐Arastradero corridor that is planned to commence shortly. I am also aware that plans are in the works for
the reconfiguration of Caltrain within the next few years which may, it appears, result in having to make major
renovations to the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection.
My question to the Council, then, is why would you spend monies to dig up Charleston Road corridor one year to
accommodate traffic, only to potentially have to spend more money the following year to redo a part of the corridor to
accommodate the railroad? Or have you already settled upon a plan for a railroad that would not necessitate digging up
the surrounding part of Charleston Road?
An answer to these questions would be helpful to me.
Sincerely,
Florence Keller
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gary Hobstetter <gary@gha-design.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 26, 2018 5:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Widening of Embarcadero
Widening of Embarcadero.
City Council,
We do not need another physical divide in this city!
We are both against any options to widening of Embarcadero.
Sincerely
Gary Hobstetter
Joan Hobstetter
Palo alto Ca
94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 12:24 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jason Matlof <jmatlof@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 29, 2018 10:33 AM
To:Council, City; Keene, James; De Geus, Robert
Subject:Please Act Now on Grade Separation: Don't be misled by false rumors about CPUC
prohibitions on capacity expansions
Dear City Council
As you know, our North Old Palo Alto (NOPA) community advocacy organization now has over 425
signatories for our proposal. (I will not go into that proposal here for efficiency, since you all are familiar with it.)
I'm writing to ask that you please pursue the facts before being misled by an effort by some vocal advocates to
slow down the decision-making process on grade separation. Specifically, I've heard recent attempts by one
"advocate" resident claiming that the CPUC has an absolute prohibition on rail capacity expansion beyond 6 trains/hour (12 total). They claim that there are hard and certain safety prohibitions that would prevent expansion to 7 trains/hour (14 total) and beyond.
I've checked with Friends of Caltrain, who has confirmed in no uncertain terms that data is false. There is
discretion between 12-20 trains per hour (total), and the only hard restrictions relate to passing tracks, which I presume we will not have in Palo Alto. According to the representative and her contacts at Caltrain, there is no hard prohibitions or expectations that the CPUC would prohibit capacity expansion. In fact, the opposite. CPUC
and Caltrain are working together expecting and planning for expansion.
PLEASE CONSIDER THIS AND DO NOT BE MISLED BY CLAIMS OTHERWISE. THE TRAINS THEY ARE A'COMING! WE MUST ACT NOW.
Thank you
Jason Matlof
NOPA
1
Minor, Beth
From:Ng, Judy
Sent:Friday, May 25, 2018 4:00 PM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Minor, Beth; leConge
Ziesenhenne, Monique; O'Kane, Kristen; Anderson, Daren; Portillo, Rumi; Sartor, Mike;
Hospitalier, Jon; Wong, Mike
Subject:5/29 Council Agenda Questions for Items 6, 7, & 8
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 May 29, 2018 council meeting agenda.
Item 6: Approve Three Parks Landscape Maintenance Contracts – CM Tanaka
Item 7: Adoption of an Updated Salary Schedule and Revised Compensation – CM Tanaka
Item 8: Ventura Community Center Units 1, 2, & 3 Re‐Roof Project – CM Tanaka
Item 6: Approve Three Parks Landscape Maintenance Contracts – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. The increase in price for maintenance went from $4,984,494 with a 7% contingency included (from the
previous 5‐year contract) to $6,496,404 with a 5% contingency included; I understand safety concerns added a
workload as well as new sites. However, did anyone inspect the landscapes to see what was needed to be done
beforehand or was the expected maintenance based on the previous contract?
A. 1. Staff continually inspects, analyzes, and re‐evaluates all the maintained sites (athletic playing fields,
playgrounds, landscaped areas, picnic areas, etc.) to determine the level of maintenance needed ensure that
the sites are clean and safe. For example, the previous contract required that picnic tables be cleaned three
times per week. However, staff determined that cleaning the picnic tables less frequently (once a week) is
sufficient. In some areas, such as athletic fields, staff analysis, along with feedback from field users, indicated
that we needed to increase the service to ensure that the fields are safe and playable.
Another area that was closely evaluated is the landscape work at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant,
which had a significant landscape improvement project that requires an increased level of maintenance.
Water Quality staff closely analyzed the work from the previous contract and determined it was significantly
under staffed. The new contract specifies a minimum requirement of 32 hours per week to meet the
maintenance requirement.
Q. 2. On that note, what is the difference of acres to be maintained now compared to the previous contract?
Funding increased by 30%, is the land being maintained around 30% more than the previous contract?
2
A. 2. The contract costs are not based on the number of acres. Each area is priced based on the unique scope
of work. For example Mitchell Park, which is 21.4 acres, costs $69,000; while Byxbee Park, which is 122 acres,
costs $20,000.
There are several reasons for the cost increase:
1. There were multiple City projects that included landscaping and other features requiring maintenance
that were added (or will be added during the timeframe of the attached proposed contract in the staff
report) after entering into the previous parks landscaping contract. The maintenance costs for these
new sites were not included in the previous contract. A few examples of the new sites are the Public
Works Transportations Projects (AMBLUR, which consists of 85 new landscaped medians, installation
of various round‐abouts throughout the City with landscape material that will need to be maintained),
Welch Road medians, Southgate Bio‐retention Basins (Public Works Storm Drain Project that involved
adding new landscaping), Charleston‐Arastradero Corridor Medians and Bio‐retention Basins (Public
Works Engineering Project that will be adding new medians and bio‐retention basins from Louis Rd. to
Miranda Ave).
2. The use of the herbicide glyphosate in Parks and City Facilities will no longer be permitted because on
July 7, 2017, glyphosate was added to the California Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to the
state to cause cancer. Also, for many years, numerous park visitors have requested that glyphosate
not be used in Palo Alto parks.
3. Additional maintenance is necessary to keep the playing fields in safe condition due to the high level
of use of the fields. This includes extra aerations, fertilizations, mowings, and seeding of the playing
fields once per month, May through September of each year of the contract. Field users strongly
support extra maintenance to keep the playing fields in safe condition. The additional maintenance of
the fields also helps reduce the need for closing the fields for full‐renovations.
4. The contract now requires specific quantities of playground safety surfacing (sand and fabricated
wood fiber), which are necessary to comply with safety regulations. Staff tracked the historic
quantities of playgrounds surfacing materials needed, and have included it in the contract.
5. Additional maintenance was added to the Magical Bridge Playground at Mitchell Park. This includes
daily (7 days per week) servicing, quarterly pressure washing of the entire playground, and weekly
cleaning of all equipment. Due to the popularity of this playground, staff has struggled to keep the
playground clean and safe with our regular maintenance routine. Staff has found by adding two
additional days of servicing, cleaning of equipment, and with quarterly pressure washing of the entire
playground, we are able to sustain the maintenance of the playground at the same level as others
throughout the City.
6. This contract now includes the maintenance of the green roofs and green wall at the Mitchell Park
Library and Community Center, which was previously maintained by Gachina Landscape, through
contingency funding.
7. The Regional Water Quality Control Plant had a significant landscape improvement project that
requires an increased level of maintenance.
8. The scope in Section I, Specification for Habitat Restoration in Foothills Park, has been increased to
address new and aggressive invasive species, such as stinkwort, and to increase restoration efforts on
the 7.7 acre area of Foothills Park.
3
Q. 3. For Section G of the parks the bid did not go to the lowest bidder due to wage miscalculations, why was it
not possible for the company to reassess with the correct wage expectations? The rejected contract (of $72,131)
is estimated as 80% less expensive than the accepted contract (of $358,897) in yellow.
A. 3. After submitting original bids, both contractors were given an opportunity to submit a best and final
offer. The lowest bid for Section G (Maintenance of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant) included an
hourly rate that was below Santa Clara County minimum wage and prevailing wage. Compliance with
prevailing wage was a requirement in the RFP as this is a requirement for maintenance projects that exceed
$15,0000. Procurement guidelines do not allow the low bidder in Section G to re‐bid individually to correct the
wage calculation. Since their bid had deficiencies and did not meet the RFP requirements, it was not awarded
to them.
Item 7: Adoption of an Updated Salary Schedule and Revised Compensation – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. Do these salary increases match current inflation trends?
A. 1. The salary increases are less than the wage inflation index. The salary increase is 2.5% per year. Current
CPI is 3.4% (CPI‐W San Francisco‐Oakland‐San Jose, latest release as of April 2018).
Q. 2. If the salaries are not increased, will these workers still be able to get by?
A. 2. The median salary for this group is approx. $21/hours with an average schedule of 20 hours a week. The
individual circumstances of up to 400 employees in this group are not known, therefore it is not possible to
say if these workers are “able to get by” without an increase.
Q. 3. Are hourly workers comparatively cheaper than regular workers?
A. 3. Hourly employees are not provided health insurance, retirement, holiday pay, vacation or other fringe
benefits – so their impact to the budget is less than regular employees.
Q. 4. Is this the best use of the city's money, given we are trying to cut $4 million dollars?
A. 4. Hourly employees perform important work for the City and competitive wages are necessary to hire
quality workers.
4
Q. 5. Are there a lack of underrepresented employees applying for these positions?
A. 5. Applicants are not required to declare ethnicity or gender at the time of application.
Item 8: Ventura Community Center Units 1, 2, & 3 Re‐Roof Project – CM Tanaka
Q. 1. What is the combined square footage for all three of the roofs?
A. 1. 36,197 sf.
Q. 2. What is the cost per square foot of roof?
A. 2. $18.97/sf based on the lowest bid.
Q. 3. How long has it been since the current roofs were installed?
A. 3. Roofs 1 & 2 were installed in 1995 and roof 3 was installed in 2001.
Thank you,
Judy Ng
Judy Ng
City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329‐2105
Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Audrey Gold <audreygold@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:13 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:David Shen; Kenneth Horowitz; superintendent@pausd.org; board
Subject:PTA Council Support for Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax
Attachments:PTAC SSB Tax Support May 2018.pdf
Dear Honorable City Council members,
Please see the attached letter of support to request that a sugar sweetened beverage tax be placed on the Palo
Alto city ballot in the fall of 2018.
Sincerely,
Audrey Gold
PTA Council President, 2016‐18
http://ptac.paloaloto.org
May 23, 2018
To Palo Alto City Council
We are writing on behalf of the Palo Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC). PTAC works with
the district staff, the Board of Education, community partners and the PTAs at the 17
schools to support the students and families of the Palo Alto Unified School District
and to improve the education, health and welfare of all children and youth. The Palo
Alto PTA Council requests that a sugar sweetened beverage tax be placed on the
Palo Alto city ballot in the fall of 2018.
Scientific evidence has shown that sugary drinks harm our childrens’ health,
contributing to rising rates of dental caries, obesity, heart disease, diabetes and liver
disease. Sugary drinks have no nutritional value but yet represent almost half the
added sugar we consume. When sugar enters the body in liquid form, the body
suffers a deluge of sugar into the bloodstream and overwhelms the body’s natural
ability to process it.
Taxes on sugary drinks discourage consumption due to higher prices. It increases
awareness of the issues of consuming sugary drinks. Significant revenue is expected
to be raised through this tax that will help our schools and other programs which
help populations suffering from related diseases.
PTAC supports initiatives like these that encourage healthy choices and create a
healthy environment for our children. We believe that this tax will help children
make healthy choices that will enhance learning and their growth and support
PAUSD with much needed revenue.
We thank you for your cooperation and support.
Sincerely,
Audrey Gold
PTA Council President, 2016-18
http://ptac.paloaloto.org
cc: Board of Education
Interim Superintendent Karen Hendricks
Dr. Kenneth Horowitz
25 Churchill Ave Palo Alto CA 94306 | https://ptac.paloaltopta.org | council@paloaltopta.org
Palo Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC) is the umbrella organization representing the 17 unit PTAs of the Palo Alto Unified
School District.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Schreiber <r_schreiber_98@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:25 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Soda tax
Please put it on the ballot and let the voters decide.
FWIW I was called by a lying “poll taker” who at first claimed to be calling on the city’s behalf but who was pushing the
pro sugar, anti regulation agenda.
Rob Schreiber
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kenneth Horowitz <klhorowitz@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 24, 2018 1:15 PM
To:Gold, Audrey; Council, City
Cc:David Shen; Kenneth Horowitz; superintendent@pausd.org; board
Subject:Re: PTA Council Support for Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax
Thank you all (PTA Council) for this wonderful letter and support of a SSB tax The City Council will be discussing this measure on June 4 The results of the polling data will be revealed then Hopefully, everything will be positive Will keep you all in the loop Best regards, Ken
-----Original Message----- From: Audrey Gold Sent: May 24, 2018 10:12 AM To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: David Shen , Kenneth Horowitz , superintendent@pausd.org, board Subject: PTA Council Support for Sugar Sweetened Beverage Tax
Dear Honorable City Council members,
Please see the attached letter of support to request that a sugar sweetened beverage tax be placed on the Palo Alto city ballot in the fall of 2018.
Sincerely,
Audrey Gold
PTA Council President, 2016‐18
http://ptac.paloaloto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 12:24 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Frank Ingle <frankwingle@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 29, 2018 12:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
This email is re Agenda item 8 of the City Council meeting on June 11, 2018.
I recommend approval of the proposed project at 2755 El Camino.
“Residentialists" such as myself are most concerned about privacy, traffic congestion, and parking.
This project scores well on these issues.
Privacy: The residents next door will have less noise than before because of less exposure to Page Mill and El Camino traffic noise.
Traffic congestion: It is time for more very small apartments next to public transit. This location is close to
California Avenue and not far from downtown, by walking or bike. Also close to Caltrain for trips to San
Francisco where use of a car is a liability.
Parking: Limited parking in this project, but residents in this project could save money by doing without a car.
Only entry level single residents are likely to want to rent such small spaces, and it will be convenient for them
to walk or bike if they work in Palo Alto, or commute by rail or bus to another nearby location.
Young singles would enjoy proximity to Palo Alto downtown, California Avenue, and nearby Stanford
University and shopping center.
I wish there were dozens more projects like this one along El Camino.
Frank Ingle
814 Richardson Ct
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 24, 2018 12:53 AM
To:dcbertini@menlopark.org; Jonsen, Robert; swagstaffe@smcgov.org;
essenceoftruth@gmail.com; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; Binder, Andrew; Cullen, Charles;
Kilpatrick, Brad; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Council, City; bos@smcgov.org; HRC;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; myraw@smcba.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com;
council@redwoodcity.org; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu;
michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Kan, Michael; Lee, Craig; jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org;
Perron, Zachary; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; Constantino, Mary; Van Der Zwaag, Minka;
Holman, Karen (external); lydiakou@gmail.com; Scheff, Lisa
Subject:CBS News: Bodycam footage shows police tase, arrest NBA player
Bodycam footage shows police tase, arrest NBA player
CBS News
Milwaukee Police Chief Alfonso Morales apologized Wednesday for how his department handled the situation
Read the full story
Shared from Apple News
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:08 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Moragne <mmoragne@randmproperties.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 30, 2018 9:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Embarcadero Widening
Dear Council,
I wanted to voice my opinion that the idea of widening Embarcadero Road would be a bad idea for our neighborhood.
Mark Moragne
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:02 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jason Matlof <jmatlof@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 30, 2018 11:50 AM
To:Council, City; Keene, James; De Geus, Robert; Mello, Joshuah
Cc:Scharff, Greg; Adrian Fine; Cory Wolbach; Kniss, Liz (external); Filseth, Eric (external);
Greg Tanaka; Holman, Karen (external); Jason's Gmail
Subject:Everyone Can Have Their Own Opinion, But No One Can Have Their Own Facts!!!
Dear City Council and Staff,
As a follow up from last night's discussion on Grade Separation, please accept this email to set the record
straight regarding claims about Churchill Avenue and Embarcadero Road traffic. As per my email of yesterday
highlighting the misinformation spread by certain people regarding CPUC regulations of Caltrain, we now have
additional evidence of efforts to intentionally spread false information to mislead people regarding this critically important City decision. We must ensure that the actual facts are known and used to make such important
decisions.
Last night, several Embarcadero Road residents claimed (after they were innocently led to believe) that there
would be ~9,000 cars per day that would get redirected to Embarcadero Road and the Emerson "cloverleaf" if Churchill was closed. It is, in fact, true that ~9,000 cars per day do traverse the Churchill / Alma intersection,
but that's where the facts end. Per the below chart from the Mott-McDonald circulation study the 3 peak traffic
hours over 5 days in 2017, you can see very plainly what you would expect to see. Only a very small percentage
(25.2%) of the total traffic actually crosses the train tracks and would need to get diverted to another location -
the rest traverses on the much more utilized Alma corridor and Churchill East. An even smaller percentage of that traffic (roughly half or 13%) traverses across the tracks from E -> W, and would need to find it's way either
through Embarcadero or Oregon Expressway south (we have to assume that some will also divert there, as
well). We're talking about hundreds of cars during all 3 peak rush hours, not thousands.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:02 PM
2
While we're on the subject, I also want to bring up the proposal of Citizen Advisory Council. Given what
appears to be an intentional misdirection campaign by some, I would like to request that members of our NOPA
leadership group participate in this Advisory Council. Given that we represent by far the largest and most organized community association on this topic in Palo Alto (> 450 signatories), I think it's more than fair to expect that we have representation. I hope that you agree.
Thank you for your consideration. I sincerely appreciate the difficult position you are all in given the severity
and consequences of this City decision. Thank you for your service and willingness to fight through the noise to find the best outcome.
Jason Matlof NOPA
NOTE: While there were many problems with the Mott-MacDonald study, this circulation count is objectively factual and irrefutable. While
it did include a non-school day (2/16/17) in the count, that was only 1 of 4 days counted. While the absolute numbers may vary, the
proportional and directional information is representative. You can find that if you read the fine details.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Witkowski <wireless@jointventure.org>
Sent:Saturday, May 26, 2018 2:05 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Followup regarding May 21st 2018 "Wireless Communications Facilities"
Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers,
I'm writing to followup on items from the May 21st 2018 "Wireless Communications Facilities" agenda item. In particular I wanted to provide an answer to the question posed by CM Tanaka about the relative
difference between RF from cellular handsets, and RF from cell sites (small cell or otherwise). I will do this in
the context of a discussion about RF safety studies, notably the National Toxicology Program (NIH) rodent
study. Before I do this, I want to go on record in response to comments made about me and Joint Venture
Silicon Valley by people who spoke after my time at the podium:
1. Commenters asserted that I (or JVSV) was paid to be at the council meeting - this is not true. 2. Commenters asserted that I (or JVSV) am/are industry-funded. Many companies including Verizon
Wireless are members/supporters of JVSV, as are many counties/cities/towns in our region. Dues are
paid freely by companies and municipal governments to support our work and our stated missions, with
no explicit or implicit contract or expectations of results. 3. Commenters asserted that I (or JVSV) supported Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) - this is not true. Neither I nor
anyone at JVSV took a position on that bill.
Regarding the question of RF health effects: To date there has not been a conclusive study linking RF radiation
to human cancer. In fact, as the rate of wireless device usage continues to grow exponentially, brain cancer
rates are dropping. (http://bit.ly/2mIcpfR) The World Health Organization classified RF as a "possible" carcinogen, which doesn't mean it's a "probable" or "definite" carcinogen. Think of it this way; if you're in a
jewelry store when an expensive diamond necklace goes missing, you and everyone else in the store are
POSSIBLE suspects until you're eliminated as a suspect through police investigation.
There have been literally hundreds of studies done on the topic of RF safety. Results have been either negative or equivocal (i.e. lacking in certainty). PARTIAL FINDINGS (full results are expected in fall 2018) in the
National Toxicology Project rodent study (http://bit.ly/2sgdjjZ) found "low incidences of tumors in the brains
and hearts of male rats, but not in female rats, in these partial findings."
It's important to understand that the RF exposure levels in the NTP study were set at or above the federal maximum permissible exposure limits as set forth in IEEE C95.1, which is slightly lower than international
guidelines such as the ICNIRP, and that the RF levels in the NTP rodent study were designed to approximate
HANDSET levels - not levels from cell sites. The NTP rodent study is best characterized as being equivalent
to a person making 10 minute calls, followed by 10 minute breaks, with the phone held against their head, for 9
hours every day of their life starting at birth. In other words; not a very realistic equivalency. Also, with some notable exceptions, humans are not rats.
Addressing the question posed to Dr. Kramer by CM Tanaka: We can't draw conclusions from a study on
HANDSET levels and extrapolate them to imagined effects from cell site levels, because the RF power
difference between them is night and day - a cell phone handset creates RF exposure in your body (when held to your head during the call) at levels on the order of 1 watt/kg, whereas (depending on where you are making the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:54 AM
2
measurement) a cell site creates RF exposure at levels around 1 micro-watt/kg - i.e. RF exposure from a cell site
is one million times lower than the level of a cell phone. This is a very rough approximation that depends on a
variety of factors, but it's accurate to within an order of magnitude.
It's important to note that there are many unanswered questions in the NTP study results. First of all, the male
rats exposed to RF actually lived 8% LONGER than the control group, and as a rat ages the likelihood of it
naturally developing cancers increases. Second, anomalous cancer was not observed in RF-exposed female
rats, nor was it observed in either male or female RF-exposed mice. Third, none of the control group male rats naturally developed cancer, which is very odd because normally about 2% of rats will do so in their lifetime
absent any outside influences. If the control group rats had naturally developed cancers at a normal rate, the
statistical significance of the observed male rat cancers would not exist.
In summary, I believe the currently available evidence shows that council made the right decision to allow the wireless project to move forward, and that you can rest assured knowing you're not creating a health risk for
Palo Alto residents. I remain, as always, available to you as a resource if you still have questions.
Best regards,
...dtw
---
David Witkowski
Executive Director, Civic Technology Initiatives Joint Venture Silicon Valley
---
Co-Chair, Wireless SuperCluster, Global City Teams Challenge
Member, Board of Expert Advisors, CA Emerging Technology Fund
Member, Connected City Advisory Board, Wireless Broadband Alliance ---
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kerry Yarkin (via Google Docs) <kyarkin895@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 25, 2018 8:37 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Legal Strategy for airplane noise g
Kerry Yarkin has shared a link to the following document:
Legal Strategy for airplane noise g
Open in Docs
Google Docs: Create and edit documents online.
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
You have received this email because someone shared a document with you from Google Docs.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 27, 2018 3:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Attachments:pension_reform_5_23_2018.pdf
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Subject: Pension Reform
In the last few weeks I have read that pension costs are increasing and hurting ability to keep the budget under control.
The attached note addresses these issues and I hope this is discussed and considered.
Thank you,
Gary Lindgren
Gary Lindgren
585 Lincoln Ave
Palo Alto CA 94301
650-326-0655 Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading
@garyelindgren
Listen to Radio Around the World
Be Like Costco... do something in a different way
Don't trust Atoms...they make up everything
A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but
think what no one else has ever said.
The difference between being very smart and very foolish is
often very small.
So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when
they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when
they are supposed to be creative.
The secret to doing good research is always to be a little
underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste
hours.
It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to
prove you have made the world a better place.
Amos Tversky
Gary Lindgren
585 Lincoln Ave
Palo Alto CA 94301
gel@theconnection.com
Public Worker Pension Reform
Preface: I assume that many years ago, public workers generally received lower wages compared to the
private sector. As a perk to compete with the private sector, better retirement programs were
established. Now, the wages of the public sector have caught with the private sector and the pensions
have grown even richer. Here are some ideas for Palo Alto pension reform.
1. To my knowledge public workers are not covered by the federal Social Security program. Instead
the worker pays into a retirement fund and the employers also pays into the fund and then at
retirement, the worker receives the benefits. I suggest that instead of a single fund that collects
funds during the worker’s work time, that 2 separate systems be setup. One would collect
amounts very similar that Social Security collects and pays out with very similar rules. The
second would be a defined contribution 401K type fund that again the employer and employee
would make contributions. The employer’s contribution would be a defined amount. At
retirement, the employee would receive benefits from both plans. The employee would receive
a monthly check for the system setup like Social Security and the employee would have the
opportunity to an receive an annuity or lump sum payment from the second program.
2. The employee would not be able to accumulate ‘Sick Time’ from year to year. If they don’t use
it, it is gone. If an employee has an extended sickness, they would go on disability.
3. The employee would not be able to accumulate more than 3 months vacation time. Any
vacation time of more than 3 months would be lost. In setting up this rule, employee would
have 5 years to use up extra vacation time.
4. New employees would be set up with the new system for retirement system.
5. As an incentive to get older employees to agree to the new retirement system, how about
offering an extra years wage paid over 3 years time.
This would all have to be worked out to see if it makes actuarial sense but it’s an idea.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:07 PM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Subject:News Impacting Quality of LIfe on the Peninsual
Neilson Buchanan Co-Editor
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
THIS WEEK ON THE SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:06 PM
2
News Impacting Your Quality of Life
May 28, 2018
View as Webpage
In this Issue
Taxation and
Transportation
This newsletter addresses the
Peninsula's structural tension
between taxes and
transportation. These two topics
are inseparable like "Horse and
Buggy" or "Gasoline and
Engine." However, in reality
they are seldom aligned.
Government at all levels including dozens of agencies struggle behind the scenes. Direct
accountability to voters is rare.
Public policy for each issue carries three dead weights:
1. Overlapping decision-makers
2. Fragmented sources of cash
3. No crisis to challenge weak organizations
Today we see the short-term future as rather dreary but we predict self-interest of Tech
Titans, Transportation and Taxation will eventually find common ground. There's synergy
with these three Ts.
To Subscribe Click Here
Showdown: Sleepless in Seattle
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:06 PM
3
Behind Seattle’s Amazon Tax there are “Seething Tensions, Livid Neighbors,
and Rising Rents.”
The showdown demonstrates how politics and economics have shifted in
Seattle, where the pressure to address the city’s growing pains has surpassed
the conventional wisdom that attracting new jobs is the top civic priority.
As a tech boom drives up home prices, lawmakers ask: “Can cities grow too
fast?”
Bloomberg News
Ed. Comment: Early in May we overlooked Bloomberg news. We just learned
that May 2 offers a lesson for the Peninsula. It was, as the local public radio
station said, the day “Seattle Nice” died.
Price of Success = 3T
Mountain View may enact a business head tax in
November, and a successful vote might spawn multiple
Silicon Valley imitators. “If we and Cupertino enact these
taxes, I can expect that Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto
and Menlo Park will be considering them in the next round
two years hence,” Mountain View Mayor Lenny Siegel said.
SV Business Journal
A Mt. View City Councilperson reasoned that paying $200 tax per employee is affordable considering six-figure incomes. But
leaders of the leading Silicon Valley business consortium feel $200 will discourage job growth. SJ Mercury News
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:06 PM
4
In a bid to raise between $5 million and $10 million for transportation, housing and homeless services, the city of Mountain View is
considering a vast increase in the business license tax that it levies to large businesses, including Google, Microsoft and LinkedIn.
Palo Alto Daily Post
Ed. Comment: No good deed goes unpunished. Seattle passed business tax raising $50+ million/yr for affordable housing and
homeless services. Business community responded by halting some construction and started a repeal campaign. 3T, our newest
lexicography, is Taxing Tech Titans. It is easier to say than enact. For the record, we have seen relatively small taxes proposed for
our local business community. They doth protest too much?
Awaking up to smell the lattes?
Cupertino is pondering new
business license fees on
employers based on the
number of employees. This
could jolt Apple and
others. This proposal bears
likeness to fees under
consideration by Mt. View City
Council. San Jose Mercury
News
Ed. Comments: A few weeks
ago we coined “J2H” as
shorthand for jobs to housing
ratio. Now we suggest “3T”
as a timely acronym for Tech
Titan Taxation. Other city
Councils need cash caffeine for
lagging infrastructure. Could
this be on various city ballots
as early as November 2018?
Latest reality show
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:06 PM
5
Some of the biggest employers
in the Bay Area, including
Facebook and Google, are
throwing their weight behind
Regional Measure 3, which
would raise bridge tolls to as
high as $9 to pay for
transportation projects.
While Supervisor Simitian,
Mayor Seigel and others oppose
it, there is no campaign
committee campaigning against
the tax.
Palo Alto Daily Post
Ed. Comments: Click on the
link above to learn how much
major employers are paying to
promote the tolls on commuting
workers.
Cuckoo planning
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:06 PM
6
Freeways are seas of red brake lights as 83,000 commuters jam from
San Joaquin County to the Bay Area. BART and other transportation
agencies have conflicting options, oversupply of advisors and not enough
funding.
“It’s a 14 hour day for eight hour of pay,” said Modesto construction
worker. A non-profit planning expert feels, “You can’t add a room to your
house if foundation is cracked and that is what BART is trying to do…..
we need bus rapid transit….”
Two Assemblymembers have proposed authorization of new
transportation agency, Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Regional Rail Authority.
“All projects compete for funding,” said a BART official, “looking for
money from same sources.” San Jose Mercury News
Ed. Comment: Our fragmented mass transit agencies would drive a
crazy person insane. However, this article is valuable only if fragmented
voters take time to reflect. Is it time to fly over our cuckoo nest?
It is about time
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:06 PM
7
New SamTrans bus lines aim to boost travel time on El Camino Real and access to SFO. Route SFO entails three distinctly labeled
buses with luggage racks timed to meet northbound Caltrain trains at the Millbrae station. Pilot program starts June 24. Click for
schedule info. San Mateo Daily Journal
Ed. Comment: Public transportation to SFO is tribute to fragmented funding of mass transit agencies. When lost productivity is
truly painful, new services will accelerate. We ask why this 20th century solution is slowly rolling out in 2018. One answer is Quentin
Kopp’s “BART-TO-SFO” Opinion from June 2014. Click below for historical perspective.
Kopp Opinion 2014 San Mateo Daily Journal
Best bike coverage
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:06 PM
8
What do cities need to know about bikeshare? Public or private? Docked or dockless? E-bike or e-scooter? It’s complicated. But
bikesharing is now big business, and cities are learning how these emerging systems operate—and who operates them.
City Lab
Ed. Comment: We are often perplexed by public investment in biking relative to most commuters’ needs. For the record we are
not sold on viability of bikeshare. Nevertheless, we are sold on this article's great coverage of bikeshare questions and answers.
Success of SFPRA newsletter success depends upon its readers. Please feel free to forward the newletter to your
friends and neighbors. Ask them to subscribe at no cost by clicking the subscribe button above or by
emailing cnsbuchanan@gmail.com.
Editors Neilson Buchanan and John Guislin are unpaid, private citizens on the SF Peninsula and have no ties to
developers or government organizations.
Our Web Site
Neilson Buchanan | Downtown North, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Unsubscribe cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Update Profile | About our service provider
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:06 PM
9
Sent by cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com in collaboration with
Try it free today
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:02 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 29, 2018 4:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Petition for Review of Catex
Dear Council,
Today is the last day to file a petition for review of the Categorical Exclusion employed for the SERFR 3 procedure, which has brought a new crossing waypoint from Menlo Park to Palo Alto, SIDBY (side-by),
impacting several Palo Alto neighborhoods. Please see the email below from SFO with the coordinates of
SIDBY. SIDBY Lat Long 37 27 02.56N / 122 08 41.09W
For the past weeks, several of us wrote to City Staff and City Attorney, to alert of the issue of this CATEX, and ahead of the May 9th Council meeting. What I heard on May 9th was confusing because City Attorney's
comments suggested that you had reviewed this FAA action; decided to not appeal it, but didn't want to say so
because of the influence on individuals appealing it. I don't understand the explanation for avoiding saying so.
It's obvious if you decide to appeal or not appeal but more than the influence on individuals' choices, your action or no action speaks greater volumes about what you are choosing to represent to FAA, the region, and
community at large.
You are saying that the City is "OK" with a Catex that fails to provide minimum mandated information.
What does this say about your looking out for process that is fair to ALL citizens? By not appealing for lawful and adequate environmental reviews, you suggest that you take sides with FAA.
How can Palo Alto's interests expect to be fairly represented at a regional level if you are disengaged from
pursuing a process that is fair to all? For FAA to use a Catex, 2012 legislation federal legislation permits
it, ONLY IF there is a demonstration of measurable reduction in fuel burn, emissions, and noise. FAA's own rules and policy require modeling to justify the action. The Catex for SERFR 3 (and other 9 actions which are
a mystery to many people) "justifies" 10 actions including SERFR 3 with absolutely nothing to justify the
Catex. No modeling information. If modeling was done, no assumptions used.
This method of evading noise impacts review is how noise has been shifted to Palo Alto repeatedly over the years. No data, no analysis of impacts, no reasonable community involvement or mandated environmental
review. For three years, citizens have looked to you for addressing these concerns and you have recently voted
for a fast track process to study legal challenges, but your starting point is gifting an unfounded Catex with a
pass?
About 5 - 6 big actions are ahead, I am deeply concerned about what the City is representing by staying
mum about inadequate impact reviews. I am concerned that in the process you are mis-representing the
impacts over Palo Alto. I expected that from FAA, from the airports, from the sham roundtables and
committees, but this should not be the standard from the City.
Jennifer
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:02 PM
2
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bert Ganoung (AIR) <Bert.Ganoung@flysfo.com> Date: Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:34 AM
Subject: SIDBY coordinates
To: Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com>
Hello Mrs. Landesmann,
I received the coordinates from Thann McLeod at the Northern California TRACON today. SIDBY Lat
Long 37 27 02.56N / 122 08 41.09W
Best,
Bert
Bert Ganoung Aircraft Noise Abatement Manager | Planning, Design, & Construction
San Francisco International Airport | P.O. Box 8097 | San Francisco, CA 94128
Tel 650-821-5100 | flysfo.com | flyquietsfo.com
Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Instagram | LinkedIn
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kerry Yarkin <kyarkin895@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 25, 2018 8:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Petition for Review
5/25/18
To: Mayor and City Council Members:
Time is running out for you to File a Petition for Review on the new SERFR 3 procedures that were enacted on March 28. The 60 days to file expires on May 28th!!!! As I mentioned 4 days ago, SERFR3 route
(200+planes a day from Southern Calif.) has gotten about 30 % louder and lower since the new procedure. Palo Alto is the Sacrificial Noise Corridor for all planes arriving from the North, the West, and the
South into SFO. RIGHT THE WRONG, and start Fast Track.
People say the Best Defense is a Good Offense
I am listing again my main points as to why the strategy put forth by Molly Stump and City Staff is not and will
not work.
In determining a strategy to effect change with the FAA, I have a few points I’d like for you to consider.
1. FAA will not make any changes for the benefit of the public under their SkyWay routes unless they are forced to. It is apparent with the settlement for Phoenix, that they only made a change after they
realized that the City of Phoenix was not going to give up, and accept their egregious dumping of noise
and fine particle pollution over their citizens. 2. The FAA and the roundtable have deliberately taken a stance and support a narrative that the number
of planes is the same number before 2014 and after 2014. How can this be true when there was not 1
single complaint before NextGen? 3. A regional solution for Santa Clara County will once more put Palo Alto on the spot, since Mt. View,
Sunnyvale,Santa Clara, San Jose and other cities will not accept any new noise over them. They like
it just the way it is----over Palo Alto. 4. The Select Committee was a demonstration of throwing out any type of baseline (since San Mateo,
then Atherton were once the sky routes into SFO) and establishing a new normal, have all 3 air routes
converge over Palo Alto to the Menlo Waypoint for landing at SFO. 5. The Select Committee spent 90% of its time with SERFR route and the issues of Santa Cruz. The
changes implemented made conditions better for some Santa Cruz residents, but did nothing for Palo Alto, may have actually made things worse.
6. The FAA published 10 new procedures and a new way point SIDBY(over Palo Alto) with no input from
our City, which is the most heavily impacted City. 7. The suggestion that better monitoring of planes will make our case better was shown not to be
effective. A Stanford PhD submitted data (actually placed a noise monitor in my yard) where he
tracked many areas of Palo Alto to show the noise impacts. This info. Was submitted to the Select Committee to no avail.
8. Waiting to monitor future changes just lets the FAA know that we are accepting the noise levels and
pollution levels, which becomes the new Baseline. Stand up for Palo Alto .
Kerry Yarkin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 12:26 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 29, 2018 11:36 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please consider the impact of Castilleja's proposed expansion
Hello City Council,
Castilleja proposes to build a Walmart-sized building with a massive concrete garage that exits into
the neighborhood.
The garage design is flawed, requiring cars to enter on the Bryant Bike Boulevard. Not to mention all
of the variances along Embarcadero Road.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 12:26 PM
2
Please show some leadership and let Castilleja know that their plans are grossly out of scale for an
R1 neighborhood.
Thank you,
Jim Poppy
135 Melville Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:08 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Noah Fiedel <nfiedel@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 30, 2018 10:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please do not lower on-site parking requirements without an accurate study of parking
demand.
Dear City Council,
I read the Fehr and Peers parking "study", and this study is incredibly biased, with a methodology guaranteed
to under-count true parking demand. Please do not accept this incredibly poor "study" as evidence to under-
park buildings, causing a reduced quality of life for the neighborhoods surrounding them. Specific issues with the study:
1. It completely avoided counting cars parked on the street for any reason. E.g. Work vehicles that don't fit
in small spaces, residents with more cars than assigned spaces, visitors to residents that don't have visitor
parking, etc. Why not survey residents, or check with the DMV, or measure street parking usage surrounding these bulidings? 2. By counting only the peak number of cars and not the number of unique cars, this study under-counts for
any night-workers, or folks who for whatever reason had their cars parked somewhere else for an evening.
Please see attached photo of Curtner Ave, which is parked at 100% at peak times. There are nearly always empty assigned spaces in the complexes. By the methodology of this study, this is a perfectly healthy street where we should reduce parking requirements for these buildings! Nothing could be further from the truth.
Thank you for your attention. Please preserve quality of life in Palo Alto by not lowering parking
requirements. Noah Fiedel Wilton Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:08 PM
2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:53 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Peter Mueller <pklausm@me.com>
Sent:Friday, May 25, 2018 5:01 PM
To:bpa-issues@googlegroups.com
Cc:Richard Placone; Barron Park Association: Miscellaneous; Council, City
Subject:Re: [bpa-issues: 1630] Re: [bpa-misc: 7763] Fw: RVs on El Camino Real - A solution
Placone’s message is right on target.
Let’s do something simple now.
Bloomberg’s response is head in the sand. But it does imply the larger National problem of needing to ensure economically balanced living standards for every citizen. There are models that work. Like in Scandinavian countries, for instance.
That’s long term for us in USA.
Short term something along the lines proposed by Placone is essential. Let’s work w neighboring towns like Sunnyvale, Menlo Park, San Carlos, etc. I think I have seen several trailer parks from near shoreline bike paths.
Thank you, Dick, for getting something sensible going. Many will join in to promote resolution of this
immediate & long term issue. Best wishes, Peter K Mueller
On May 25, 2018, at 16:12, Dan Bloomberg <dan.bloomberg@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Barron Park Neighbors,
I want to thank Richard for thinking about this
problem. Unfortunately, his "solution" will not work.
Here is a letter that I have posted to our City Council on the
subject.
-- Dan
==============================================
===============
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
Richard Placone just sent you a letter, suggesting that a
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:53 AM
2
compassionate solution for removing the 50 or so RVs on
El Camino Real is to build a big RV/trailer park in the Baylands.
And that by doing so we would feel virtuous, by exhibiting our
compassion, and in the process we would clean up the mess.
Placone suggests that concerns about public health and public
safety would be misplaced. Let's leave those controversial claims
aside, and think about the more obvious effects of the proposal.
In fact, his "solution" would greatly exacerbate the problem.
In the 1970s, Vancouver, B.C. had an analogous problem. The
Trans-Canada highway stopped at the city boundary, and incoming
traffic from the east was causing heavy morning traffic on city streets.
The proposed "fix" was to put the freeway through to downtown.
So they looked at Los Angeles and wisely decided not to do it.
In essence, they realized that "if you build it, they will come."
More cars, more traffic, more congestion, more parking lots.
Resources are limited, and you can never "get ahead" of the demand.
The situation with the Richard Placone RV Park would be infinitely worse.
If Palo Alto were to build, in the Baylands, even the most massive
long-term RV park on the entire planet, it would be filled instantly.
By whom? You would have the 50 Palo Alto RVs, several hundred RVs
from Mountain View, several thousand RVs from the rest of the Bay Area,
and tens of thousands from the rest of California and neighboring
states. It would be a mess of unimaginable scale. And all those
people who couldn't get in? They would park in any available place
in the city -- after they'd filled up both sides of El Camino Real
from Burlingame to Sunnyvale -- hoping that out of compassion
we would make it bigger.
Thank you for your attention. I expect that common sense will prevail.
Respectfully,
Dan Bloomberg
Barron Park Neighborhood
Palo Alto
==================================================
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Hello Barron Park Neighbors,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:53 AM
3
Here is a letter I've just posted to our City Council. I'm sending this to the Barron Park Community because this problem effects all of us. Our neighborhood community has a reputation of being really concerned about our city, its environment and especially its
citizens not as well off as most of us are. Please consider joining me in urging the
Council to take corrective action. Feel free to use my words - but your own words will
carry greater weight.
Thanks for all you all do.
Richard Placone Chimalus Drive
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
To: City Council Packet <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: James Keene <james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:43 PM
Subject: RVs on El Camino Real - A solution
Greetings Council Members,
Last Monday on my way home from Menlo Park, heading South, I counted 50 RVs
parked on El Camino Real, from Embarcadero Road to Charleston Road. It appeared that all had been parked there for some time; indeed a couple were on jacks or were
actually trailers unhitched from a towing vehicle.
The city has recognized that this is a serious problem, one causing potential safety
issues to passing traffic as well as sanitation problems, amongst others.
However, I consider this to be a Compassion Problem, one that this Council is well
aware of, but consistently denigrates the issue, as well as the occupants of these
“homes away from home.” I have learned that when it has been suggested to Council
members during one of its meetings, that a real solution is possible, the following objections have been stated by sitting members: “we will be establishing a potential
hepatitis camp; or “we will be creating a venue for criminal activity”; or “the city
shouldn’t be spending tax dollars of homeless people like this”.
Consider this: Palo Alto is nationally reputed to be one of the wealthiest cities in the country. We are renowned for having one of the most highly educated populations,
with outstanding employment opportunities and more. I posit that these are the very
factors that are drawing the RV dwellers to our city (and other nearby cities for that
matter) - for the jobs that are being created here.
Do we know who these people are, where they come from and what they are doing
during the daytime? I have heard, read and been told that most are workers here on
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:53 AM
4
the many construction jobs in town and on the Stanford campus; that they are the
workers in our heavy tax producing hotels, making the beds and cleaning the rooms;
that they are servers in our over the top in prices restaurants; and most recently Stanford graduate students living off campus. It would seem to me, that it is this town’s very success in everything it does, except providing a wide rage of housing
opportunities, that has resulted in the “El Camino RV Ally”.
“So where does Compassion come in?” - I hope you are asking yourselves. These are our fellow human beings, most not as fortunate as those of us who either settled here in years gone by and are now homeowner millionaires, or are wealthy business leaders
or very well-paid high tech employees. The council’s everlasting thirst for more and
more growth, mostly consolidated in large, lucrative business developments, and the
minimum of affordable housing, are major factors in creating this issue. We have brought this on ourselves, ladies and gentlemen of the Council. I believe it is
our responsibility to resolve this problem in a manner that is compassionate to the RV
dwellers, and respectful of the taxpaying citizens of this town.
You have the solution staring you in the face, if only you would collectively puts your
hearts and minds together and determine to resolve this problem in a manner fair to all.
What might that solution be?
I’m told the city owns a large piece of property purchased from the city of Los Altos,
which is used for storage of equipment. We all know that the city controls, if not owns
hundreds of acres in the baylands. For a relatively small sum, a simple RV park or
parks could be established. Hard gravel paving, a few modest restrooms with showers,
plug in power and water and RV dumping station, is all it would take. A simple system of occupant registration and a small per night, week or monthly charge would help
defray some, if not all of the operating costs. The occupants themselves could be
organized into community “gatekeepers”, keeping order and such.
If this city can afford to spend over $8 million redesigning Ross Road for a few cyclists, to the consternation of most of the residents, from what I have observed, surely it can
come up with a Compassionate Fund, and get these RVs and their human occupants
off the highway and into a safe place with the most basic of human amenities.
And by the way, if Stanford students are actually part of this highway population, then by all means get the university involved - it has a responsibility to resolve problems
related to the campus.
Thank you for your attention to this letter. I look forward to your response and
hopefully, constructive action.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Placone
Chimalus Drive Barron Park Neighborhood.
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:53 AM
5
--
This email list is maintained by the Barron Park Association.
Join or renew your BPA membership, or get more email list information, at bpapaloalto.org.
Need to check membership status? Contact barronpark.paloalto@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: Any viewpoints in this message are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent those of the Barron Park Association or the BPA Board.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barron Park
Association: Miscellaneous" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpa-misc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpa-misc@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- This email list is maintained by the Barron Park Association.
Join or renew your BPA membership, or get more email list information, at bpapaloalto.org.
Need to check membership status? Contact barronpark.paloalto@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: Any viewpoints in this message are those of the writer and do not necessarily
represent those of the Barron Park Association or the BPA Board. ---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barron Park
Association: Issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpa-
issues+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpa-issues@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:07 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 29, 2018 6:00 PM
To:'John Guislin'; 'Neilson Buchanan'
Cc:De Geus, Robert; 'Michael Hodos'; Council, City
Subject:RE: Downtown RPP
My understanding is that council pulled that latest Downtown RPP resolution from the calendar because dentists were
concerned about getting permits for their employees. So three councilmembers were able to jettison a resolution that
was based on prior action by a 7‐2 vote of council. This is not exactly exemplary of democracy in action. And to top it
off, there was not really any legitimate concern on the part of the dental employees, since there were still plenty of
permits available for sale. It seems that the only issue was that the employees did not want to park a few extra blocks
from their workplace. While I agree that efforts should be made to give local‐serving merchants and service businesses
priority over dot‐com coding warrens and venture capital masters of the universe, that issue is for another day. The
current resolution as it stands should be placed on the calendar asap and adopted.
From: John Guislin [mailto:jguislin@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 5:40 PM
To: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Cc: Robert De Geus <robert.degeus@cityofpaloalto.org>; Norman H. Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>; Michael Hodos
<mehodos@mac.com>
Subject: Re: Downtown RPP
Rob,
I am available to meet to preview any report you will be sending to Council in order to ensure we are
considering accurate data for all of the pieces of RPP (permits sold, zone demand, garage utilization, etc).
(FYI - It was our analysis that made staff aware that permits were oversold by the vendor last year due to a failure to correctly aggregate 6 month and 1 year permits.)
My understanding is that RPP will be on Council agenda in early June. Let's ensure we are basing any
recommendation on good data. John
650-305-5646
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rob, I am now in Europe and wont be home again until June 12. What is the status of the staff
recommendation on the Dowtown RPP?
In my absence please contact both me and John Guislin with updates. He is back from vacation now.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/30/2018 2:07 PM
2
My primary concern is still that RPP and commercial core parking has been under-managed for years and that
staff turnover has once again created a situation with very low staff experience in assessing the parking
programs which distribute permits within the downtown neighborhoods and commercial core
In fact other resident leaders and I feel that these problems cannot be managed on a day-to-day basis or
improved long-term until staffing is increased and new programs are designed and implemented. I want to
repeat my concerns to you. Residential parking programs and policies have been managed marginally and City
has been asked to make marginal decisions based on marginal staff work. This type of management has been acknowledged as an operational necessity just to move forward.
After resident leaders from the two primary RPP programs met with you and Jim Keene, we left the meeting
with assurances that you would be take a collaboration or coordination role with RRP stakeholders before any
staff report flowed to City Council. Before I left on vacation, I offered and provided updated information about parking status in neighborhoods and two downtown garages. However, we have not had any meaningful
conversation about RPP with you or staff. I fully appreciate your request for time to become oriented with city
staff. We really need to understand the process for drafting any new report to City Council. And we urge your
to treat all of the stakeholders in the same manner.
By copy of this email, I am asking John Guislin to contact you as soon as possible to find out any changes that
might be proposed for Downtown RPP. John is quite experienced with RPP. He was one of the original RPP
stakeholders and has continued his study and analysis of both Downtown parking and traffic.
Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:annmcats <annmcats@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, May 28, 2018 12:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RE: SPAY AND NEUTER CLINIC CLOSED
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Councillors:
The citizens of Palo Alto and surrounding areas have long relied on the excellent
services provided by Palo Alto Animal Services to get their pets, as well as stray
animals, spayed and neutered at affordable prices. This clinic is now closed,
without notice and without future plans.
The closest comparable services for pets (not homeless cats) is now in Redwood City
at Pets In Need, with long wait times, Peninsula Humane Society in San Mateo, a
very long drive, or at various South Bay locations, also long drives in heavy
traffic.
What is the intention of the City to correct this situation? Or is uncontrolled
breeding to become the norm, as it was in centuries past? For a rich and
progressive city like Palo Alto, this seems unacceptable.
Please look into this as soon as possible. Kittens and puppies with no prospects of
good homes are being born right now!
Thank you.
Ann Nussbaum
30 year rescuer and volunteer
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 8:02 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Porter <porter.k10@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 29, 2018 12:07 AM
To:Stump, Molly
Cc:Council, City; Flaherty, Michelle; Carnahan, David
Subject:Re: your recent questions and comments regarding SERFR 3
Dear Molly,
I appreciate your time in responding to my several inquiries about SERFR THREE. But allow me to clarify
what I am seeking. I am not asking about “the Council’s discussion on this issue” with its attorney. Also, I am only referring to SERFR THREE, not NextGen more broadly.
Most of my questions concern factual information that should have been disclosed by the FAA, but apparently
was not – e.g., where SERFR THREE overflies Palo Alto (including any historical sites or parks), at what
altitude, number and concentration of flights, allocation between MENLO and SIDBY waypoints, whether the FAA performed any noise modeling or impact analysis, and data to support the FAA’s claim that SERFR THREE is a “safety enhancement.”
If the City has this information, whether or not obtained during closed session, I do not understand why you
cannot provide it [see Govt. Code § 54963(e)(3) – permissible to disclose information obtained in closed session that is not confidential information].
If it does not, then I don’t see how Council could have made an informed decision whether to challenge SERFR
THREE (assuming this was specifically addressed in closed session), which by itself should compel the filing of
a petition for review against the FAA, particularly as to the FAA's processes. Also, you state that you in part are protecting “residents such as yourself who need to make their own
evaluations and decisions regarding taking legal action.” This implies you believe it is up to individuals to bear
the burden and expense of legal action for relief from harm that impacts much of the City. If so, I am
disappointed by this attempt to abdicate the City’s responsibilities. Further, as the case brought by Portola Valley residents demonstrated, neither the courts nor the FAA take lawsuits by individuals seriously, only those by municipalities.
I understand that Tuesday, May 29 is the last day on which a petition for review of the SERFR THREE action
may be filed to be considered timely under 49 U.S. Code § 46110 (unless there is a basis for tolling, and with an extra day due to the holiday per Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure). I urge the City not to,
once again, allow the statute of limitations for challenging an FAA action to expire, to the detriment of residents
and others.
In any event, I look forward to receiving a particularized reply to my public records request.
Sincerely,
Karen Porter
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 8:02 AM
2
Hello Karen –
I’ve reviewed your recent emails to me and others at the City, and understand you’ve also been in touch with various folks by phone. I write to reiterate the City’s decision on litigation. As the Council stated on April 9th,
we are not pursuing legal action at this time. I understand and want to acknowledge that you have many
questions about the Council’s discussion on this issue. Unfortunately I cannot provide further information.
Like all other cities, the Council evaluates potential litigation in a closed session. This is to protect both the
City and others (including residents such as yourself) who need to make their own evaluations and decisions regarding taking legal action. It is my ethical duty, and that of all individual Council Members, to respect and
maintain this confidentiality.
Council understands the seriousness of the airplane noise problem. As you know, Council directed staff to
continue working on various other fronts, including building local coalitions, pursuing better monitoring, and putting in place a method for monitoring developments so that future changes can be evaluated through a legal
lense. That is work we will be addressing in coming weeks and months. We will be in communication with
community members and Council regarding these efforts. Michelle asked me to let you know she plans to
reach out to you in the next few weeks to discuss a few items.
Regards,
Molly Stump
Molly Stump | City Attorney
City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2171 | E:molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you.
This message contains information that may be confidential and
privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or
disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 8:02 AM
3
received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the
message.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joy Sleizer <joy.sleizer142@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 23, 2018 5:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Resident Parking Program
Dear Council members,
I have lived in Palo Alto for 55 years!! So I have been watching you for a long time.
Although I lived in So Palo Alto for most of those years, today I live at Channing House in downtown Palo so
I'm aware of the need for employee parking places. We rely on our employees who probably can't afford to live
in Palo Alto.
Please do NOT reduce the number of employee parking spaces. Channing House & nearby services need to
have parking for employees.
Best,
Joy Sleizer
650-324-7425
650-353-4481 cell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 1:57 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Terri Shifrin <tshif74@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 29, 2018 1:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RV PARKING
For a VERY short time after the city council stated it was ok for RV
parking for 3 days MAXIMUM and they must move 1/2 mile, the RV
parking has gone back to 50 plus vehicles.
Your policy is not working. My guess is that the city is not enforcing
this policy.
There are RV's:
-broken down
-not hooked up to a truck/car
-with tarps
-tire blocks
-these to name a few
These vehicles are unsightly. They don't pay to park on our
streets. Why should our citizen pay property taxes if these people
are not paying too?
Yes, it is sad that some cannot afford high rents/purchases to live
here. However, those of us that can and do choose to pay the high
prices are buying/renting into beautiful Palo Alto. Taking out-of-
towners down El Camino toward Stanford University, it is
embarrassing. Questions always come, why does your city allow
this. Great question.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 1:57 PM
2
How about requiring people that want to park on our streets to pay
$1,000.00 for a permit. Then have follow through enforcing those
permits. It's a win-win for all. RV residents get to live in our city at
extremely low cost, and our city receives revenue.
Thank you,
Terri Shifrin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Carolyn M Johnson <rhunterg@ix.netcom.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 26, 2018 1:08 PM
To:Council, City; bpa-issues@googlegroups.com
Subject:RVs on El Camino - and elsewhere -
Dear friends, neighbors, and Council Members,
You are all no doubt aware of the current “discussion” regarding possible solutions to the issue of lived-in, stored, rented out, abandoned, and Heaven-knows-what-else kinds of RVs - parked not only on El Camino Real,
but throughout Palo Alto, and South Palo Alto in particular.
May I suggest a reasoned, factual assessment of the “problem”? Nancy Krop and Richard Greene have written
ideas along these lines.
1. An *inventory* of what’s parked where, and the uses they’re being put to. I don’t know how we expect to
solve a “problem” when we don’t know what it is? OCW and the Streets Teams members might be willing
to undertake such an inventory?
2. After such an inventory, a *separate survey* of those folks currently living in their cars or RVs to assess
their ideas for alternative parking or other housing. These folks are our friends and neighbors also - not
disposable elements whose lives should necessarily be managed by others.
With respect - and best wishes for a Happy, Thoughtful, Memorial Day. Carolyn M. Johnson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 8:00 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net>
Sent:Monday, May 28, 2018 11:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Thanks for passing Charleston/Arastradero Funding.
May 28, 2018
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Thank you for supporting funding of Charleston/Arastradero improvements last week. I look forward to all
phases completing within 2 years.
Also, I am glad to see the completion of the traffic safety project on Ross, including the two new traffic circles,
and the outreach as the project continues down Amarillo. I have enjoyed the new, slower version of Ross Road when I bicycle. When my wife drives away from the YMCA, she likes the traffic circle at Meadow, instead of the old stop signs. I think this project is already making Ross a safer street, and a more comfortable
street for cyclists and pedestrians. From last week’s council meeting, transportation staff’s comments made it clear that they are learning from the implementation in the street, and will continue to update plans in later
parts of the project.
Thank you for your service to the city of Palo Alto
Robert Neff
Emerson near Loma Verde Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net
Sent:Friday, May 25, 2018 4:26 PM
To:Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal)
Subject:The responsibility of stewardship and care, by the Palo Alto city council
To the city council of Palo Alto, and mayor Liz Kniss,
Writing here is one of the people who, last year, protested the development of a private property
in view of a city park –
the construction of a 9000+ square foot mansion directly in view of hiking trails in upper Arastradero Preserve.
The city council approved the project.
What last year was a pristine natural hill, as seen from a popular hiking trail, today looks like this
(see black line across hill and hard edge at the top‐‐ apparently with planned buildings to come‐‐)
‐ this is ugly and encroaches on a sense of open nature and sky :
As a Palo Alto homeowner and resident, who grew up here in the ‘60’s and then raised
her own children here, the lack of thoughtful stewardship of this precious open‐space asset
by the city council is disheartening to someone so vested in living here.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:52 AM
2
This property, ideally, should have been purchased by the city and made part of the park, as previous
city government once had the foresight to buy the land to create Foothills Park.
In any case, this property in view of Arastradero should never have been approved for private
development that will be visible to park users.
This private development will be enjoyed by one privileged family at some expense to
the many people who hike at Arastradero and who find nature, beauty, recreation and solace
in the nature there.
Once open space is built on, it is gone forever.
As our representatives, you have a responsibility to this city to protect our cherished assets,
and to understand what matters to your residents and homeowners.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
This comment is written about a past decision by the city council, but looking forward,
also with the hope that you will review very, very carefully and critically any plans to turn our
beautiful and charming family‐friendly downtown into a high‐rise Manhattan.
Please don’t allow high‐rise development in our downtown. You, as our representatives,
have a responsibility to protect and maintain what makes Palo Alto a special and charming town
for so many families and homeowners who live here.
Open sky, sunlight, and welcoming low‐key charm matter in quality of life.
Tall buildings create shade and a more tense visual environment, blocking sky and sun.
Let’s keep Palo Alto Palo Alto.
Please hold firm on the office cap.
Thank you,
Kim Atkinson
1753 Middlefield
PA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 5/29/2018 7:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marie-Jo Fremont <mariejofremont1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 24, 2018 1:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Urgent - Request for due diligence on evaluating SERFR THREE Categorical Exclusion
(CATEX)
Dear City Council members,
On May 20, on behalf of several Palo Alto residents, I asked Council Member Kou for her help on getting
Legal to review some potential claims against the FAA based on the new SERFR THREE procedure that was published on March 29, 2018.
One particular claim was to challenge the use of a lateral move test by the FAA to justify the Categorical
Exclusion (CATEX) on SERFR THREE . Such test should not be used when other changes such as
fleet mix changes occur (SERFR THREE was created to address Class B changes that were made in
part to respond to changes in fleet mix).
I learned today that our claims will not be reviewed because I was told that Council discussed SERFR THREE
in the April 9 closed Council session and "decided not to sue at this time" (these were Mayor Kniss' words in
the public session).
I am not privy to the content of the closed session, but I wonder how Council made their decision about SERFR
THREE given the difficulty in finding information about the new procedure at the time. As stated on page 4 of
the KAPLAN KIRSCH & ROCKWELL LLP document dated March 29, "The new SERFR 3 route is
supposed to be implemented today. We have not been able to identify any NEPA documentation to support this
action but is possible that FAA prepared such documentation without any public disclosure, which is allowed in limited circumstances. It would be necessary to obtain FAA documents from the agency or through a Freedom
of Information Act request to determine what environmental documentation was prepared prior to today’s
implementation of that procedure.) "
Did Council review the SERFR THREE CATEX in the April 9 session? Did Council discussed in particular the FAA use of a lateral move test as a justification?
If you did, then thank you. But if a detailed discussion about the SERFR THREE CATEX did not occur, then
the specific claims we brought forward on May 20 should be reviewed by Legal and the evaluation results should be provided to Council to allow them to make a final decision. Needless to say that I, and many other residents, would be profoundly disappointed if such due diligence did not occur.
Note that the window to file closes on Sunday May 27, three days from today and exactly 60 days after March
29, the day SERFR THREE was implemented. Best regards,
mjf
0
0
0
COUN IL MEETING
To: City Council Members, Palo Alto City Council s-2. /~
From: Residents of North Old Palo Alto Community Association ceived Before Meeting
eceived at Meeting
RE: Rail Grade Separation Project/ "Connecting Palo Alto"
Dear City Council Member,
We, the residents of the North Old Palo Alto community district, support public transportation,
the electrification of Caltrain, and the expansion of commuter rail capacity. We support a
collaborative, transparent and data-driven selection process that engages relevant Palo Alto
constituencies to find the best outcomes. We feel strongly that the best option will include
holistic research considering financial, community, environmental and safety cost-benefit
analyses.
Guiding Principles
We strongly believe that the City's research and prioritization for grade-separation projects
should conform to generally accepted principles that should be non-controversial to Palo Alto
City Council and the citizens they represent, including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Projects that return the highest ROI on invested dollars;
Projects that maximize use of existing and/or underused infrastructure;
Making pedestrian safety a highest priority;
Maintaining community neighborhoods integrity; and,
Ensuring no eminent domain of City homes.
Summary Position on Grade Separation
Given the large relative benefits to the above Guiding Principles:
1) We support Lowered Rail (tunnel or trench) grade separation at the Churchill Avenue
crossing.
2) We are adamantly opposed to any full or hybrid Lowered Road grade separation at
Churchill Avenue given the clear disadvantages relative to other solutions.
3) We are adamantly opposed to any Raised Rall solutions at Churchill Avenue given
several clear disadvantages to the community.
4) As an alternative to Lowered Rail (#1), we support keeping the Churchill Avenue crossing
at-grade and closing it at the West entrance if several cost-effective measures to
increase East-West traffic capacity and student/pedestrian safety in the neighborhood
are implemented. (see next)
Supporting discussion in select priority order:
#4 -Specific Solutions to Increase Traffic Capacity and Pedestrian Safety in North Palo Alto:
We have already invested significantly in the Embarcadero Road underpass, so before creating
another half-billion-dollar project 400 yards to the South (including the costs of eminent
domain), let's optimize and improve the existing solution that we have today. We believe the
following relatively low-cost solutions will increase the daily traffic capacity on Embarcadero
NOPA Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation v4.4 -2/12/2018
http://www.northoldpaloalto.org
1
Road underpass and dramatically improve Palo Alto H.S. student safety without taking any
homes or costing the City a half-billion dollars:
1) Implement a pedestrian/bike underpass at Churchill Avenue for safe Palo Alto H.S.
student transit.
2) Build 2x bike/pedestrian underpasses underneath Embarcadero Road at the
intersections with Kingsley Avenue and entrance of Palo Alto H.S. on existing public
lands, which will dramatically increase student safety and eliminate the 3rd traffic signal
on Embarcadero Road that significantly impede East-West traffic today.
3) Significantly Increase Capacity and Utility of the Embarcadero Grade Separation
a. Broaden underpass to 4 lanes eliminating a huge bottleneck to E-W traffic
b. Remove pedestrian crossing light from Paly H.S. to Town & Country (per above)
c. Implement Left Turn signals from West & East bound Embarcadero to Alma Rd.
NOTE #1: There is a consistent span of open, usable public space on both sides of
Embarcadero Road spanning between 50-100 feet wide in different locations between PA HS
entrance and Kingsley Avenue (see map in appendix).
NOTE #2: Our proposals above intend to increase the capacity of the Embarcadero Road
underpass to accommodate for the lost Eastbound capacity if Churchill Avenue is closed at
the West side. It is not intention our intention to imply that we want to increase the speeds
on Embarcadero Road, nor eliminate any existing stop lights or controls.
#2 -Critical Disadvantages of Full or Hybrid Lowered Road Underpass at Churchill Avenue:
Churchill Avenue is a relatively /ow capacity intersection that is less than 400 yards away from
an existing major grade separation at Embarcadero Road, and any proposal to create a Road
Underpass at Churchill would have costs and disadvantages that far outweigh the benefits:
1) Financial: There are 36 homes that would be fully claimed and 6 homes that would be
partially claimed by eminent domain in any underpass design given the maximum 6%
decline required on both sides of the railway. At this intersection alone, that would add
at least $200,000,000 for this single underpass before construction has even begun.
Spending a total of $350-400MM for grade separation at a single intersection that is 400
yards from an existing underpass is not an acceptable use of taxpayer funds.
2) Community & Environment: Building an underpass at Churchill would likely require
lowering the Alma Street 22 feet and all the arteries feeding it to the same level. At 6%
maximum grade, that would wipe out an entire neighborhood more than 370 feet in
both directions, make homeless hundreds of residents and school children, kill hundreds
of trees, and constitute a new "concrete jungle" in what is today historic Old Palo Alto
and Southgate neighborhoods. It would also leave Palo Alto H.S. staff parking lot
stranded and possibly impact part of their football field. In a city committed to
increasing housing stock and school infrastructure, this is unacceptable.
3) Construction Impact: Building an underpass at Churchill would require a massive, multi-
year long construction project that would shut down Alma Street. An underpass would
require dropping the elevation of Alma Street and Churchill Avenue roughly 22 feet,
which would utterly shut down all north and southbound traffic and leave all Q
surrounding communities stranded for years.
NOPA Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation v4.4-2/12/2018
http://www.northoldpaloalto.org
2
0
0
0
#3 -Critical Disadvantages of Raised Rail Solutions:
We are strongly opposed to raising the train above grade on a berm or structure (ie,
Raised Rail solutions), as it would cause increased visibility of the train within the
neighborhood, reduced privacy for those along the tracks, increased risks for those
living along the tracks in the event of derailment, and an increase in noise. We feel we
should be reducing, not increasing, the impact and visibility of the train on our
community, and this option is in contradiction with that.
#1 -Significant Advantages of a lowered Rail Solution:
The benefits are significant for any grade separation that drives the rail below grade.
1) Construction Impact: A bored tunnel construction would dramatically reduce the
enormous construction impact to our larger community, which would be near
cataclysmic in any Underpass proposal. [Building a 22 foot deep underpass at Alma &
Churchill would shut down traffic for the entire community for years.] There is almost
no price that can be placed on the avoidance of this construction on our community.
2) Financial Benefit: Implementing a bored tunnel solution would open the above ground
right-of-way for various community uses, including a parkway and ped/bike path
spanning Palo Alto, but also provide income generating opportunities like leasing land to
low-income housing developers and an open air farmers' market. Leasing the land for
these purposes would generate significant income to offset the cost of construction.
3) City I Community Benefit: Reclaiming the open space created in a bored tunnel
approach would allow the City to realize several of its stated goals that are otherwise
very difficult to realize given a lack of available open space. These types of objectives
have been proven already in several cities, like NYC that recently reclaimed an elevated
train track to create a public parkway. The City could achieve objectives including:
• Increased low income housing
• Increase pedestrian/bike pathways
• Increased open space
4) Student Safety: This is our chance to get a double win and solve a critical safety issue in
our community -eliminating direct contact between the rail and pedestrians.
In summary, we believe that there are many viable solutions to create acceptable traffic and
safety conditions at the Churchill Avenue intersection, including Lowered Rail, or blocking the
Churchill Avenue crossing while making traffic and pedestrian improvements at Embarcadero
and Churchill. We are, however, adamantly opposed to a Lowered Road I Underpass solution
and Raised Rail given the large and unacceptable detrimental impacts that would create.
Thank you for your consideration of our community's concerns and interests.
Endorsed by the members of the North Old Palo Alto {NOPA) community association
(NOTE: Reference Signature Page for Names & Addresses)
NOPA Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation v4.4 -2/12/2018
http://www.northoldpaloalto.org
3
Figure 1-Existing
Embarcadero Road
Underpass Satellite
Image Demonstrating
the Ample Room
Available for
Renovation and
Improvements
NOPA Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation v4.4 -2/12/2018
http://www.northoldpaloalto.org
4
0
0
0
0 0 0
Name 45 Yinan LI
Kathleen Judge 46 Andy Choi
2 Hank Sousa 47 Ranee Choi
48 Chris Waldo
3 Andie Reed 49 Erl<ay Uzun
4 Grace Luo 50 Patricia F. O'Donnel
5 Janico Luo 51 Edward O'DonneU
6 Rosalyn Luo 52 Kiri< Latour
7 Jason Matlof 53 Sangetha Bolini
8 Palam Guk 54 Anand Bollin!
55 Mohamed Hadidi
9 Oevid Fence 56 Young-jeh Oh
10 Rachael Callcut 57 Jason Stinson
11 Matthew MeK 58 Edua.rdo Llach
12 Chikuo Shen 59 Carol J. Anderson
13 Ll-hslang Yu Shen 60 Karen McNay
14 Jeffrey Brown 61 Kevin Carlson
15 Kyte Bordeau 62 Leilani Waldo
62 EIW Uzun
16 Gitanjali Jain 63 Aileen Lee
17 Monica Tan Brown 64 Bob Krentler
18 Raymond Ogawa 65 Felice Shieh
19 Leslie Matlof 66 Dayton S. Misheldt
20 Samantha Shen 6 7 Rob LevitSky
21 David Shen 68 Irene Au
22 Sean Hee
69 Bradly Horowitz
70 Manish Baldua
23 Lena Hee 71 Gordon Thompson
24 Ben Venfunum 72 Marie Thompson
25 TimyQ Tra11 73 Matt Yarkin
26 Mandy Anderson 7 4 Atlv Zomet
27 Brian Holcomb 75 William Schmaizo
26 Helen Tombropoulos 76 Rosemary Knight
77 Yossef Zomet
29 John Todd 78 Janina Dura)
30 Hao-Hua Chu 79 Damiel Puduay
31 Emily Hung 80 Sidney Wilkins
32 Kerry Yarkin 81 Enoch Chol
33 Neva Yarkin 82 Rachal Croft
34 Mary Sylvester 83 Javier Gonzales
35 Kim Martin 84 lnyoung Cho
85 Oiang Wang
36 Lance Martin 86 Xicohong Wang
37 Stephane Moreau 87 Rul Zhang
38 Gerald Berry BB Chendru V
39 John W. Day 89 Kiran Oak
40 Suzanna Degler 90 S.Ladh
41 Anne Kramer 91 Fenelia Leighton
92 Rebecca Branson
42 Clevie! Kramer 93 Gail C. Woolley
43 Sam Lada 94 Bradford Woolley
44 Anisha Patel 95 Bing Zheng
0
96 Gretchen Hollin gs worth
97 John HolNngworth
98 Janet R. Peacock
99 Karen Mc:Nay
100 Joan MacDanlels
101 Carolyn Schma120
102 Dianne MacDaniels
103 Deborah Fife
104 Waller Fu
105 Joanne Fu
106 Bradly Brom
107 Jenna Brom
108 Stepanie James
109 Brad F0m>I
110 Steve Jarvis
111 Carol Acott
112 Henie Fagnani
113 Bahma Koohestani
114 Emilia Suviata
115 Berverty Radin
116 Donnie Youngbery
117 Ri<ki Faktou
118 l'Achael Lin
119 Jennifer Gu
120 Jlayeng Liu
121 Rul Zhang
122 Janelle Herceg
123 Tyler Vlnciguerda
124 Angie Herceg
125 Brain Mabe
126 Harmut Sadrozlnskl
127 ShaPa Sadrozlnskl
128 Gina Craig
129 E. Tom Craig
130 LaamiVon Ruden
131 John Ohney
132 Ashok Sadrozinskl
133 Colm Callan
134 Julie Calan
135 celesta Bates
136 Steven Bates
137 Helen Conroe
138 Mark Zucker
139 K. Fansh Haydel
140 Susan Bush
1 41 Allen Bush
142 Aaron Strauch
143 Tori Llach
144 Lisa Hwang
145 Carole Fonck
146 lnhwa Song
147 Lucia Ugarte
0
148 Tm Roper
149 Craig Moye
150 Cynthia Lee
151 Hersha Mittakanli
152 Michael Davenport
153 Mark Grund berg
154 Leo Chen
155 Alex Kasman
156 Erica Sahlberg
157 Rustin Massoud!
158 Craig Stauffer
159 Megan Stauffer
160 Christine Roper
161 SsarGur
162 Ben Chol
183 Jane Hanis
164 Peter Shambora
165 Kevin Leighton
166 David Schnedler
167 Pam Molano
168 Ava Hahn
169 Kate McKenzie
170 Christopher Kantarjiev
171 Hsinya Shen
172 Eve"Jn Chan.cox
173 Robert Rubenstein
17 4 Susan WhUehead
175 Bruce Greenwood
176 Daniel K. Marshal
177 Daniel Cox
178 Rebecca Fox
179 Tona Hua
180 Rasmey Picek
181 Zeehan Selha
162 Richard Pul1<ey
183 Thomas Hoffman
184 Nancy McGaraghan
165 John Koval
186 Christen Conrad
187 Nils Thorjussen
168 Jacklyn Pen
169 Tracy A. Ferrea
190 Martha Angell
191 Tricia Herrick
192 Tom Vlasic
193 Henry Hwang
194 Rebecca Friend
195 Nina Aguilar
196 Laura Tannonwald
197 Ewa Goose I
198 Maya Misner
199 David Loo
0
200 Geoff Dirlaker
201 Teny Atkinson
202 Christina Hall
203 Don Ansbay
204 rina Hua
205 Albert Hua
206 carolyn Wang
207 Vanessa Lui
208 Robert Hemot
209 Oandan Umolkai
210 Stephanie He
211 Lian Bl
212 Jingbo Wu
213 Terasa Moye
214 Patrick Heron
215 Jeffray Glenn
216 Xiaoyun LI
217 Yvonne Lau
218 C..ikylp
219 Amrutha Kattarrurl
220 Glenn Orit
221 Westin Patrik
222 cassy Christianson
223 John Shea Jr
224 Leslie Murphy-Oiutorian
225 Madhu Rao
226 Kat JasonMoraau
227 Ofivia Chen
228 ChaKanya Hazaroy
229 Oiun.a.il Yang
230 Himani Batra
231 Frances Lin
232 Paul Machado
233 ~atafa Ozgen
234 Jonathan Ehriich
235 Sheri Cox
236 Douglas Carlson
237 Pradeep Rao
238 Lauron Bonomi
239 Phy•is Kayten
240 Charles Harvie
241 K Patricia Landman
242 Yen-Kuang Chen
243 Batim Dew
244 Ronald Wilensky
245 Linda Crily
246 Laura Martini
247 Katie Seedman
248 Rebecca Eisenberg
249 Peny Clark
250 Javld Alastl
251 Olga Petrova
0
252 Arlene Leslie
253 Johanna Ehrlich
254 Virginia Proce'liat
255 Ahmed Hassan
256 Chandru Venkataraman
257 Amanda Efron
258 Doug Murphy.Chutorian
259 Kim RandeH
260 Eileen Fagan
261 David Schnedler
262 Kevin Ohlson
263 Carolyn Shea
264 Kristina Smith
265 Rlchard Soderberg
266 Louis Draper
267 Martha McKee
266 Laura Wagerman
269 Ra) Mashruwala
270 Caroline Japlc
271 Carol Weber
272 Uhyuam Chang
273 JuUe Yoon
27 4 Alice Jacobs
275 Helen Waters
276 Christine Buss
277 K.R. Wllsher
278 David Hoffman
279 Susie Hwang
280 Zoe SaranUs
281 Shalna Nishimoto
282 Jui De Biler
283 George Wong
284 Kirk Taylor
285 Baisy Olson
286 Allen Clark
287 Vivian Clark
288 Chris Clark
289 Hirokl Morlstllge
290 Charies Book
291 Biter Bllen
292 Emily Shaw
293 Mary Haugen
294 Matthew Clarl<
295 David Clark
296 Ryan Milra
297 Manu Kumar
298 Ken Tam
299 Hana Kumar
300 ~rgl M~ra Keeing
301 Laura Aglglan
302 Mike Yang
303 Jimmy Cllen
0
0
304 Kathleen Goldfein
305 Allen Edwards
306 Robert Tri
307 Shailosh Rao
308 Anne Dazey
309 Ying Cui
310 Maureen Tri
311 Mary Chacon
312 Shuo Song
313 Linda Williams
314 Keith Bromberg
315 Arun Mahajan
316 Rosa Harvie
317 Nancy Hamilton
318 Lauren Burton
319 Les Pn>cevlet
320 Lena Cheng
321 Mtlon Grinberg
322 Rachel Ma)'beny
323 Gary Holl
324 Karen McN<!y
325 Kathy Greenwood
326 LiHlan Hom
327 Stephen Tumbul
328 David Jackson
329 Greg Yap
330 Teny Hotzener
331 Oipll Borkar
332 Asha Kannarkar
333 Mandar Bortcar
334 Tinolhy Gray
335 Joseph Ziegler
336 Alan Cooper
337 Roger Lau
338 Barbara Bennlgson
339 T. B. Okanna
340 Peter Danner
341 Sophia Liu
342 Julie Tsang
343 Sudeshna Rahe
344 Barbara Kelly
345 Vivien RAJan
346 Sheri Moody
347 Jing Li
348 Sarah Clark
349 Thomas Clark
350 David Alexander
351 Keith Clarke
352 Julia Murphy.Chutorian
353 Jean Zambelli
354 Linda Ziegler
355 Bruce Crocker
0
356 Douglas Blayney
357 Lucy Chen
358 Cathy Wiliams
359 Jeanne Zhang
360 Bon Lomor
361 Jin Wei
362 MabelCheng
363 Shue Lin
364 Clara Lin
365 Kendra Fadil
366 Margo Schaper
367 Jill Johnson
368 Vee Sun
369 Beth Bening Martin
370 Amy Dar11ng
371 Hong Liu
372 Thomas Hoster
373 Megan Strickland
374 Maurizlo Gianola
375 Yueql Hao
376 Sabrina Corvo
377 Kitty Price
378 Lee Price
379 Theo Ntsslm
380 Lisa Nissim
381 Amy Yang
382 Chien Liu
383 Ann Felice Rebol
384 Peter Costelo
385 Peggy Costello
386 tan CostaHo
387 Brian Stel
388 Val Stell
389 Amanda Stei
390 Tennis Pedrono
391 Renata Pedrono
392 Sarah McCormick
393 Jack McCollllicl<
394 Annelle Shelby
395 Pat l.4cCn>skey
396 Diane Rolfe
397 Joseph RoWe
398 George Chattas
399 Rita Vttlel
400 Ken Horowitz
401 Art SmeH
402 Sharon Smal
403 Katherine IMlson
404 Perag Patkar
405 Carol Feinstein
406 Laurel Robinson
407 Tench Coxe
0
0
408 Nancy Patterson
409 Andruw Verllalen
41 O Donald Molgan
411 Christine Jojarth
412 Martha Debs
413 Victoria Reid
414 Xiaoyuan Tu
415 Jennifer Schnelder
416 Evan Johnson
417 Michelle Lepori
418 Shweta ChOudhry
419 Matt Robinsoo
420 Audrey Gold
421 Judith Goldstein
422 Kelly Berschauer
423 Catherine Matterson
424 Claire Berschauer
425 John Colford
426 Gee Gee IMliams
427 Edgar W•iams
428 Baq Haldri
429 Chang Hua
430 Dana Murphy-Chutorian
431 Janet Brownstone
432 Lori Buecheler
433 Su.Jean Hua
434 Julie Kim
435 Sean Maloney
436 Margaret Maloney
437 Olivid Crooker
438 Rina Singh
439 Raj Singh
440 Charlie Zha
441 Audrey Zha
442 Allison Huygen
443 Richard Liu
444 Cathleen Liu
445 Jiang Chuo
446 Susan Yu
447 Sean Wu
448 NancyWu
449 Walt McCulough
450 Wang Jing
451 Claire Lin
452 RosRa Harvie
453 LI Yang
454 George Lin
455 Kuran Mann
456 Barbara Wang
0 0
0
0
c
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR RAIL GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
We the members of the Old North Palo Alto Community (NOPA) support the attached
positioning letter regarding the Rail Grade Separation Project I ie, Connecting Palo Alto. We
also endorse the corrections and recommendations cited in the responses to the Circulation
Study and Financial Study conducted by the City of Palo Alto.
Enclosures:
Enclosure 1: Community Letter to City Council on Grade Separation
Enclosure 2: Response to Rail Grade Separation Financing White Paper
Enclosure 3: Response to Existing Conditions Report Draft & Travel Demand Model
Validation Report
SIGNATURE NAME ADDRESS
~ /lY{/.e&x--J~
dt~~ \-\CJ-Ill i"<-~o U ~-
("
~~d\ E: f-.e eJ
(jv/4_ c.Q_ k o
,]~'~ ~ /l.a__ /.-o
~~~!711 !.to-P fo5a_ljJ
~~ J tlS" orJ (ncti/J
v
SOUTH PALO AL TO PETITION -RAIL PROJECT@ MEADOW
/CHARLESTON
We, as residents of South Palo Alto and the greater Palo Alto community want to clearly communicate our
preferences to the Palo Alto City Council in the matter of the upcoming rail upgrades.
We strongly feel that the Palo Alto City Council consider the following points:
• We adamantly oppose EMINENT DOMAIN and seek to minimize property losses for our neighbors.
• We oppose road OVERPASS options for the Charleston/Meadow crossings in all circumstances.
• We oppose RAISED RAIL OPTIONS such as those involving berms or viaducts.
• We support LOWERED RAIL OPTIONS such as those involving a tunnel or trench.
• We support INCREASED SAFETY for all residents of our community, and especially for students, cyclists,
and pedestrians.
What we require from the Palo Alto City council:
• Comprehensive information, analysis, and clearer communication easily accessible and available to us on
the costs, property loss, and traffic impacts of a
o Meadow/Charleston trench (with/without freight train considerations)
o Meadow/Charleston tunnel (with/without freight train considerations)
o Meadow/Charleston road-under-rail hybrid
• Alternative financing options
• Inclusion of official community stakeholder involvement and representation
c~!{5~!FNG
[ ) Placed Before Meeting
[ ]-iteceived at Meeting
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR RAIL GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
We, as residents of South Palo Alto and the greater Palo Alto community support the attached
positioning letter regarding the Rail Grade Separation Project.
Enclosures:
Enclosure 1: Community Letter to City Council on Grade Separation
Signature Name Address
)!$!. q H'L>-~ C... '"f2..v: <~
& l'°kA '(_ La_~ 'y ~~
(A. /lL;>S. Fl~ f)E R.
Palo Alto Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation Signature Page
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR RAIL GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
We, as residents of South Palo Alto and the greater Palo Alto community support the attached
positioning letter regarding the Rail Grade Separation Project.
Enclosures:
Enclosure 1: Community Letter to City Council on Grade Separation
Name
Palo Alto Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation Signature Page
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR RAIL GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
We, as residents of South Palo Alto and the greater Palo Alto community support the attached
positioning letter regarding the Rail Grade Separation Project.
Enclosures:
Enclosure 1: Community Letter to City Council on Grade Separation
Signature Name
1.<lt l\J tJA I 10 f>
Palo Alto Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation Signature Page
f t:\
l ·-"' \..:
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR RAIL GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
We, as residents of South Palo Alto and the greater Palo Alto community support the attached
positioning letter regarding the Rail Grade Separation Project.
Enclosures:
Enclosure 1: Community Letter to City Council on Grade Separation
Signature Name
Palo Alto Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation Signature Page
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR RAIL GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
We, as residents of South Palo Alto and the greater Palo Alto community support the attached
positioning letter regarding the Rail Grade Separation Project.
Enclosures:
Enclosure 1: Community Letter to City Council on Grade Separation
Name
CtlVv / 8 /y
Palo Alto Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation Signature Page
.~-...
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR RAIL GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
We, as residents of South Palo Alto and the greater Palo Alto community support the attached
positioning letter regarding the Rail Grade Separation Project.
Enclosures:
Enclosure 1: Community Letter to City Council on Grade Separation
Name
Palo Alto Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation Signature Page
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR RAIL GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
We, as residents of South Palo Alto and the greater Palo Alto community support the attached
positioning letter regarding the Rail Grade Separation Project.
Enclosures:
Enclosure 1: Community Letter to City Council on Grade Separation
Signature Name
·~ch£L Cox.
~ ~fiµD~~ Hant-A~ f&ge
I (M'\~
Palo Alto Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation Signature Page
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR RAIL GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
We, as residents of South Palo Alto and the greater Palo Alto community support the attached
positioning letter regarding the Rail Grade Separation Project.
Enclosures:
Enclosure 1: Community Letter to City Council on Grade Separation
Signature
':I.(...·~):._
• J f ldA..J~
Name
1f1 l{L!I L •f ttJ j
E 0 iJ -1 ~ "} 5'-N'
/jL.c.x,R.-1(!! ST1fNrcft.P,£DU
J}L£X A" 5$
Palo Alto Community Letter to Council on Grade Separation Signature Page
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR RAIL GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
We, as residents of South Palo Alto and the greater Palo Alto community support the attached
positioning letter regarding the Rail Grade Separation Project.
Enclosures:
Enclosure 1: Community letter to City Council on Grade Separation
Name
Palo Alto Community letter to Council on Grade Separation Signature Page
r --.
' I /'\ ) l-"
.. ~·';1· •• • ......... i....t.,';,....-.. -1~"""''-····,-·..\!• -', ,. --;··'. ·~ -~ : On November 8, 2016, Boulder voters approved · . . ., ~
1
•• • : . a. sugary 4r~~k tax earmarked for health equity. ·
. . Boulder's was one of five wins nationally that week. '
.... .t ;.... • -··· • J "-•· . :: .
Tax Amount and Type
A 2-cent-per-ounce excise tax on distributors of beverages with
added caloric sweeteners.
· Exemped beverages: infant formula. milk products. beverages
for medical use and meal replacement, 100% fruit or vegetable
juices. and alcohol (already taxed).
Revenue Use
Since 2017. $2.25 million has been allocated to fund health and
nutrition programs for low-income Boulder residents who bear the
greatest burden of disease linked to sugary drinks (e.g .. Boulder's
Latino community). Programs funded include ones that improve
access to healthy and affordable food and clean water and increase
opportunities for physical act~vity and recreation. A Health Equity
Committee makes recommendations to City Council for allocation
of funding.
Expected Health Benefits
· Over the next decade. 938 cases of obesity will be prevented.
and $6.4 million will be saved in health care costs. according to
Harvard's CHOICES report.
· Incidence of diabetes will decrease by 10o/o (during the first year
after the tax takes effect).
Proponents and Campaign Spending
• The Healthy Boulder Hids campaign was a joint effort of a local
grassroots coalition (parents. doctors. public health advocates.
Latino leaders. and business owners) with Healthier Colorado. a
statewide health policy and advocacy organization. A campaign
manager with knowledge of local politics ran daily operations.
· The campaign reported spending $1.04 million dollars.
Tax Rate
· 2 cents/oz.
What Is Taxed
• Sugary drinks: soda, energy
and sports drinks. presweet-
ened ice teas and coffees.
fruit drinks
Revenue Raised
• $3.3 million from July 1, 2017
-February 28. 2018
Revenue Use
• Access to healthy food..
sports programs. clead water
~i
More Information =i ~· https://bouldercolorado,gov /hu-
man-services/health-equity-ad-
visory-committee
BOULDER AT A GLANCE
• Population: 108.090
» Black: 0.9%
» Latino or Hispanic: 8.7%
» Asian: 4. 7%
» White: 83.0%
• 141% below poverty line in
Boulder County
• 13.2% of children age 1-14
drink at least one sugary
drink per day.
• In Boulder County. 10.9% of
Latino adults have diagnosed
diabetes. compared to 3.7"/o of
non-Latino white adults.
Visit www.healthyfoodamerica.org or
emall info@hfamerica org for r.:lore
Information.
FAO SHUT I Boulder. CO: Sugary Drink Tax
~ . ;..: • -. , . r. -. ~ ... ; .. •. .. . • ! ~-
t.. .' . _?~_ .. ; .. ~-~, . . ..: . . -..
Opponents and Campaign Spending
• The American Beverage Association led the opposition Opposition reported spending $107
m1llion dollars against the tax.
· Opposition and proponent spending combined made this the most expensive ballot campaign
in Boulder's history.
Results
The tax passed by majority popular vote of 53.9%. The tax was
implemented on July 1, 2017.
Highlights
• At the time of passage, Boulder's tax became the highest of its
kind in the nation ($0.02/oz), and the first to specifically name
health equity in its revenue earmark.
· Healthy Boulder Rids brought the tax ordinance forward as
a citizen's initiative. Though petition signature gathering is
a substantial expense. it showed community support and
countered "nanny state" or "government interference" arguments
in a city where voters favor small government.
· The opposition ran ads featuring a list of local businesses against the tax. On later
investigation, multiple businesses named on that list said they were not actually in opposition,
and that they never gave permission to use their name in ads. The local newspaper ran a story,
"Boulder businesses say they were duped by soda industry into joining anti-tax campaign."
Proponents' Main Messages
• We have a responsibility to our kids/Our kids are worth it!
· It's working in Berkeley: Sugary drink consumption is down 21%,
water consumption is up 63%.
Opposition's Main Messages
· The tax will raise beverage and grocery prices across the board.
• Local Boulder grocers and restaurants deserve better.
· Taxes don't make people healthy, only diet and exercise can do that.
What Worked In Boulder
Each community has unique circumstances that dictate how it will
frame and design its campaign. Here are some lessons learned from
Boulder.
· Assure the leaders of communities most affected by the health
impacts of sugary drinks are at the decisionmaking table from the
initial phases of policy design through implementation.
"We understand the health
threats posed by unhealthy
sugary drinks, especially on
low-income families. roday
Boulder took an important,
proactive step toward
ensuring that all of us-our
children in particular-have
every opportunity to make
better choices and to lead
healthy lives.''
-Angelique Espinoza.
Campaign Manager
· Outreach to influential local restaurants. stores. and food/drink producers to preempt the
industry's misinformation and local coalition-building attempts. If done well, you can gain
supporters or neutralize opposition.
FACT SHEET I Boulder, CO: Sugary Drink Tax
' • • f . . ~l ~ ~ • • ~ ·-.·
' '
What Worked In Boulder, continued
· Expect the beverage industry to file legal challenges or to recruit a local person to file a suit
on its behalf. Don't let this delay the campaign. Seek support from national public health legal
experts and local tax campaign attorneys, and use the lawsuits as an opportunity to highlight
community support for the tax.
· Allow enough time between passage and the start of tax collection (at least 6 months). This lets
the city learn from other implementing sites, and conduct outreach to distributors, restaurants,
and stores so they understand the process before the tax goes into effect.
Please contact HFA for citations. Last updated May 2018.
www.healthyfoodamerica.org info@hfamerica.org
•
FACF SHEET I Boulder, CO: Sugary Drink Tax
5/29/2018
---
Map and Chart the Movement -Healthy Food America
Moving Science to Action
Home I Resources
MAP AND CHART THE
MOVEMENT
There's a movement underway across the United States to reduce sugar
consumption back to healthy levels. Our interactive map lets you see what's
happening and where. and the table below provides additional details. Check out
our Polley Profiles for more information about each site..
SUGARY DRINR EFFORTS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES l;anaaa
MANl'TOSA
W"i' HJN<; l ON MONlANA
I••••_ ~-w•~=~.
' '
NORTH DAKOTA
~QUTH
0AK01A
lfEBAASKA IOWA
ONlARIO
Chicago 0
It ••&.l"a
http://www.healthyfoodamerlca.org/map 1/4
5/29/2018 Map and Chart the Movement • Healthy Food America
NEVADA
San Francisco .
0
\Jt AH
CALIFORNIA ow y
United States
COi OllAQO
MelClco eity e
SUGARY DRINR EFFORTS IN CALIFORNIA
San Rafael
San P~blo
san Quentin Richmond Larkspur
' Corte-Madera
'" W1rt<1v .~. --~0~ff~0~--...t'rn
INOfANA
Wiidcat canyon
Regional Par1<
w W• sT ~ub•
El Cerrito
Mill Valley
CD
@)
BELVEOl!RE
TIBURON
Muir Beach GOiden Gate Sausahto
National Recreation
Area
NORTH BEACH
!NANCI AL
$TRICT
San Francisco
CD
Daly City
Colma CD
fltlSSJON DISTRICT
BrisbaJ¥!
(§)
South Sart r----:---
!ny ,
Ber~eley v
@ @
~eryville
ijlj __ ! Piedmont @
v oaR1and
Alameda
Island
Alameda
Bay Farm
Island
LOCAL SUGARY DRINR TAXES PASSED IN THE US AS OF 03/06/18
f'nll10elpNI. rA • Coi,in,t J,S67,44Z Pre•t. .,.,. H,lOO $76.IO U•4 1{1{17 comm..My
sehoots, ~rk.S
nd rec centrrs
Douloer. co HtlSUtt 2H J07,)49 HU Ith ·I°"" ... $6.4J 54 ... 7/JJ17
Aloany, CA Mta541re 0 1 19,7lS Htaltf'I .,.,. 92 $0.llO ,,.,. 4/><1117
01kl•nd. CA MelUUre HH Hetltn .... 2,140 . ....
sin fru..asco, CA Mff.SUfe v Health .... l,750 Ol"1
http://www.healthyfoodamerlca.org/map 214
5/2912018
---
Publications • Healthy Food America
CCS?JJzrnlNG
Moving Science to Action [ ) Pla e.d Before Meeting
Home I Resources
PUBLICATIONS
Research Briefs I ~Y. Briefs I ~Y. Profiles I Fact Sheets I .Re.~ I Industry:
Watch
FEATURED PUBLICATION
Research Briefs
Are 1•1•rr ckh•k tun worfdns? ""-Early evldentt I• pro111lllnll ..... _ .....,._. __ M•• ........ .,,_lto__, ____ _.....,,. ~ ........ __,... .. ....,. ............... ,..._ ...._..., ___ .,_......_ __ ..._. ............... __
~-""'--...... ~---.. ,. ..: w. ....................... "--' ._ ........ . ...,,_ .............................. _ ................ ... ........... ,,,,....,... __ ._.,..., ... _ .......... ......, -.-..-........... ----~""'-....., ....... ~....._ _....., .... __ .....,....__Wp....., .... _ .................. ...
~~Tii<ft~!'l'!!:l'-~~~_,_, .... ~ ..
T....Ui.S.,..,,,Drlllkl C._...._ i.
IM UI, 2005·2012 --....,-~.---...-.-~'"'.:iuu-:a ..... -1 .. .. .. ______ ,.,... ... ,._ ___ .... _
__ ,.__w,,,1.~_,_....._,,.n.,_,. ,....._....,...., ..............
'~.....---.. _,,----~'-M-~--..,,.11-.....,..--..... -_ _......_ ....... ._..,._ ........... -.........-. ..__ .. _ ...... __ . 1-aa..a_,-....... _...., _____ ._.,.. ..... --·-·---..... _ .. , ...... ~ .. ,,_ ...... ........__ ........
.:..,...,,.~ ... ~" ............. ,, ........... .,..-M.~ ...... _J
Are sugm:y: drink taxes working1 Trends in Sugm:y: Drinks
Early: evidence ls promising Consumption research brief
http://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/publications#policyproflles 1/6
5/29/2018
... ·~--· ,•.,., ... ~-"~ ,. "'lllUl"1HOOUUll1ll.~"'6~~-• , •'. ~ ),...~ •• ,,' :1~t, J • ~
5 · oo-~s 1oo'of: ;;~ll~ul~e .'.: ~' .
:-: pose a health risk to kids . -.. ~
•. ~a~lll ~C!,.~d_de_!l-_s.u1ar dr,lnksl · ....
TNo.••_, .. , ... __ ,,,,.,,,Hl'A.--_....,.r-11 ... \Aoo,_,... ... ..,,..tJOOt,,,..t,..._........,,.,,.,1 .. A$ft~l'J-o/~-• .,....,_.,..,.A_._.,..A • ..,..,-_,,.__.. ._.,_~...,.
f rwlt l~H a.IMI Chll.a;ie In hey w. ... J.M .. · A M.i.a.MatylL.
bKlill.lv• Su.nmiary
Does 100% fruit J.uice pose a
health 11sk to kids akin to added-
mgar cirtnks?
Policy Briefs
~ ........ ._._.,,.wy..UW.llltoet '1-. .......................... _ ....... .... ........ _. .... _ .......... ... ......................... ._ ....... ...... ,,,_..., .......... ,.,_._ ................ ..
::::,-w-pw-.wo._~r.J11617.._•lw
...,,......., ......... laNh.,
-~ .. ..._. __ "_...... ...... _., ................. _ ........ _ •""'-'"_., .... _ _.., _, ____ ..,.__......,
.a....,, .... ___ _. ............... ,_ ....... ,...... ..... -.
.--.·--l~-~--·--. ......., __ _,... _____ ....... _._ ..
...,"...._ ....... _.,._ .. _,_....,. ..... ~ ............. ... ..,.._ .. _..,_lo.•-•llW4'~--·---·-
fQUQy-.SnaP.shot: Sugary: Drink
Warning Labels
Polley Profiles
http://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/publlcaUons#pollcyprofiles
Publications • Healthy Food America
Tiie tlHltJI Harms of
Artlftwty Slloetenod Beveraps ·-~--~.,,.-----....... --·-.,,..,,_.,.. _ _._ .. ,.. ............. . ,..._,...., ......... ,.__.,.._,. __ .... -..--~ ......... °""'"" ... -... Ull ..... ~ ...... -.,._...._... ...... (A __ ___ .. ___ ,........ __ ft._....,
........ .,._,_._,_CA ........... __ •• _ --.... _,__.. .. ~...., ......... .,..-., ....... .,. _.,.......,...,,.......,,..... .. ,_, .... _ .. -.. --.._. ..... _______ ....... .
_ .... _ ....... Ult ................... ._ .... ,,.........
research brief: health effects of
diet dr1nks
n..-.... ,_,........,_~ .. l· ............. __ ,,_"""' .__o ••• --. ... _,__..._ .... ........_ ... ......._..~ _ _... ---Tuln; b.ivcra; .. h.u two prla'lal'J' bcn•flU . ==-~N6M'lllt~·· .. ....._,..,pNOhft(.....,
Diet Beverages: To tax or not?
Supry drink tun:
Respondlq to lnd11stry arpmelltS ....... ..__... .. _ ......... __._,......_WOllll_~_ .. ....,.......,. _____ .. ____ a... __ _ --.... .. -6-_,....,.... __ t'loo_ .. _, ___ _
w.,_t.•...--,.,_...._, ..... -................. -_...._.,, _, .. __ .4_.....,j_ ......... -_,, .... ....__ ... ~,-,, __ .........,_,... ..... __ _....,_,.., .. _,...,. ----....-....--,...,.......-··--... ____ .. __ ,_.,.. .... ,...._ ... ......,_ ........ _,..........,._ .. ...., __ •..C-·---.--. .......... --..--.. ,........ .. ___ _.....,,.._ ........... ___ ... _,., ...... _ _.,._
Sugary: drink taxes: Responding
to tndustx:y_armmumta
216
5/29/2018
:...· ... --···-·-.. ··--· . .. . .., ... 1....,__..,,,_, .. , ...... .. .,.-.....c··-·-,.-·_..._._ ht_ .. ..,..,.~-·-.. , ..... _. ..... , .... .._... ..._ ... _ _.__ _____ .. __ _ __ ., ....... .,.._..,..._. ..... __
...._,-.. -·----~--==--==::;::"
~"'="=.. ... ~ .... ~:·-· ..
... _
.,_._
... 1 .. ---=.::t:..4': -----·&m9-----er, _ _._
=..-:=.= .......... ___ ---
Publications • Healthy Food America
a."-' ·-rtu.1.,..u..,-i.1-.,•-·1 ...... ...C•••-Ulut1R,.....-·:O-Oll ... .. , ......... Qoia-1 __ ...._ __ .. _"""' .. __ ,.. __ ... ___ ....... __
'""'-"",_ . ....,,_,_ __
==:-.:=...-===---==-===
it..~----....... --....._._ .. ....., _ _,_. ____ .._ ..... ...,...,.._ .......... ( ....... -..
,.._ ..-.::.'I.~-.. -----_ .... _ ...... -------__ ,, ___ ,.... _ .. ... ........, .............. --.. ~.__ . ....__ .. _ ..... _ .....
E.Q)J.cY. Profile; Albany. CA Sugw. ~ ProWe: Oakland..c.A
Drtnk Tax Sweetened Drink Tax
t•~_,:., :.,.At• h_ .. • u•o • ,._.,, ...... -........ :UJ•"'' ... .,._ .... , .. _tM, .... ....... -~ ....... ~ ... .., .... _IM·-_,__.61 ___ -. __ -c.....-.. ,.._,._.,. __
:::-.:====.:..~:.-:n-:-
.......... __. ............ .....u.--tw ....,._ ... _.. __ ._. .... ,.... ... ~
--~-..a
, ..... ··-:",._ .. .,...-....... .................
---~·,.,.
,.._.. __ _
..,..._ ... ,.. --..... ,.~ _ ..
·~·_,, ..... --Oita..• ..._.-...... . .....,. ... ___
~Profile; San Frandsco...cA
SllgiJY. Dr1nk Tax
.. u•t.t,.,,... • ..,..1,..,-... ,.,., ..... ,.h. ..,,_, •11 •-111-.. ... ._ ... , .... ""'•'•~•--u•~•••l'l'rl'....,_,r«,••• .... _. ... ,,.. "'"_. ________ ".......,. _,. ...... _c,,...., .................. ,., u-...... ""'-1'.__'--"lau
=:-.... -:::':!::::l:e:::::. ,... ............... , •• ~-•It ........ .... c...---.. ............... ..-.......... .. _.,_,, . ....,,._,,, __ ..,. ................. ..
~ Profile: Seattle..YlA
SllgiJY. Drink Tax
c.u ... w.,e :oM l'-vU ......... ,,_s
·~..-,C.lor .. luu<=-.orh•l.,t.• ... ••"l"'f
................... ,.,,., .......... _., llut .. ... , ............... . ..__ ___ ....._. . ..._ __
........... _c:...w ........... __ ..,._ ... _.,...,...,_ __ ... .... _....,.... ............... ~-........ _. ........ ..,,.., -·· n.._ .. ...,._,...._ ... __ ...... -----------·----·..., .... .._. . ..__,.~ ........
,.._~--...... -~ ...
... _ ·--·-...._. ...... ....,_
~ .............. ... -----..... •:a .... -....-
___
·=-..::::-..... ............... _ ..
,,_~ ........ -::=!---·-
~ ProWe: Boulder.~
Sllgmy: Drink Tax
~ .... ~.,... ....... 1:,_ .... _ .... _
-..,..\wo;, .. u,.... .... .,. ..... -·.--u .. , t..,u•
111--. ""'..,_. . ,._,..._ __ ......_..,..,. __ ......... _ ......... ~ .... ........ ........ _.._ .................... -.... t ........ _ ....... ~ .... ,__,_.....,.
·UM--""'"-•-~.....•ft __ .....,...,.....,"""'*"' .. ..... _ .. ..,.._.......,.......,_ ...._... ............. ,..,.. __ .... ..._.,,...,. .. ..,
-u--... , ... . ................. ....... _., ...... ~ ... ... ----··---................... ___ ....._
~ Proftle; Philadelphia.EA
Sweetened Drink Tax
http://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/publlcatlons#pollcyproflles 3/6
5/29/2018
-._..1._.., ....... ....
-.. .. -..... ~•••a.--1X1l'
c..----.,,.....-·~ ............. =-:=:o..::::"',=:-.:~.c:-.:::.. -.... -.. _,
-,,........o_...., _ .. , .. -----"' .......... *' -... ... _ ............. -----..... .._,,..._ -
fQllcy. Profile: Mexico Sugm:Y.
Pr1nkiax
Fact Sheets
, ........... ,., ... ,.... .. ,..,rWl.,..,,. .. 41 ...... ,
S.Ugar & Ty_pe n Diabetes
--·--------.. --.. -..... -----..---.---------
Sl.lgar & Obes1tY.
http://www.healthyfoodamerica.org/publlcatlons#pollcyproflles
Publications • Healthy Food America
•••--•:IO'• ~c_ .. __ _ l.'l••, .. r ..... --···--..-, ......... f'U...._,..,...._. ,.,_,. __ , ________ _
a:-r=::~.=-~ . ':: :':'*~.....,.'*-" ...... "".........., ·"'--•,........ ....... ru.,...n,_ ·--._..,......" ...... ....., ____ ..,._ -----.-:..JMt;. PIRCl:!IN~ ...............
~ _ .. ,_,
:::"-:'~-:. ....., ... .._ ..... --._ ..... __ _
C.Ooff......, ... --:::-..=:· .......
fQllcy. Profile: Berkeley .. ..cA
Sllgm:Y. Drink Tax
,., .......... sapn ~,_," ,.., rhkef CVD
SYgw & Cardiovascular Disease
(CVD).
HOW MUCNADC>lO SUG.llr &UWICCNSUM1NG7' ...-...:,,-~;-
....... _ .... ,. .... O"I. ... _• t4, .......... ,. .. __ ................... -~ lU =:.-:.-:::::::•.=.:::::=.. ,.. ,_ .. , __ n.,... • .._... .... _~ ...., _ _,.., ,.._. __ _, --.,~
tt
, .... di ..u ... .., ..... _..,.., tt:lll •ftMdlUc .. r---.---""""""""•'""'"'"" __ ...,.... __
Sl.lgar & Tooth Decay:
416
5129/2018
Fact Sheet -Fruit-flavored
Drinks & Little Rids
Reports
~":~.:r-
ladustryTactlcs From MCllll• Leab"
...... _ ..... _ .. ..,.c......eu._..._.,...,.,. • ....,.. ...... ...., ... ,...... .... ~__,,......_llNM_ .. ,....,..r. ..... "-_.,. .. ....... -......... ,_ ... __ i....-_,__. ____ ., .. ..._-. ... -......,,, ................ kli:lll.,.....__.,....
,,.._._ ... .._...,_,u...,.•-lflilll-.. ....-11,_ ......... »....__....., ___ ......,....,4, ............. ..,....._
~ ......... ~ .. ---......-..---·....-no.""",.. ..... -............. ._ .................... -... _..___
Industiy Tactics trom "Coke
Leaks"
A Roacimap for Successful
Sugary: Drink Tax Camga1gna
Industry Watch
http:llwww.healthyfoodamerica.org/publications#pollcyprofiles
Publications -Healthy Food America
ADDEDSUGARS ;::::;:~
Awt•;t uuake ftftu• "" 9\.11chllne& by •ll•
• 0
0 i:~.~---.......,,-<><•~-------"'__,._
j:1--~~~~~-ft~I>-----~
't-----i:...
Fact Sheet -Sugar and Health
&locullve summary ,,...,,,._._.,._ --. ... u ..... .,..._..,..,._, ........ "' ... .,....
...._ .. t -y M "'--t• tlll*IM4 .....,..,.., ....... C.. wl\ls ~~ ..... 1_,r:.-...,vy..-..... ~ ... ................... .__ ..... ...,_ .. .._,_......,. _ .... °"' ,........ clwt ....
~t.,..«.ai.o...,.~car•~
Raising revenue. cutttng costs.
UY1ng-11Yei
BEST PRACTICES IN DESIGNING
LOCAL TAXES ON SUGARY DRINKS
Best Practtces In Designing Local
Taxes on Sugary: Dr1nks
5/6
5/29/2018 Publications -Healthy Food America
... .._., ; ·.. . ~.. . . .
lndustrv.Watch:
~
l.c -•l lr..-.l
1 "-", ... __. ... ,.....1u., ... .. _ ....... ·--J ................. --...._.,,...,'" ·-$ _, ... ............ ...,..,.,_ .... .
""'*' .... w.,..: .. --
~··--w.-. ... ,_..._"....., ........... ,._ ..............,. ,.., AMrt. .......... .,,.._ ... ... ........ ..._,,"' ...... ..._ .... ,...,.... .... .............. __.. • .,....._ W• ,.,..,.,_ ......... ..,i;..-... .... ............... ~" .... ~,..-. ................... ,.......,. .. ....
Ceic-,. Col" •ttl&ll i..M ,_...,]tu .n-a~
to "'r'P'-M.a1th ~uitlN 91obally D ----·--t~~
Industry: Watcb -Volume l.lul.le
l
Do you like this page?
get updates
Email address
Like j 443 people like this. Sign Up to
see what your friends like.
Sign in with Facebook. Twitter or rmfill
Your PrivacY. I Created with NationBuilder
http://www.healthyfoodamerlca.org/publlcatlons#pollcyprofiles
Tweet G+
JOIN
6/6
Palo Alto Council
PTR
everychild. one voice.®
May 23, 2018
To Palo Alto City Council
lco~1kPE~NG
[ ] P~Before Meeting
[ ..f1leceived at Meeting
We are writing on behalf of the Palo Alto Council of PT As (PTAC). PTAC works with
the district staff, the Board of Education, community partners and the PT As at the 17
schools to support the students and families of the Palo Alto Unified School District
and to improve the education, health and welfare of all children and youth. The Palo
Alto PT A Council requests that a sugar sweetened beverage tax be placed on the
Palo Alto city ballot in the fall of 2018.
Scientific evidence has shown that sugary drinks harm our childrens' health,
contributing to rising rates of dental caries, obesity, heart disease, diabetes and liver
disease. Sugary drinks have no nutritional value but yet represent almost half the
added sugar we consume. When sugar enters the body in liquid form, the body
suffers a deluge of sugar into the bloodstream and overwhelms the body's natural
ability to process it.
Taxes on sugary drinks discourage consumption due to higher prices. It increases
awareness of the issues of consuming sugary drinks. Significant revenue is expected
to be raised through this tax that will help our schools and other programs which
help populations suffering from related diseases.
PT AC supports initiatives like these that encourage healthy choices and create a
healthy environment for our children. We believe that this tax will help children
make healthy choices that will enhance learning and their growth and support
PAUSD with much needed revenue.
We thank you for your cooperation and support.
Sincerely,
~A'&
Audrey Gold
PTA Council President, 2016-18
http: //ptac.paloaloto.org
...
·'"' ... ... :
.:. .
"
City Counc~l to consider sugar tax
Local health professor suggests a 20-cent increase in price .for soda-pop type beverages
By Kiana Tavakoli
Staff Writer
T he sour effects of sugar
have led. members of the
Palo Alto City Council
to make progress toward imple-
menting a tax on sugar-based bev-
erages, under the reasoning that
this would be a step in the right
direction t<? prevent health issues.
1his tax was suggested by lo-
cal health professor at Foothill
College Ken Horowitz, who ,
hopes that Palo Alto will follow
in the footsteps of cities such as
San Francisco, Oakland, Calif.,
Berkeley, Calif., Albany, Calif. and
Seattle in order to fight health is-
sues associated with high sugar
consumption, as well as influence
nearby cities to do the same. The
tax would be placed on distribu-
tors and would likely increase the
price of each bottle by around 20
cents
"My hope is that when Palo
Alto starts this tax, it will spread
to nearby cities such as Mountain
View and San Jose," Horowitz
said. "In San Jose, over half the
students drink a can of soda a day."
The recommended daily sug-
ar intake ranges from 25 to 38
grams; however, a 12 ounce can
of Coca Cola contains 39 grams.
Medical research suggests that
increased sugar intake is a leading
~ctor in obesity and diabetes.
''.As a nation we should be
working towards making
healthier choices, and a
tax on soda is a step in
that direction:'
Sarah O'Riordan
"One can of soda has around
17 packets of sugar and there is no
nutrition," Horowitz said. "I think
it is irpportant that people know
how much sugar we eat. Read the
labels. I teach college students and
they had no idea. That's what got
me interested.•
According to a report done by
the Institute of Medicine for the
National Academies Press, obe-
sity is one of the most significant
and prevalent health issues that
Americ·c:l.,~g _?.~tion needs to
be taken to prevent it. An example
of action that the report suggests
is a tax.
Berkeley, Calif is an example
of a city that has implcm.cnted
a tax and seen results. The city's
consumption has · been reduced
and the money raised through
their tax has been used to benefit
various aspects of the ~ty, specifi-
cally schools.
"Berkeley has had this tax
since 2014 and it's been working
really well," Horowitz. said. "It has •
reduced soda consumption by 15
percent and they've been able to
raise $1.5 million per year. Most
of this money goes to the schools.
The Berkeley Unified School Dis-
trict has used this money for nu-
trition classes, gardening classes
and cooking classes."
Horowitz hopes that Palo Alto
will do the same in order to pre-
vent obesity and limit sugar ad-
diction.
Sugar-based drinks such as
sodas arc extremely addictive due
to the large amounts of serotonin,
commonly referred to as a "happy
hormone," and caffeine contained
in it.
"Suizar is the new tobacco."
Ho'rowiti: said. "Years and years
ago we placed the tax on tobacco
and that has dramatically reduced
the number of people smoking.
We can do the same with this
sugar beverage ta.X.. •
Caffeine is similar to a natu-
rally occurring molecule in the
brain called adenosine, which
slows nerve cell activity and regu-
lates sleeping and waltjng cycles.
When caffeine is consumed, it. is
able to mimic adenosine, there-
fore fitting into the brain's recep-
tors. 1his blocks adenos:ine and
prevents nerve activity from slow-
ing down thus creating a feeling
of energy. ·
After consuming caffeine on
a regular basis, the body compen-
sates by increasing production of
adenosine. This means it would
take more caffeine to become
alert the next time, th~s creating
a craving and cycle of addiction.
Though people love caffeine
and sugary drinks, many students,
including Paly sophomore Sarah
O'Riordan, are beginning to real-
ize that action needs to be taken
to reduce national consumption in
order to decrease the overwhelm-
in!ZI numbers of health problems
that Americans face.
'"Even though I like soda and
drink it, I do believe it should
be taxed," O'Riordan said. "As a
nation WC should be working to-
wards making healthier choices,
and a tax on soda is a step in that
direction."
Many people, such as· sopho-
more Isabel Harding, are becom-
ing increasingly aware of the· im-
pacts of sugar and the control big
companies have over the nation's
health.
"Years ago we placed the
tax on tobacco and that
has dramatically reduced
tl'e ntimber of people
smoking. We can do the
same with.this sugar
beverage tax:'
Ken Horowitz
Harding said, "I think it's a
good thing to start taicing these
companies because it's a start in
holding them accountable for
what they're doin1r to oeoole."
p~ flet;; ~-17-Jc&
To +tu_ Co~~L H~l~ _
.) ~ vu_,i.. to f /L.oVl-1..., K
you..-~ ~~~~~Le_ y~
r-'[._, -f /u__ ..un:l ~ ~ e.11.Li~~ ~
~~~~ YI?'""'-~ ~
~ R'°~ RcGL..cJ.. [: 11~~ ~ I ,
~ a.Ji..e.A.. . .
1r ~~,~·~ 1/U--
~ ~ ~ t-/...,.__ .5.<>. j-'-'f y
~u.rr...l?_w ~ 'ilL e-·~j
at~~-
i~ '/ au.-~·"'
,
" <w N uu 0 cir;: 52 ~I.I.. <o E
~ kV{~ \/I Yr' 9tMA
~ :L Gl Ta~~ c.J'vU i::>~ .
Cjy> er
...JX: ..:r <('~
a..La.J N
P.A. q 4 3-c3
~-.J >-ow ;? >->-1-t: m (3c..l -
Ms. Stephanie L. Bisgaard
:jsWoodview Ln.
Woodside, CA 94062-1236
CITY OF PALO ALTO CA
I support Castilleja's proposal to CITY C ERK'S Off ICE
increase enrollment and modernize J8 HAY ZS
campus because... , AH fO: 28 C..A~-r,
Office of the Clerk
l t..e_ 1Jivl $C~ool
<2.&. V L~ +\ CIV\ l _5
l'V\ 0 ( ~ i YV\? Ht--l-
,}'h~ V\ fl v~ r-(
Please distribute to all City Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
•
. .
I( Ji;
757 Greer Rd ~
Palo Alto CA 94303-3 ~~
ElaineJBaskin--r ,(,\SCo
z."-:.~ ,fgJ) F PAL \:.P -.-. ~,Tf.J · CLEHK
I support Castilleja's proposal te=-~
increase enrollment and modernize its 18 AY 25 AH fO: 28
c~~e···~~~i ~ ~ (D].:_\v ~
Jk b; (9... ~~ 4 n.. t-
Office of the Clerk
. ... ..-:· ......
.fin~)~{-~~ \)%~~~ °"'P.'11~
VO ~~'t-..i,\..qa_ +o
Please distribute to all City Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
~ µ1Mi3Y-IAI'-· ~~ ~1·~f t_n ., .. 1.1111.111.1,1,.11.1.1111,.1,.,1.11
May 18, 2018
Robert Jonsen
Chief of Police
Palo Alto
Dear Chief Jons~,
This is to advise you that Pedestrian Safety (P.S.) is a newly
formed group of cit~zens who are concerned about the worsening
of pedestrian safety in our city. Our first focus is the danger
at the California Avenue rail·road underpass where bicyclists are
violating the WALK BICYCLE signs at the entrannes . The antiquated
tunnel was built in the 1930s or '40s when Pedestrian and
bicycle traffic were much les;.and city populatiJn was much .lower.
Skateboards and new electric ::icooters also threa ::en.-fife·:-_ana:'-t.±mb
of pedestrians.
The underpass is dimly-lit, narrow at seven feet and even
lacks a center line separating traffic. The City not only fails
to enforce the WALK BICYCLES , but exposes its hrpocrasy when it
recently opened barriers that formerly compelled bikers to disrnoun~
and walk their bikes. Now they can pedal unimped1~d without stopping.
The hazards are to se.niors, handicapped, children and pets. A MAJORITY
OF BIKERS DO NOT WALK THEIR BICYCLES~
We are asking that police! officers or monitors be periodically
stationed at entrances with warnings and/or cita1:ions to ·violaters.
of the WALK BICYCLES regulations. We are prepared to post our
members in public protest that: our City is not eHforcing official
traffic laws. We have experienced narrow escapes f rom speeding
bicyclistsJ.ccidents with frac t ures, concussions c.nd ·worse are
inevitable. The City will be guilty of legal expc ·sure when lawsuits
result. Pl ease advise when we can expect a police presenge at the
entrances to the underpass. Thank you.
Sincere~~~£}, lo/},..
Vic Befera ':..f{/T,,,..v
Pedestrian Safety (P .S.)
2180 High St .
Palo Alto 94301
(~50) 328-3936
COPIES TO:
City Attorney, Molly Stump
.,Zity Manager, James Keene
V City Council
Palo Alto Weekly
Palo Alto Daily Post
---14----
ShLf /!i ~:--
3]1~~~
!abA-1~&+-
\
fl~L,_Arl'-~~.~ ~
·~~·~~~ ~
_ _,_,_ __ ~--tz~-
h6Lb~~~ • .( in~~ ~--+~-~~a,_~ .
fl__~~~ -
~~+l-~~~~~~~v~~~~~
~~ ~
-=---, _---++-------k-~~
-
I I
I •
STATE SENATOR
JERRY HILL ~ >
-13TH DISTRICT -
Cordially Invites You to
-<
N U)
JAVA WITH"'
ERRY
IN PALO ALTO
Join Senator Jerry Hill for a cup of coffee and
conversation. Bring your ideas, questions, and concerns
about legislative issues affecting the community.
Ada's Cafe
Saturday, June znd, 2018
9:30 am -10:30 am
3700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto
He'll provide the coffee at no taxpayer expense.
Sit down and stay awhile, or just drop in for a brief chat.
No appointment or RSVP necessary.
For information call the District Office at (650) 212-3313.
PRINTING AND/OR REDISTRIBUTION OF THIS FLYER, OTHER THAN BY EMAIL, IS PROHIBITED.
EL SENADOR ESTATAL
JERRY HILL
-DEL DISTRITO 13 -
Cordialmente Le Invita a
,,,
CAFE CON
ERRY
EN PALO ALTO
Acompafie al Senador Jerry Hill con una taza
de cafe y conversaci6n. Traiga consigo sus ideas
preguntas y preocupaciones sobre temas
legislativos que afectan su comunidad.
Ada's Cafe
Sabado, 2 de junio, 20.18
9:30 am -10:30 am
3 700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto
El proveera el cafe sin costo alguno al contribuyente. Sientase
y quedese un rato o simplemente pase para tener una breve
conversaci6n. Nose necesita una cita o confirmar su asistencia.
Para mas informaci6n Harne a la Oficina Distrital al (650) 212-3313.
LA IMPRESION Y/O REDISTRIBUCION DE ESTE FOLLETO, QUE NO SEA CORREO ELECTRONJCO, ESTA PROHIBIDO.