Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181105plCC 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: 11/05/2018 Document dates: 10/17/2018 – 10/24/2018 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Council, City From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:study session on traffic 22 October I will not be able to attend the study session on traffic scheduled for 22 October 2018, so write you here instead.    I wish to propose that you and staff consider prioritizing cross‐rail traffic at the Charleston and Meadow crossings.  I  believe that this can be done by re‐programming the traffic light signals at those two intersections.  I concede that I am  not a traffic engineer and so my naive idea may have fatal flaws.  Nonetheless, I believe it worthy of your consideration.   Currently, when a train approaches those intersections, the crossing arms come down and these things happen: all  directions are shown a red light except for traffic headed toward Middlefield Rd, following which traffic on Alma is given  a green light (first “southbound, then “northbound” after southbound left‐turning).  From that, the normal cycle ensues.   I propose a fundamental change: when the crossing arms descend, give a red light to all directions except for traffic  headed toward Middlefield Rd, followed by a red light in all directions until the rail tracks are clear and the crossing  arms are lifted.  At that point, begin the normal cycle with “westbound” traffic toward El Camino Real, followed by  “eastbound” traffic toward Middlefield Rd, then Alma “southbound” and “northbound”.  That is, don’t have every  crossing arm trigger a north/south flow on Alma St.    The effect of this will be to reduce wait time for Palo Alto residents attempting to cross the rail tracks, favoring that  movement over the out‐of‐town traffic between Mountain View and Palo Alto.    Obviously this would be a considerable change and would need to be validated by a proper traffic study.  I believe that  the time currently between the green light to southbound  and the lifting of the crossing arms is approximately 20  seconds.  This would not be an overly long time to delay traffic movement and would considerably improve cross rail  travel.    thank you for your consideration,  Ken Joye  Ventura neighborhood  1 Carnahan, David From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, October 19, 2018 1:05 PM To:Council, City; Minor, Beth Subject:Town Hall meeting about Traffic on Oct. 22 Attachments:CPNA Survey Report FINAL.pdf City Council Members: Attached you will find the report from the 2018 CPNA Traffic Survey submitted to support our discussion of  traffic issues at the Palo Alto Town Hall on Oct. 22.  This survey and meeting are both the result of the Mayor's recent comments about traffic in Palo Alto. We are  encouraged that Mayor Kniss has called the meeting to let residents share their experiences with traffic  congestion and safety. We hope this discussion will move us forward to create solutions for traffic problems.  Please enter this survey report in the information package for the Oct. 22  Town Hall. Below is an excerpt from the executive summary and key findings. Thank you, John Guislin Executive Summary The Crescent Park 2018 Traffic Survey was conducted using Survey Monkey software. The survey was open  from September 29 to October 10, 2018. The survey questions were drafted by a group of residents with the help of people familiar with large survey  design and analysis.  The survey consisted of nine questions. Surveys were emailed to approximately 850 residents of Crescent Park  who belong to the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association. Responses were received from 189 members  (22%).  Unlike the National Citizen Survey, the results were not weighted to attempt to statistically represent  all Crescent Park residents. The National Citizen Survey conducted by Palo Alto in 2017 received 614 responses  from 3,000 surveys distributed for a 20% response rate. Key Results 88% say traffic is a significant issue that negatively impacts their quality of life. 94% say the city is not doing enough to address traffic problems. 1 Crescent Park Traffic Survey Report 2018 Photo courtesy of the Palo Alto Weekly 2 Introduction Economic growth in Palo Alto has brought increasing pressures on our city’s infrastructure and is highly visible in the ways traffic issues impact residents on a daily basis. Traffic congestion in Palo Alto and all of its impacts – safety, parking, pollution, driver behavior, etc. – has been studied for decades. Unfortunately solutions have been elusive or problematic. Some traffic projects are undertaken only after a long push by residents, demanding the city take action, e.g. Residential Preferential Parking (RPP), Middlefield North. Even then some projects suffer from a deeply flawed implementation and the lack of clear and consistent guidelines, e.g. RPP. And still other projects leave residents questioning both the design and impact of the city’s efforts, e.g. Ross Road. All Palo Alto traffic projects would benefit from more sophisticated data collection and analysis, improved communications and clearly established metrics to monitor results. On July 30, 2018 Mayor Kniss made a statement at City Council session that surprised some and aggravated many by questioning whether we have real traffic issues. The Mayor said: “Traffic is not as overwhelming as you might think.” (Mayors full comments at https://seattle.cbslocal.com/video/3917500-palo-alto-mayor- apologizes-after-dismissing-resident-complaints-about-traffic-during-meeting/) These comments drew a flood of angry responses from residents who did not share the Mayor’s views. Mayor Kniss has since issued an apology for her comments and promised a Town Hall Meeting to discuss traffic issues, now scheduled for October 22, 2018. Additionally, the residents of Crescent Park, a neighborhood near Palo Alto’s downtown core, initiated a survey of residents about their experiences with traffic congestion and safety with the goal of better informing city leadership of the daily reality of traffic in their neighborhood. This report provides the results from the survey. 3 Executive Summary The Crescent Park 2018 Traffic Survey was conducted using Survey Monkey. The survey was open from September 29, 2018 and through October 10, 2018. The survey questions were drafted by a group of residents with the help of people familiar with large survey design and analysis. We recognize that no survey is perfect and comments from residents were solicited as part of the survey distribution and will influence future surveys. The survey consisted of nine questions. The survey link was emailed to approximately 850 residents of Crescent Park who belong to the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association (CPNA). Responses were received from 189 residents (22%). Those who responded self-selected to respond, and the results were not weighted to attempt to statistically represent all Crescent Park residents. (As a comparison, the National Citizens’ Survey conducted by Palo Alto in 2017 received 614 responses from 3,000 surveys distributed for a 20% response rate.) Key Results ! 88% say traffic is a significant issue that negatively impacts their quality of life ! 94% say the city is not doing enough to address traffic problems 4 ! Asked when they experience traffic problems, 188 respondents said: Weekday mornings 48% 91 Weekday afternoons 65% 122 Weekday evenings 74% 139 Weekends 11% 21 Rarely 5% 9 5 Additional Results 1. An overwhelming majority of Crescent Park resident responders see traffic as creating significant problems and negatively impacting their quality of life. More than 60% of all respondents rated the following as major or moderate concerns (ranked order): Answered: 189 Skipped: 0 61% 65% 65% 68% 69% 76% 84% 85% 91% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Difficulty to exit driveway Feel unsafe as a pedestrian Feel unsafe as a motorist Noise polluMon Air polluMon Impeded access for emergency vehicles Feel unsafe as a bicyclist Time required for short distance trips Time required to reach freeways What are your top concerns about traffic? check all that apply n=189 Percentage of Respondents with Major or Moderate Traffic Concerns 6 2. We asked for two or three actions residents would like the city to take to address traffic problems. Examples of frequent responses include: Most common recommendation: • Freeze development Other common recommendations include: • Enforce existing traffic laws • Put cameras on traffic signals • Add public transit and shuttles • Stop cut-through traffic • More police presence and ticketing • Fix timing of traffic lights • Install traffic calming measures The complete list of recommendations is in the full report below. 7 Conclusions It is unquestionable that Crescent Park residents see traffic as a significant problem. Many feel frustrated by the lack of action taken by the city to address their long-standing concerns. Current staffing vacancies will only exacerbate this problem. Even in cases where the city is seen as responsive, solutions take a long time to be implemented and traffic continues to worsen, potentially overwhelming any infrastructure modifications. Survey responders frequently identified the source of traffic problems as commuter traffic. Residents’ reported that the worst traffic problems occur during the workweek, most noticeably during evening commute hours, reinforcing this view. Traffic issues are complex and the city must engage with residents to find the most appropriate solutions. The city must also establish priorities and a process for equitably sharing traffic burdens. Some residents offered solutions they would like to see implemented on their street. One of the challenges with these responses is that some residents proposed solutions that only address the immediate problems near their home. They may understandably lack a comprehensive view of how a change at one location may impact safety and congestion at other locations. We believe/hope no one would take the approach of “shift the problem from my street to some other street.” In the long term that would be a no win approach since we are inevitably all in this together. We hope the results of this survey and the October Town Hall Meeting on Traffic ensure we move beyond any debate about whether traffic is an issue that must be addressed. Going forward, our city leaders must step up to the difficult task of developing solutions that will improve quality of life for residents of Palo Alto, provide convenient and safe options for people visiting Palo Alto, and work with Palo Alto businesses to encourage their substantial participation in funding solutions. 8 Many survey responders clearly said that the logical immediate step is to stop increasing the traffic burden. Below we outline some straightforward actions the City Council can take to this end. This will require perseverance and courage. The City Council must involve residents in creating, implementing and testing solutions. Key Actions for City Leadership • Pause commercial development in our business cores. • Establish realistic, fact-based traffic impact estimates for any new development. • Make traffic safety a top priority. • Revise and enforce our zoning laws: no in lieu fees, no exemptions. • Select and implement modern systems for data collection and analysis. • Look for an equitable distribution of traffic burdens. • Develop additional enforcement capabilities. • Create an open and transparent process that engages residents in addressing all traffic- related challenges. 9 Supplemental Material California Transportation by the Numbers: Meeting the state’s need for safe, smooth and efficient mobility August 2018 www.tripnet.org THE HIDDEN COSTS OF DEFICIENT ROADS Driving on California roads that are deteriorated, congested, and that lack some desirable safety features costs California drivers a total of $61 billion each year. TRIP has calculated the cost to the average motorist in the state’s largest urban areas in the form of additional vehicle operating costs (VOC) as a result of driving on rough roads, the cost of lost time and wasted fuel to congestion, and the financial cost of traffic crashes. The Key Transportation Facts table on page 3 of the report shows the San Jose urban area (including Palo Alto) trails only Los Angeles and San Francisco in the average annual costs to individual motorists due to congestion = $1,475 in vehicle operating costs (VOC). Statewide, this amounts to $29.1 Billion. Link to the report on San Jose Urban Area: TRIP Traffic Report for San Jose 2018 *Founded in 1971, TRIP of Washington, DC, is a nonprofit organization that researches, evaluates and distributes economic and technical data on surface transportation issues. 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, October 19, 2018 8:21 PM To:Council, City; De Geus, Robert Cc:Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; John Guislin; Norman H. Beamer; Mark Nadim Subject:Response to City Council Traffic Study Session Dear City Council and Staff, I offer these comments after informal consultation with over 3 dozen residents in DTN. Due to late release of the staff report, your presentation to Council has not been circulated within the neighborhood for review and comment. 1) An important step has been taken to manage traffic. Staff and council have re-structured the City organization and elevated the Transportation Department to the same level as Planning. However, this is only the first step. The new Department must be adequately staffed and supplied with the budget to fulfill its mission 2) that mission must include:  make traffic safety the top priority  adequate independent assessment of the traffic impact of Development proposals  specifying, monitoring, and enforcing the implementation of effective TMPs for major Developments and employers in the City  using modern data services and technologies to monitor traffic comprehensively across the city and the implementation and impact of Traffic Mitigation Plans and Traffic Calming/Mitigation projects, and make these data available to the public.  expeditious implementation of traffic calming measures  transparent, regular public communication of priorities, plans, and schedules, data, analysis and consultant's reports  recognize parking as a part of the traffic congestion problem and revise and enforce our zoning laws to eliminate in lieu fees, parking exemptions, etc. New buildings, new businesses, new housing must be fully parked. 3) Key success indicators for the Department must include:  reduced congestion (improved throughput) at the worst choke points in the city without increases at nearby neighborhoods or other intersections  a comprehensive assessment of the congestion patterns across the city  comprehensive traffic calming plans for the neighborhoods most impacted by commuter traffic using residential streets (as defined in the Comprehensive Plan)  implementation timelines of 3 years or less  regular, public meetings with residents to review plans, progress metrics, accomplishments (supported by data). 2 4) Many of the traffic issues that plague Palo Alto are the result of region-wide problems, but that is no excuse for inaction on those steps the City can take to mitigate the negative impact of traffic within City limits. 5) Re-convene Council Study Session April and October for the next 2 years. Let's avoid random reports such as the upcoming TMA report; let's review projects and progress systematically twice a year. Bottom line from Downtown North Neighborhood:  Traffic management for Hawthorne, Everett and Bryant requires greater attention. There is a strong consensus within DTN that these intersections are dangerous for pedestrians, bikers and motorists. Now is the time for citizens to speak up. And now is the time of city staff to manage traffic proactively. These intersections are not noted on your map of congestion and delay. They are instead safety concerns.  How will the Rail Corridor Solutions impact our neighborhood? Please respond when solutions are ironed out for southern sections of the rail corridor in Palo Alto.   Thank you.    Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Carnahan, David From:Gary Lindgren <gel@theconnection.com> Sent:Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:Railroad Grade Crossings Dear Palo Alto City Council,  Time is closing in on making the final choice for fixing the city's railroad grade crossings. So far it seems that Churchill will  be closed and maybe Palo Alto Ave. also. This means extra traffic on University and Embarcadero. Embarcadero's  underpass needs widening and University's underpass needs fixing to accommodate the increased flow. I strongly  suggest that both these underpasses be added to Aecom's tasks. Time is closing in fast and so this should be done  quickly.     I attended the October 17th Rail Committee meeting and heard that most of residents attending were looking at a  Trench solution. Council member Greg Scharff promptly made a motion to take the viaduct option off of consideration.  A trench solution requires a 2% rail grade permission from CalTrain which won't happen and the Water District says "no"  for a trench crossing the creeks which are in the path. Without a viaduct option, that means that the Tunnel is the only  option available. The question is: where is the $2 to $4 billion to pay for this going to come from. Please remove this  motion to take the viaduct option off of consideration. More discussion is required.  Thank you,  Gary Lindgren                Gary Lindgren  585 Lincoln Ave  Palo Alto CA 94301     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 2 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   1 Carnahan, David From:Gil Whalen <gwhalen92@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, October 20, 2018 9:35 PM To:Council, City Cc:city@bird.co Subject:Re: Bird Ah ‐ should make an important correction to my initial email ‐ Bird is not owned by Uber!!     ‐Gil    Sent from my iPhone    > On Oct 20, 2018, at 9:12 PM, Gil Whalen <gwhalen92@gmail.com> wrote:  >   > Hi,  >   > I am a renter/voter/resident that lives on California Avenue. I looked into becoming a charging partner for Bird, an  electric scooter rental/ride‐sharing service recently purchased by Uber and currently the #4 most downloaded travel app  on the Apple App Store (after Uber, Lyft and Yelp) and was surprised to find that Palo Alto is not one of the cities where  Bird is cleared to operate.  >   > I’m not presuming to understand or know why this might be, or to have considered what the downsides might be for  the town, but given the (1) number of out of town commuters that use the Palo Alto and California Avenue Caltrain  services that walk the “last mile” (often hurriedly) on their way to work, and (2) perhaps the potential (minor) relief it  might be able to provide from increasing city traffic/congestion, & (3) the opportunity for citizens to (moderately)  supplement their income in an easy fashion, I’d like to voice my initial support for the City’s approval of Bird to operate  in the city, and/or for the City to open an inquiry into permitting Bird to operate here if it is yet (unlikely) to do so.  >   > I’ve copied Bird’s City contact info on this message to encourage further correspondence. I also noted that Bird seems  to not yet be on Stanford’s campus (where I assume the City has limited jurisdiction), where given its expanse and  demographics, it would seem to be a natural fit.  >   > Thanks for listening and please let me know if I could help with any follow up.  >   > Best,  > Gil Whalen  1 Carnahan, David From:Matt Robinson <matt.robinson@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, October 21, 2018 5:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:California Ave Parking Frustration Dear City Council, I live in Old Palo Alto and am frustrated that as residents we are often unable to park in front of our own homes because of the spillover parking from California Ave shopping area as well as commuters who prefer not to pay for parking at the train station and thus go through the CA Ave tunnel and park in residential streets all day Monday through Friday. IT IS A SAFETY HAZARD. One of my sons was nearly hit - TWICE - while playing basketball in the front - these commuters are running late and driving well above the speed limit, screeching to a halt and running towards the train. And many of us have a one car driveway ‐ meaning we are parking a block or more away from our home ‐  carrying groceries, sports gear, kids, etc.   I've even seen commuters bring their own orange cones to block off parking spots on the streets - I've thrown those in the garbage. This must be solved - my kids are being endangered, adults are being hassled, and it obviously wasn't considered when the additional commercial development near California Ave was approved.    Thank you.  Matt Robinson  171 Washington Ave  Palo Alto CA 94301  2 Carnahan, David From:Keith Clarke <kclarke225@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, October 21, 2018 4:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cal Ave. Overflow Parking Dear City Council,    It was predictable that once parking became restricted in the Cal Ave. business district that many commuters would  choose our adjacent neighborhood for parking. Yes! So what is taking so long to come up with a solution? I live in Old  Palo Alto and am frustrated that as residents we are often unable to park in front of our own homes because of the  spillover parking from California Ave shopping area as well as commuters who prefer not to pay for parking at the train  station and thus go through the CA Ave tunnel and park in residential streets all day Monday through Friday.    For the most part, this is an aesthetic issue and a minor inconvenience for a neighborhood used to clear streets all day. It  becomes a bit more concerning when streets do not get sweeped because of all the parked cars, or when vehicles park  close to the end of my driveway and visibility backing out of the garage is restricted.     Please make sure this quality of life issue is addressed and prioritized. I understand people need to park somewhere.  Restricting parking in Old Palo Alto should at least coincide with the new garage construction in the business district.    Thank You,  Keith Clarke  3 Carnahan, David From:Ann Winkler <a.winkler@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, October 21, 2018 2:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Street Parking challenges Dear City Council,    I live in Old Palo Alto on a corner lot.  I have two storm drains on my property that require vigilance starting October  every year to keep the leaves from stopping drainage.  This last year due to on street parking from California Avenue  Train station the street cleaners can’t clean up the street for the two critical months when the leaves fall.  It now  requires I do the clean up late in the evenings or early mornings to keep up with the leaves under and around cars  parked back to back around my property.      It would be so helpful if restricted parking on street cleaning day were instituted; or better yet, restricted parking all  together to allow for me and my guests to park on the street when necessary. There is plenty of parking at the train  station, where the current behavior is merely an avoidance of paying for parking.    Please make sure this quality of life issue is addressed and prioritized.      Thank you,    Ann H Winkler  2290 Ramona Street  Palo Alto, CA 94301  5 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, October 20, 2018 6:08 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Fw: bulbs, bots, bollards ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> To: Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 5:42 PM Subject: bulbs, bots, bollards Good LTE in yesterday’s Chronicle. Apparently “creative” traffic engineers abound throughout the Bay Area. If you haven’t driven around Midtown – Ross Road, Louis Road, et al – to see what Josh Mello did before he resigned from the city staff, you absolutely must go on a sightseeing expedition. $8.7M down the drain so that Josh could try out every traffic impediment in the book! https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/letterstoeditor/article/Letters-to-the-Editor-Priorities-are-skewed- 13319123.php Regarding “Area’s roads rated as worst” (Page One, Oct. 18): As an East Bay resident, off and on, for over half a century, I’ve never witnessed so much “infrastructure” work in progress as has been taking place over the past five years. There are orange flags and busy work crews everywhere. This was purportedly fueled by large infusions of federal funding, intended to improve our roads and services. Unfortunately, most of this has gone to construct “bulbs,” “bots,” speed-humps, concrete islands, bike lanes, closed street barriers and mazes of paint — while our actual roads, pot-holed, with poorly mended service-digs, washboard kinks, rough seams, etc., are neglected. And now we’re told we must pay more taxes, again, to “fix” our roads. The problem doesn’t seem to be money, but skewed priorities. Vehicular passage is under assault, by transportation authorities which believe well-maintained roads are actually bad for society. Curtis Faville, Kensington 6 Carnahan, David From:Nahid Waleh <nwaleh@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, October 20, 2018 1:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking in the residential area Dear City Council,    I live in Old Palo Alto and am frustrated that as residents we are often unable to park in front of our own homes because  of the spillover parking from California Ave shopping area as well as commuters who prefer not to pay for parking at the  train station and thus go through the CA Ave tunnel and park in residential streets all day Monday through Friday.      (Add any personal frustrations regarding the inability to your automobile would be greatly appreciated).    Please make sure this quality of life issue is addressed and prioritized.      Thank you,  Nahid Waleh  2344 Emerson St  1 Carnahan, David From:Kellerman, Thomas W. <thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com> Sent:Sunday, October 21, 2018 7:00 PM To:De Geus, Robert Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Megan Kanne; Rachel Kellerman Subject:Rail Crossing Planning Process Attachments:Rail Committee Ltr.docx Dear Mr. de Geus:    Please see the attached letter regarding the Palo Alto rail crossing planning process.  Residents of the Professorville and  University South neighborhoods would like to arrange a meeting with the appropriate City staff to discuss the inclusion  of mitigation measures in the scope of the alternatives under consideration.  We are writing to you given that the  position formerly held by Josh Mello is currently vacant. Please feel free to contact us to arrange a time that fits within  your schedule or to identify the appropriate staff member with whom we should meet.  Thank you.    Regards,    Tom and Rachel Kellerman    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 Thomas W. Kellerman Rachel H. Kellerman 1129 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 October 19, 2018 Rob de Geus Deputy City Manager City of Palo Alto Re: Meeting Request Regarding Rail Crossing Traffic Mitigation in North Palo Alto Dear Mr. de Geus: We are writing on behalf of a group of concerned citizens to request a meeting with Palo Alto city staff concerning the incorporation of mitigation actions in the scope of the alternatives under consideration with respect to Churchill and Palo Alto Avenue rail crossings. We reside in the Professorville and University South neighborhoods of Palo Alto. We recognize fully the need to implement major revisions to the City’s rail crossing infrastructure and we support these efforts as an essential improvement to our transportation grid. However, it is equally essential that that the process of selecting which alternatives to implement be conducted in a responsible and comprehensive manner. We believe the Rail Committee and the City Council as a whole must consider all aspects of each alternative as comprehensively as possible and provide equal consideration to the needs of each impacted neighborhood. Clearly the traffic flow and infrastructure implications of each alternative under consideration will broadly impact the City’s transportation grid and the quality of life in several surrounding neighborhoods. The components of each alternative under consideration should encompass both the proposed grade crossing alterations and the attendant mitigation actions necessitated by that alteration as part of one comprehensive proposal. The full array of actions associated with each alternative need to be included in establishing the scope of that alternative. As you know, the City Council expressly required that mitigation activities be incorporated into the planning process. See their resolution linked below: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=83343.25&BlobID=65728 Presumably if the impact of a proposed grade crossing alteration cannot be adequately mitigated, either due to cost or other factors, then that alternative will need to be rejected. To develop truly comprehensive proposals will require the collection of significant amounts of data regarding current and anticipated traffic flow patterns, and an inclusive planning process. We caution the City staff, as well as the Rail Committee and the City Council, against making premature conclusions before the necessary data and other inputs have been collected. It would not be C:\Users\MP014805\Desktop\Rail Committee Ltr.docx 2 responsible to select any alternative for implementation until such time as all impacts and the required actions associated with that alternative are fully understood and incorporated into the plan. This includes reaching a determination regarding the mitigation actions that will be required by each alternative. To date we have heard very little regarding the mitigation actions under consideration with respect to the various alternatives being studied. As you are already well aware, there are no easy solutions! We welcome the opportunity to meet with any of you to provide constructive input into this planning process. We will continue to attend the Rail Committee and City Council meetings, and to provide our suggestions and concerns to the Advisory Committee. Thank you for your service and dedication to this important initiative. Sincerely, Thomas W. Kellerman Rachel H. Kellerman Cc: Palo Alto City Council Edward Shikada 1 Carnahan, David From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com> Sent:Sunday, October 21, 2018 9:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:With Regard to the Study Session Traffic in Palo Alto Attachments:Scott letter to City Council 10-21-18.pdf Dear Council Members,    I attached the following comments with respect to the topic of traffic in Palo Alto that will be the subject of  discussion at your meeting on October 22.      Thank you for taking up this important topic.      Carol Scott  Resident of Evergreen Park          ‐‐   Carol Scott  October 21, 2018 Dear City Council and Staff, I am making these comments as a resident of Evergreen Park for your consideration as you enter a study session on traffic in Palo Alto. First, I appreciate that the Staff and Council have elevated the Transportation Department to the same level as Planning. It now needs adequate staffing and budget to deal with the increasing problem of traffic in Palo Alto. Dealing with the consequences of the growing development in Palo Alto is a huge task, and the Staff need our support if they are to do the job we expect of them. Second, I would like to suggest that the increased traffic in our city is a self-inflicted wound resulting from silos in decision making regarding new construction projects and a failure to anticipate the consequences of all projects, taken as a whole, on traffic in a given area. Take the California Avenue area, for example. While any one project that has been completed, is currently in development, or is planned for this area may not add that much new traffic on its own, all of the projects taken together have, and will continue, to create a nightmare of traffic, congestion, and danger to pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. All of this development is being approved in an area that is already fairly dense with many apartments, retail businesses (which draw customers who create traffic), and office buildings. Unfortunately, the street infrastructure has not changed since California Ave was a neighborhood shopping area patronized primarily by local residents. Two intersections in this area has become insanely congested in morning and afternoon rush hours which, I believe, results in a very dangerous situation for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Neither intersection is on the Staff’s list of worst intersections. I refer specifically to Park Blvd. and Page Mill Road where motorists turn to drive under the overpass to reach Oregon Expressway going toward the 101 Freeway, and to the intersection of Park Blvd. and California Ave. At the latter, pedestrians and bicyclists from the train station and elsewhere as well as motorists struggle to make the jog past Mollie Stone’s grocery store to continue on Park Blvd. This intersection if particularly dangerous because many of the bicyclists are students who must turn left at the intersection to go through the tunnel on their way to Jordan Middle School. The first of these intersections requires motorists coming from the California Avenue side to merge to the right to make the turn to go under the overpass. At the same time, bicyclists must merge left to a center bike lane. Since Park Blvd. is now a major bike thoroughfare, there are many bicyclists using this road. Since the City has approved several new, massive office buildings in this area, there are a large number of cars that must exit somehow to Oregon Expressway, and there are a large number of pedestrians who are making their way to the train station. Someone is going to get hurt in this very small space. The City has installed a stop light at the intersection to assist cars who wish to make a left turn onto the road going under the overpass, but no one can move in the afternoons when Oregon Expressway is already jammed and there is nowhere for the cars from the California Ave. area to go. Last week, I attempted to drive from my home to Midtown for a meeting to start a 6 p.m. it took me over 30 minutes to get there. Park Blvd. was backed up to California Ave, and nothing was moving because Oregon Expressway was full. I then attempted to use El Camino to Meadow, only to find Meadow completely jammed. Third, it is unlikely that we will rebuild our streets to accommodate more traffic or that we will somehow manage to build a true mass transit system within the City. Therefore, it is imperative that we make better use of the streets that we have. II would like to suggest that construction projects, building codes, and parking are inherently connected to traffic. Construction at Stanford University is not controllable by the City, yet traffic from the large concrete mixers and other construction vehicles that travel to and from the campus negatively affect traffic in Palo Alto. We then add to that multiple projects in Palo Alto, with no one monitoring the total amount of activity going on at one time. Construction projects often result in lanes of streets being closed. One lane along Park Blvd., for example, has been closed during the day for months due to the construction of a new large office building. New developments have been approved that do not have the required loading area built into the project. Delivery trucks have no choice but to block streets. Finally, the lack of short-term parking, particularly in the California Avenue area means that more and more cars are circling until a parking spot can be found. All of this suggests that some relief could be had by better management of the existing roadway we have through coordination of project scheduling, code enforcement, and adequate parking. In short, the City must take a more integrated view of development and traffic consequences. We should not be surprised by the increase in traffic that has occurred in the last few years. We built massive office buildings, little housing, and made few improvements to the way people can come to the City or move about the City with a car. It has become the perfect storm. Sincerely, Carol Scott Evergreen Park 1 Carnahan, David From:Jay E. Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 8:22 AM To:Sharleen Fiddaman Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Cal-Train issue Thanks, Sharleen. Sorry about the mental typo of the $150,000 cost of grade separations instead of the $150 million estimate. Have you heard of anyone pushing actively for a new election on high-speed rail based on the later cost projections? Seems that $33 billion is wildly off base, and perhaps only a third of the real cost of the system. -jay From: "Sharleen Fiddaman" <sf@sharleenfiddaman.com> To: "jaythor" <jaythor@well.com> Cc: "city council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 7:23:23 PM Subject: Cal-Train issue Dear Jay Thorwaldson, I’ve been a Palo Alto resident for 50+ years and have read many of your articles. I think the Oct. 19th one in the Weekly is most important. I’m very concerned about the Cal-Train decision and our resulting quality of life in Palo Alto. When the issue of electrifying Cal-Train was first discussed many years ago, a visual presentation was made to the District Board of Realtors who met at the Senior Center on Friday mornings. This presentation had great impact! It showed drawings of options. 2 One drawing showed the electrified train, elevated 15’ over the roadway with the required 15’ tower of wires overhead. This was horrifying to see! So ugly, and dividing our fine city. This alone in any scenario, elevated or trenched, would surprise residents who probably assume the electrified train operates like an electric car – just turn a switch, not so. As is said, a picture is worth a thousand words! One drawing showed the electrified train in an underground tunnel with a green park-like field over it. A beautiful solution. Ideal. We need more open useful space. This brings to mind the wonderful modern underground parking garage at Stanford University which has a huge park over it. I’ve observed students relaxing, reading, playing Frisbee, etc. on the expansive lawn. If they can do it, Palo Alto can do it! I definitely favor the tunnel solution for Cal-Train. Major cities of the world have underground transportation. I know the argument is that it is too expensive. Palo Alto is quite affluent and could make it happen. Where there’s a will there’s a way! Please see if you can find these drawings and print them in the newspaper, and share them with study groups, city council, all media and neighboring cities. I feel that people are making decision without full information of the implications! I have not seen any renderings. It’s a permanent solution…our future! We should do it right! Sharleen Fiddaman Old Palo Alto   Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 Carnahan, David From:Sara Jablon Moked <sara.jablon@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 10:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Traffic in Downtown North Hello City Council,    I understand there is a meeting today on traffic, and I wanted to draw attention to the very dangerous intersection at  BRYANT AND EVERETT. (Similar issues for Bryant and Hawthorne as well.)    I understand and appreciate the desire to create a "bike boulevard" ‐‐ however, at present, this intersection is extremely  unsafe. Many drivers and cyclists/pedestrians riding on Everett across Bryant expect it to be a 4‐way stop, but it is not,  and the visibility up and down Bryant is very poor due to the very short red curb.    I've frequently seen near‐accidents there, and I personally, as a pedestrian, was once hit by a bicycle there assuming that  I would stop. As a driver, I must inch forward into Bryant because I simply cannot see if bicycles or cars are coming. I've  seen cars swerve around vehicles that were stopped at the stop‐sign on Everett, thinking that the Bryant traffic would  stop as well. I'm terrified a serious accident will occur here. A simple four‐way stop would alleviate this issue.    Again, in concept the bike boulevard is nice idea, however there are lights at Lytton, University, and Hamilton anyway,  so the bikes have to slow down plenty (I've frequently noticed this when I bike myself on Bryant, and in fact I often  prefer to bike on other streets like Webster that have less traffic), so I don't see why adding a stop‐sign here would be a  big issue for cyclists. Or at a minimum a much longer red curb is necessary to increase visibility. For now it's just so  dangerous!    Thanks for your consideration.    Best,  Sara Moked  360 Everett Ave, Apt 4A  Palo Alto    2 Carnahan, David From:Michael Hodos <mehodos@mac.com> Sent:Sunday, October 21, 2018 10:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Council Town Hall Meeting Re: Traffic - Unnoticed Impact City Council Members:    Please note that one completely overlooked indicator of the traffic overload is that ~!0 residential blocks in the RPP zones adjacent to the downtown area are now once again routinely fully parked up throughout the work week. In other words, the traffic overload has simply overwhelmed the original intent of RPP and the meager staff currently allocated to manage it.     One question to ask the Transportation Department is, “When will the new RPP stakeholder process be convened to address this issue?" Clearly it would be best if city staff re-engages this process sooner rather than later.  Thanks you! Michael Hodos mehodos@mac.com 944 Bryant Styreet RPP Zone 7     3 Carnahan, David From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com> Sent:Sunday, October 21, 2018 9:54 PM To:Council, City Cc:Paul Machado; Wolfgang Dueregger; Neilson Buchanan; Carol Scott Subject:New Parking Garage for California Ave. Dear Council Members,    My neighbors, local business owners, and I appreciate the support of the majority of the City Council for the  new parking garage in the California Avenue business district.  I understand that financing arrangements have  been approved and that bids are, or shortly will be solicited, with construction to take place in 2019.  The new  garage, as well as the recently established Zone G along El Camino Real for employee parking permits, should  be a great benefit to the businesses, employees, and customers in the California Avenue district.    Given the reality of the new garage, my neighbors and I would like to ask the Council to adopt a formal policy  that the number of employee permits sold in the residential areas surrounding the California Ave area, i.e.,  Evergreen Park and Mayfield, will be reduced when the garage opens.  This would be in line with the  Comprehensive Plan which states that the City wishes to foster commercial development, but not at the  expense of the quality of life in residential areas.  Employee parking in residential areas increases traffic and  decreases safety.    The residents of Evergreen Park supported the proposed garage because of our desire to move commercial  parking back to where it belongs, i.e., in the commercial area.  However, we have heard that there may be  plans to used the new garage as a reason why new commercial projects in this area would be approved for  construction without parking adequate for their needs.  In other words, the new garage would be used as a  gift for new developments, and not to ease the need for parking by current businesses.  This cannot be  tolerated.      The new garage is being paid for with general tax dollars.  It should serve the public interest, and not be a free  gift to developers.  It is time that those who construct commercial and residential buildings in Palo Alto at  least pay for the needs of the occupants of those buildings.  I am in favor of also asking these developers to  pay at least a portion of the costs of new services, infrastructure, etc. that they create, but a bare minimum,  developers should not be allowed to free‐load on the City for parking that can and should be included in the  projects themselves.      As plans for the garage proceed, my neighbors and I may present a formal request for such action to move  commercial parking from the residential areas to the commercial zone.      Thank you for your consideration.      Carol Scott  Evergreen Park    ‐‐   1 Carnahan, David From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 3:16 PM To:Carrasco, Tony; 'nadia naik' Cc:Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; 'Eileen Goodwin'; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; christine.logan@gmail.com; dshenster@gmail.com; greg@brail.org; inyoungcho0@gmail.com; karihodgson@gmail.com; 'Mandar Borkar'; kanne.megan@gmail.com; parag@virtunetsystems.com; patlau2010@gmail.com; 'Phil Burton'; Levin, Adina; 'Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis' Subject:RE: URGENT: The Importance of resolving Caltrain Clearance Issues Understanding water table constraints is equally important to choosing the best and most cost effective grade sep option. We can’t be the only city with this problem. From: Tony Carrasco [mailto:tony@carrasco.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 3:12 PM To: nadia naik Cc: City Council; Keene, James; ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org; Robert De Geus; Eileen Goodwin; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; christine.logan@gmail.com; dshenster@gmail.com; greg@brail.org; inyoungcho0@gmail.com; karihodgson@gmail.com; Mandar Borkar; kanne.megan@gmail.com; parag@virtunetsystems.com; patlau2010@gmail.com; Phil Burton; Adina Levin; Penny Ellson; Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis Subject: Re: URGENT: The Importance of resolving Caltrain Clearance Issues Bravo Nadia! Clearance dimensions, height and width, is one of the most significant cost reduction and Design feel benefits from keeping the roadway flat for bikes and Pedestrians and on top of the rail. On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, At the last rail committee meeting, a draft letter to Caltrain was circulated that deals with a number of question the City wants to ask Caltrain. We know this letter will be sent soon. Attached is a detailed letter relating to the Caltrain vertical clearance (height) issue along the corridor. We would ask that you consider our letter before sending your response to Caltrain as it gives important additional information we have not discussed previously. Thanks for your attention to this. If you have any questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Nadia Naik Co-Founder, CARRD 3 Carnahan, David From:Phil Burton <philip-b@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 3:33 PM To:Penny Ellson Cc:Carrasco, Tony; nadia naik; Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Eileen Goodwin; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; christine.logan@gmail.com; dshenster@gmail.com; greg@brail.org; inyoungcho0@gmail.com; karihodgson@gmail.com; Mandar Borkar; kanne.megan@gmail.com; parag@virtunetsystems.com; patlau2010@gmail.com; Levin, Adina; Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis Subject:Re: URGENT: The Importance of resolving Caltrain Clearance Issues Should not this letter to Caltrain also raise the issue of maximum grades, the requested 2% instead of the current 1%. Phil Burton Sent from my iPad On Oct 22, 2018, at 3:16 PM, Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> wrote: Understanding water table constraints is equally important to choosing the best and most cost effective grade sep option. We can’t be the only city with this problem. From: Tony Carrasco [mailto:tony@carrasco.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 3:12 PM To: nadia naik Cc: City Council; Keene, James; ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org; Robert De Geus; Eileen Goodwin; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; christine.logan@gmail.com; dshenster@gmail.com; greg@brail.org; inyoungcho0@gmail.com; karihodgson@gmail.com; Mandar Borkar; kanne.megan@gmail.com; parag@virtunetsystems.com; patlau2010@gmail.com; Phil Burton; Adina Levin; Penny Ellson; Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis Subject: Re: URGENT: The Importance of resolving Caltrain Clearance Issues Bravo Nadia! Clearance dimensions, height and width, is one of the most significant cost reduction and Design feel benefits from keeping the roadway flat for bikes and Pedestrians and on top of the rail. On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, At the last rail committee meeting, a draft letter to Caltrain was circulated that deals with a number of question the City wants to ask Caltrain. We know this letter will be sent soon. Attached is a detailed letter relating to the Caltrain vertical clearance (height) issue along the corridor. 4 We would ask that you consider our letter before sending your response to Caltrain as it gives important additional information we have not discussed previously. Thanks for your attention to this. If you have any questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Nadia Naik Co-Founder, CARRD www.calhsr.com -- Tony Carrasco CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES http://www.carrasco.com/ 1885 El Camino Real, Palo Alto CA 94306 650-322-2288 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office preautomatic download of this picture from the Intern Virus-free. www.avg.com   Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Responses to Comments Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Final EIR 3-52 December 2014 ICF 00606.12 However, Caltrain, in cooperation with local jurisdictions, transportation funding agencies, and state 1 and federal agencies, will support grade separations at locations of cumulative traffic impacts over 2 time as funding becomes available. Caltrain will also work with local, state, and federal partners to 3 establish priorities for roadway improvements and grade separations to be implemented as funding 4 becomes available. This may also include working with local jurisdictions that are pursuing grade 5 separation projects on their own to ensure that the Proposed Project, to the extent possible, does 6 not create conflicts with future grade separation efforts. Finally, Caltrain will also work with other 7 rail parties to seek funding participation from multiple sources as opportunities arise. 8 For more detail on grade separations and grade crossings, see Section 3.6.6.1 and Section 3.6.7.2 of 9 Appendix D to the Draft EIR. 10 3.1.11 Master Response 11 – Freight 11 This Master Response addresses the following comments: 12 z A number of commenters raise concerns about the effect of the PCEP on freight operations and 13 systems, as well as potential secondary effects of freight operational changes. 14 z Commenters raised concern about the PCEP effect on existing vertical clearances in constrained 15 areas such as tunnels and bridges, which could restrict the height of freight equipment. 16 z Commenters raised concern that with temporal separation, the PCEP would constrain freight 17 operational windows to the midnight to 5 a.m. period, which they assert would restrict freight 18 operations and result in diversion of freight from rail to truck modes, which would in turn result 19 in secondary effects on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and traffic. 20 z Commenters also raised concern that the EMF levels from the PCEP OCS would interfere with 21 the freight signal system and result in safety concerns. 22 z Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) requested that the PCEP not electrify MT-1 south of CP Coast. 23 z Finally, Union Pacific asserts that the PCEP would not comply with the Trackage Rights 24 Agreement (TRA) between Union Pacific and the PCJPB in regards to the TRA-specified vertical 25 clearances, the daytime operational window, and electrifying MT-1 and that the project 26 description should be changed to include a project consistent with the TRA. 27 Vertical Clearances 28 Regarding vertical clearances, there are currently clearance constraints resulting from existing 29 bridges and tunnels which limit types of freight equipment that can utilize the corridor. The four San 30 Francisco tunnels have the lowest existing vertical clearance between San Jose and San Francisco. 31 The JPB analyzed the vertical clearances with the PCEP and determined that with minor 32 modifications of several tunnels and lowering of the tracks at several bridges existing freight 33 equipment used on the Caltrain corridor can continue to be used on the corridor to serve existing 34 customers without any constraint. A table showing all of the existing vertical clearances, the existing 35 height of freight equipment, and the vertical clearances with the Proposed Project have been added 36 to the Final EIR. 37 For cumulative impacts involving vertical clearances, it is possible that freight operators may desire 38 to operate with higher equipment than being used at present, but which could be operated on the 39 Caltrain corridor today. A table showing all of the existing vertical clearances, the existing effective 40 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Responses to Comments Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Final EIR 3-53 December 2014 ICF 00606.12 vertical clearance, the existing height of freight equipment, the vertical clearances with the Proposed 1 Project and the cumulative impacts on vertical clearances has been added to the Final EIR. As shown 2 in the analysis, there would be a constraint on operating equipment at certain locations south of 3 Bayshore (MP 5.10). Feasible mitigation has been identified to maintain existing effective vertical 4 clearances south of the Butterhouse Spur (MP 41.4) such that with mitigation, no cumulative 5 impacts would occur. With the PCEP, from the Butterhouse Spur to Bayshore, all train heights 6 (including freight) would be limited to a maximum height of 19.11’ due to the constraint at the San 7 Francisquito Bridge. Currently, the effective vertical clearance from the Butterhouse Spur to 8 Bayshore is 21.05’, which is the clearance at the San Francisquito Bridge. The highest equipment 9 used on this section at present is 18.92’. Thus, the Proposed Project would not limit the use of 10 existing equipment, but would limit the hypothetical future use of Plate H freight cars (nominal 11 height of 20.25’) in this section. From the south up to the Butterhouse Spur, Plate H railcars could be 12 used with the cumulative mitigation identified in the EIR. 13 In the Draft EIR, Cumulative Mitigation Measure TR-CUMUL-3 specifies that the JPB would work 14 with UPRR to restore existing effective vertical clearances where actually needed to support future 15 freight needs. The JPB reviewed the feasibility of replacing or modifying the San Francisquito bridge 16 to provide such effective vertical clearance and found that major modification of the San 17 Franciscquito Bridge was not feasible due to (1) the overall cost of bridge replacement, estimated as 18 $48 million; (2) the need to construct a shoofly track and temporary bridge while the current bridge 19 is modified/replaced which would have substantial disruption to both passenger and freight 20 operations as well as additional impact on the riparian corridor along the creek; and (3) the 21 environmental and operational disruption was not justified in order to provide a vertical clearance 22 height that is not being used by current freight traffic (Caltrain 2014 – Vertical Clearance memo). 23 Although the PCEP would limit the maximum vertical height of freight to approximately 19 feet 24 (instead of a nominal 20.25’ clearance for Plate H), which is a theoretical constraint to future freight 25 operations, this is not considered a significant physical environmental effect because (1) existing 26 freight has been operating successfully on this route using equipment less than 19 feet high; (2) the 27 additional freight that could utilize slightly higher freight railcars can in most cases be placed in the 28 18.92’ railcars in use on the corridor today; (3) a few additional railcars on some freight consists 29 would not substantially change environmental conditions for air quality, greenhouse gas emissions 30 or regional traffic. As a result, although the slight lowering of allowable heights would limit the 31 future ability to run Plate H from MP 41.4 to MP 5.10, this is not considered to result in a significant 32 physical environmental effect related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions or regional traffic. 33 However, in a cumulative setting with potential increases in future freight service and freight 34 equipment height, there is the possibility of limited amounts of diversion of freight (such as special 35 deliveries that might work with 20’ of clearance but not 19’ of clearance) that might have localized 36 effects on noise or traffic, depending on the actual haul route and the EIR discloses this as a 37 potentially significant and unavoidable impact. 38 Operational Windows and Temporal Separation 39 Freight today operates both during the day and during the night including approximately 3 round 40 trips (6 trains) per weekday north of Santa Clara. The Draft EIR project description assumed that 41 temporal separation would be required pursuant to the existing FRA Waiver. However, as noted in 42 footnote 4 on page ES-9 and footnote 7 on page 2-11, the following: 43 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Responses to Comments Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Final EIR 3-62 December 2014 ICF 00606.12 description has been changed to eliminate electrify MT-1 as requested by Union Pacific. This project 1 change would not result in any new environmental impacts as it would result in a slight reduction in 2 the amount of construction, operations would be the same as studied in the Draft EIR, and the South 3 Terminal Phase III project was previously cleared environmentally and approved. 4 Trackage Rights Agreement Issues 5 Union Pacific raised concerns in its comment letter on the Draft EIR that the PCEP, as proposed in 6 the Draft EIR, would not comply with the TRA requirements in three areas concerning: 1) provision 7 of the vertical height clearances described in the TRA; 2) the daytime operation window 8 requirement in the TRA; and 3) and electrification of MT-1. Union Pacific asserts that the Draft EIR 9 must be revised to examine the environmental consequence if the Proposed Project is altered to 10 avoid conflict with the TRA. Union Pacific also states that the cumulative analysis is deficient 11 because Union Pacific holds the intercity passenger rights on the Caltrain corridor and has not yet 12 granted them to CHSRA for future high-speed intercity operations on the Caltrain corridor. 13 The TRA was negotiated between the JPB and Union Pacific's predecessor in interest, Southern 14 Pacific Transportation Company, in 1991, with the understanding and expectation that passenger 15 service would increase over time and could ultimately restrict freight operations. The TRA was filed 16 with the Interstate Commerce Commission (predecessor of the Surface Transportation Board) as 17 part of an approval process. Over time, passenger service has increased steadily due, in part, to 18 significant public investment in the corridor. Since 1991, substantial capital investments in the 19 corridor have been made by the JPB, including track improvements, station improvements, 20 technology enhancements, and grade separations, all as required to support expansion of passenger 21 service as contemplated by the TRA. 22 Project TRA Issues 23 As noted above, Caltrain has decided to not electrify MT-1 and this is no longer a TRA concern. The 24 remainder of this response addresses the other TRA issues raised by Union Pacific. 25 The JPB acknowledges that Union Pacific holds certain legal rights under the terms of the TRA and 26 the Draft EIR takes specific note of those rights (See Draft EIR pp. 2-1 and 3.14-65). To the extent, if 27 at all, that the Proposed Project may cause a variance from those rights requiring Union Pacific's 28 consent, the JPB will engage with Union Pacific to negotiate an amendment to those provisions or, if 29 necessary, seek other legal remedies to effect modifications of the agreement (as discussed below). 30 The JPB looks forward to engaging in good faith negotiations with Union Pacific regarding these 31 issues, in keeping with past practice when issues of interest or concern to either party have arisen 32 under the TRA. 33 As respects Section 2.10 of the TRA, the Proposed Project assumes that certain vertical clearances 34 would need to be reduced in order to accommodate overhead catenary wires. However, as described 35 above, these changes would not affect Union Pacific’s ability to operate trains of a height currently 36 and historically (last 8 years) utilized on the corridor. Although the changes may slightly limit the 37 ability of Union Pacific to operate trains in the future with a higher vertical profile than present 38 trains, there has been no documentation of a proposal to operate such equipment on the part of 39 Union Pacific. The JPB acknowledges that to implement revised clearances, the TRA would need to 40 be amended by mutual agreement. 41 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Responses to Comments Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Final EIR 3-63 December 2014 ICF 00606.12 As discussed above, based upon the premise that the Federal Railroad Administration will render a 1 determination that temporal separation of freight trains and passenger operations using non-2 compliant rail vehicles will not be required, the Proposed Project would not affect the daily freight 3 window provided for under Section 4.3 of the TRA. Because temporal separation is no longer part of 4 the project description for the Final EIR, the daily freight operational window can be maintained, 5 and no TRA conflict should exist. 6 The Union Pacific comment quotes from the trial court's decision in the Town of Atherton v. 7 California High-Speed Rail Authority case, a decision with no legal precedential value, in which the 8 court rejected a Final Program EIR for failure to address the potential impacts if Union Pacific’s right 9 of way were not available for use by the HSR project. The comment states that the Draft EIR must be 10 revised to reflect a project that maintains the overhead clearances and daytime freight window, or 11 alternatively if JPB is not able to modify the TRA, a re-evaluation of Proposed Project impacts is 12 required. The circumstances with regard to the Proposed Project are quite different than those at 13 issue in the Atherton case. Here the Proposed Project's sponsor owns the corridor and Union 14 Pacific's rights are governed by an agreement whose terms contemplate changed conditions 15 resulting from increases in passenger service, as well as capital investments to enhance passenger 16 service involving changed technology, such as the conversion of a diesel propulsion system to an 17 electrified one as contemplated by the Proposed Project. Union Pacific's predecessor willingly 18 entered into the TRA recognizing freight operations would be modified from time to time, and, in an 19 extraordinary circumstance, potentially terminated if necessary to accommodate passenger service 20 upgrades (See TRA Section 8.3).25 Thus, the TRA contains certain assumptions and protocols 21 regarding modifications of the relationship over time. The JPB anticipates engaging in good faith 22 negotiations with Union Pacific regarding these issues. 23 Because the TRA anticipates that changes to accommodate passenger service needs and JPB 24 negotiations with Union Pacific will resolve the vertical clearance issue by amending the TRA, the 25 EIR project description is adequate under CEQA as it describes a project that can be legally built, 26 taking into account the TRA requirements and amendment provisions. 27 Thus, there is no need to change the project description to include a project variant that provides for 28 TRA vertical clearances or to change the EIR impact analysis to consider potential environmental 29 impacts that might occur in order to provide such TRA clearances. 30 Cumulative Analysis TRA Issues Raised by Union Pacific 31 Union Pacific also states in its comment letter that development of the blended system on the 32 Caltrain corridor would impair Union Pacific's rights under the TRA, intruding into the midnight to 5 33 am freight and intercity rail window and also conflicting with Union Pacific's exclusive rights to 34 operate intercity rail. 35 Since the PCEP does not propose intercity rail or impairment of the TRA operational windows, as 36 such, this comment is only relevant to Blended Service cumulative impacts. 37 25 Failing agreement between Union Pacific and the JPB on the TRA issues, the JPB has the legal right to seek abandonment of freight rights under the TRA without Union Pacific objection or opposition. Caltrain is not proposing to seek abandonment at this time as it presumes that this issue can be negotiated between the parties to the TRA. As discussed in the analysis above, freight operations can continue and be compatible with the Proposed Project using the project-proposed vertical heights. Consequently, the EIR does not analyze potential abandonment of freight operations along the Caltrain corridor. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Responses to Comments Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Final EIR 3-64 December 2014 ICF 00606.12 With regard to intercity rights, the TRA contemplates that additional parties may seek to share the 1 right of way to provide intercity passenger service and requires the parties to negotiate with such 2 third parties in good faith (Section 2.7(b)). Caltrain does not propose to operate intercity rail under 3 Blended Service. At this time, according to the 2014 Business Plan, CHSRA does propose to use the 4 Caltrain Corridor as part of Blended Service. Caltrain does not dispute that UPRR retains intercity 5 passenger rail service rights. If high-speed intercity rail operations are to occur along the Caltrain 6 corridor, then CHSRA would need to obtain intercity passenger rail rights from Union Pacific. Given 7 that current CHSRA plans are to operate in the Caltrain Corridor, it is appropriate that the PCEP EIR 8 conceptually analyze Blended Service operations in the Caltrain Corridor. If CHSRA is not able to 9 obtain the intercity passenger rights to operate in the Caltrain Corridor, then there would be no 10 Blended Service on the tracks that Caltrain shares with freight today. In concept, CHSRA would then 11 be required to operate on separate tracks from those covered by the TRA, which may have different 12 environmental impacts than the proposed Blended Service. This issue is more appropriately 13 addressed in the project-level environmental analysis of high-speed rail operations on the Caltrain 14 Corridor. It would be highly speculative for the JPB to analyze an alternative high-speed rail system 15 for the corridor that has neither been designed nor is proposed by CHSRA at time in the cumulative 16 analysis for the PCEP EIR. The JPB has analyzed cumulative impacts based on the current Blended 17 Service concept (as well as the other cumulative projects) at this time; if any subsequent change in 18 the Blended Service concept is ultimately considered, this is best addressed in the separate 19 environmental review process for Blended Service. 20 With regard to the midnight to 5 a.m. TRA window for freight and intercity operations, the EIR 21 cumulative analysis included potential high-speed rail operations up until 12:30 a.m. This issue is 22 similar to that above discussed for intercity passenger rail operations. Unless CHSRA obtains the 23 intercity passenger service rights, it could not operate on the trackage for which Union Pacific 24 retains the intercity passenger service rights including up until 12:30 a.m. The JPB has appropriately 25 analyzed conceptual Blended Service as proposed by CHSRA at this time. To attempt to complete a 26 project-level analysis at this time without further planning and specific design would be highly 27 speculative and premature. 28 The cumulative analysis in the EIR has been revised to describe the TRA issues described above, but 29 the addition of this information has not resulted in the identification of any new or substantially 30 more severe cumulatively significant impacts than disclosed in the Draft EIR. 31 3.1.12 Master Response 12 – Recirculation 32 Some commenters assert that the Draft EIR requires changes to the analysis and that those changes 33 would result in identification of greater impacts than disclosed in the Draft EIR and, thus, that the 34 Draft EIR must be partially or entirely recirculated for an additional period of public comment. In 35 addition, the JPB has made a number of changes to the EIR in response to comment, some of which 36 change the EIR analysis. 37 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation or part of all of a Draft EIR is only 38 required when specific criteria are met: 39 (a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to 40 the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under 41 Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can 42 include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other 43 information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a 44 October 22, 2018 Subject: The Importance of resolving Caltrain Clearance Issues Dear City Council Members, As has been discussed at several meetings, the cost of grade separations is driven in large part by the engineering assumptions used to calculate the alternatives. The following email lays out the issue of the vertical clearances to help the City understand: who makes the rules, how UP and Caltrain made a critical decision during the EIR process which has changed freight operations on the Peninsula and how Palo Alto (and other Peninsula cities along the corridor) have an opportunity to significantly reduce the cost of grade separations by working with Caltrain and State officials on key issues. What are Vertical Clearances and who sets them? The vertical clearances of the train are set by CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) General Order 26-D - which require a standard vertical clearance of 24.5 ft. However, as has been mentioned several times before, the current freight operations on the Peninsula operate with a lower clearance level. It is important to note that agencies such as BART (reference here, section 5.4) and LA Metro have previously received waivers to have lower vertical clearances. Electrified trains operate with much lower clearance levels in other parts of the United States and across the world. The Caltrain EIR describes the compromise made between UP and Caltrain In the Draft EIR for Caltrain Electrification, Caltrain explained that in order to electrify the historic bridge (1902) that goes over San Francisquito Creek in Palo Alto, it would need to hang the wires from the bridge itself. Union Pacific objected to Caltrain saying it would limit their ability in the future to run taller freight on the corridor because it would impact the vertical clearance levels (height). The current clearance of the historic bridge is 21’ 3". The addition of wires would reduce the clearance levels by two feet. This would still be sufficient for the tallest freight trains currently in use, which are 18.92 ft, but preclude Plate H (double-stack) freight trains between San Francisco and Santa Clara. The EIR considered alterations to the San Francisquito Bridge to increase clearance levels but determined such changes were infeasible. This finding was approved by the Caltrain board and reviewed by the California Transportation Commission. From the EIR (underlined for emphasis): “ Due to the cost and environmental impact associated with replacement of the San Francisquito Bridge, it is considered infeasible for Caltrain to fully mitigate this minor lowering of vertical clearance heights.” CARRD letter: The Importance of resolving Caltrain Clearance Issues 2 At the time the Draft EIR was released, UP signed a "Tolling Agreement" with Caltrain which preserved the right to sue over the EIR if they were unable to come to an agreement over the issue. UP and Caltrain have subsequently settled the issue through a series of agreements. UP, in signing the agreements with Caltrain, has effectively agreed not to run any freight requiring a clearance level greater than 19 feet between San Francisco and Lawrence (SJ). This is described in detail in the Final EIR responses available here: http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/V.2+Ch+3+Responses+t o+comments.pdf. The key concept in the responses from Caltrain is this: “Although the PCEP would limit the maximum vertical height of freight to approximately 19 feet (instead of a nominal 20.25’ clearance for Plate H), which is a theoretical constraint to future freight operations, this is not considered a significant physical environmental effect because (1) existing freight has been operating successfully on this route using equipment less than 19 feet high; (2) the additional freight that could utilize slightly higher freight railcars can in most cases be placed in the 18.92’ railcars in use on the corridor today; (3) a few additional railcars on some freight consists would not substantially change environmental conditions for air quality, greenhouse gas emissions or regional traffic. As a result, although the slight lowering of allowable heights would limit the future ability to run Plate H from MP 41.4 to MP 5.101, this is not considered to result in a significant physical environmental effect related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions or regional traffic. “ How does the agreement between UP and Caltrain affect freight operations on the Peninsula? The EIR makes it clear that UP will not run taller freight, however, the CPUC vertical clearance rule still impacts grade separation requirements. As mentioned above, CPUC has granted waivers to BART and LA Metro and we propose that Caltrain should request a waiver for the Peninsula given that the issue has largely been settled between the freight operator and Caltrain. Additionally, the new UP/Caltrain agreements are for an independent short-haul operator to carry the freight on the Peninsula. How does the Vertical Clearance rule affect design alternatives for grade separations and their cost? A key requirement for future grade separations is the very high vertical clearance level. Every additional foot of clearance required for a trench, deepens and lengthens the trench. In some cases, like in the hybrid for Meadow/Charleston where the train is in a trench and the road goes over the train, it requires raising the road to be able to make it work. If the clearance were lowered, however, the road would not need to be modified. 1 MP = milepost. MP 5.1 is Bayshore (just North of South San Francisco station) and MP41.4 is Butterhouse Spur (just South of Lawrence in Santa Clara) - Palo Alto is MP 30.1. CARRD letter: The Importance of resolving Caltrain Clearance Issues 3 Reducing the clearance significantly decreases the costs. Below is the reduction in structure length from lowering required vertical heights.2 Required Clearance 1% Grade 2% Grade 23 feet 300 feet shorter 150 feet shorter 21 feet 500 feet shorter 250 feet shorter 18 feet 1300 feet shorter 650 feet shorter In Palo Alto, changing the vertical clearance would represent significant cost savings for the Meadow/Charleston shallow trench option. The current preliminary design by AECOM for the shallow trench would require raising Meadow and Charleston by about 4 ft. If the requirement for vertical clearance was lowered from 24.5 ft to 19ft - the roads could potentially be left intact - which would represent huge cost savings AND would greatly shorten construction impacts and associated costs. In Palo Alto, due to the land takes that would be necessary, we are NOT considering putting the road fully over the rail, but in cities that will be doing that, reducing the clearance levels would make it cheaper and less impactful. Palo Alto can play a leadership role to help the region by advocating broadly Historically, grade separations were built by cities mostly to improve road traffic. However, now that Caltrain is being electrified, grade separations are vital for Caltrain to run a better schedule with more trains more safely. During rush hour, Caltrain currently carries the equivalent of two lanes of traffic in each direction on the 101. Caltrain is working on their business plan, and is anticipating doubling their service. Caltrain’s service expansion is vital for Palo Alto and the region to ease congestion. The impacts of running more trains and increased traffic will necessitate grade separations or closures at all locations along the Caltrain corridor. As Palo Alto considers the alternatives going forward, it should be doing everything it can to work with Caltrain, state legislators and, if needed, CPUC, to seek clearance waivers for the corridor. On page 3-51 of the full document Caltrain writes (bolding mine): The  decision  to  grade  separate  an  intersection  is  primarily  a  matter  of  economics.  As   such,  when  making  such  a  decision,  the  agencies  and  jurisdictions  involved  should   evaluate  the  costs  and  benefits  closely.  In  order  to  make  such  a  decision,  a  detailed   investigation  should  be  carried  out,  including  a  physical  feasibility  study,  consideration  of   land  use  access,  environmental,  safety,  and  other  relevant  concerns.20 Overall,  grade  separations  are  a  highly  expensive  mitigation  strategy.  Caltrain  has  supported   past  and  present  grade  separation  projects  and  will  support  future  efforts  for  grade   separation  where  acceptable  to  local  communities  and  where  local,  state,  and  federal   funding  can  be  secured  to  fund  these  improvements  (e.g.,  the  San  Bruno  Grade  Separation   Project).   The Palo Alto City council should heavily lobby Caltrain and state representatives on this issue. If the remaining 41 grade separations along the corridor are not completed, Palo Alto will not be 2 The savings may be greater because shorter structures may avoid obstacles like creeks. 1 Carnahan, David From:Alice Jacobs <aquayellow@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 3:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Safety Concerns during major projects Attachments:LED-Flash-Warning-Solar-Light-Solar-Traffic-Stop-Sign-1208591.jpg Dear City Council, I am unable to attend the meeting tonight because I am a mom and my children need me tonight.  However, I have some concerns regarding the new parking structure that is going up on Sherman Ave.    My main concern during another large construction project in our area is the safety of pedestrians and bikers especially  since another high amount of large dump trucks will be passing through and roads blocked.     Just the Stanford project has hindered us from getting to Escondido for school due to the 10‐20 dump trucks that pack El  Camino in the morning often barreling through stoplights and blocking intersections.     With the 2555 Park Blvd construction I've seen many near misses including with my daughter as we were biking home  from school, for poor lane management. You have to be on each crew and keep them in check, and then another crew  will come. It really is a huge impact on surrounding residents.     Better traffic calming on Park blvd between Cal Ave and Olive Ave. Cars speed excessively along here. It's a bike blvd  and I often see little caution or yielding to bikers.     I suggest the pedestrian crosswalk at Sherman is more prevalent with lights.    I also suggest an education to drivers about watching for bikers. For example: My husband and I always, look over our  right shoulder for a biker before making a right turn, look over left shoulder before getting out of parking car.    Cal Ave safety  Share the road signs, along with a speed limit sign. I drive no more than 15‐20mph if ever driving down Cal Ave. I've  been honked and sworn at by drives as I've biked down Cal Ave. with my children mind you and they have been put in  danger.    Larger Stop signs with solar powered lights (which I seen throughout the country as I road trip with the kids during the  summer.) They are effective and an example is below.    My questions, how do you expect traffic to subside with new parking garages, Remember Field of Dreams? If you build it  they will come?     My children and I bike most everywhere however, how to you expect us to feel safe when we encounter so many near  misses.     This city feels a bit schizophrenic with the increased developments and parking garages which encourage more drivers  yet, you want more bikers?    Also, be in mind that after all of these projects that are planned for the Cal Ave area are finished us local Mayfield  residents will have endured major construction for OVER A DECADE! It's OVER THE TOP! Slow down and let us enjoy our  city without so many constant diversions and noise. Show the locals some respect.     2 I am trying my best to be involved while raising good, kind mindful children who I worry about every day as we leave our  house on our 2 wheelers.    Off to attend to children haven't had a chance to proof read. Thanks for considering my thoughts.    cheers,  Alice      1 Carnahan, David From:Peter Phillips <pkphillips@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 4:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:Transportation Issues - Message for Consideration for Monday 10/22 Transportation Discussion To the Honorable Palo Alto City Council,    I am writing to you tonight as I cannot attend the discussion on transportation issues Palo Alto is facing, but it seems there has been a recent focus on solving transportation congestion and throughput - which is only a part of the issue. We not only have to help resolve problems within our city limits, but we have to the challenges of working thru and waiting until issues are resolved outside our city - like the Willow interchange construction and the timing of the light on University Ave from Woodland further east.    I would like to ask the council to consider the following:     Our Safe Routes to School Program: Driving a child to school adds four car trips per day (one in and one out in the morning and one and one out in the afternoon). On average, more than 4,000 kids per day bike to school during the morning peak hour and afternoon (not to mention walkers). That’s a lot of potential car trips eliminated!   Our recently updated Comprehensive Plan (approved by this Council) outlines thoughtful goals, policies and programs to manage the challenging traffic problems of our community by placing a strong emphasis on alternatives to driving solo. We should stay the course.   Creating complete streets and transportation options (including improved transit and rideshare options) for all people of all ages and abilities reduces traffic congestion and creates a safer, friendlier community.    Please follow through on the commitment to implement the bicycle and pedestrian projects that have been approved. These will provide much-needed safety improvements to increase walking and bicycling. Please remember that transit users generally walk or bike their last mile, so these improvements help transit riders too. In addition, while I understand the need for parking at our new public and safety building is required, please consider modifications to the parking garage so we are not spending $120,000 per net new parking space. If you want to support the N CA Ave merchants and restaurants for that 1.5 hrs during the workday, please consider other alternatives such as implementing TDM measures in that area and giving them a change to work, a shuttle service during lunch, even paying for Uber/Lyft rides instead of spending an exorbitant amount on a new parking structure - that is likely going to be obsolete before it's finished.    Thank you for considering my opinions.    - Peter Phillips  434 Guinda St  Palo Alto, CA  2 Carnahan, David From:Christine Selberg <christineselberg@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 4:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Council Hall Meeting on Traffic Dear City Council Members. I have lived in my home at 281 Everett Ave0. (Intersection of Bryant Street) for 25 years. My children rode their bikes to all the local schools and I have witnessed a huge increase in traffic during the time that I have lived in Palo Alto. I was very upset over the recent proposed project of using bulb-outs to slow down traffic. I witnessed during gardening the confusion, safety issues and “mess” created during that the temporary stage. I believe the City got enough feedback that this was not a viable solution. I and many of my neighbors believe that a 4-way stop would be the best solution at this intersection. There are 4-way stops on Bryant at Channing, Homer, and Forest before the signal lights at Hamilton, University and Lytton. There was a traffic study done of the Everett/Bryant intersection I believe a couple of years ago. We would need to find the study for exact numbers, but it was something like 200 cars per hour at least— It is a busy intersection. The intersection at N. Middlefield was made safer and probably reduced traffic some, however safety of pedestrians, bikers, and motorists. continues to be an issue at the Everett/Bryant intersection. An important step has been taken to manage traffic. Staff and council have re-structured the City organization and elevated the Transportation Department to the same level as Planning. However, this is only the first step. The new Department must be adequately staffed and supplied with the budget to fulfill its mission  management for Hawthorne, Everett and Bryant requires greater attention. There is a strong consensus within DTN that these intersections are dangerous for pedestrians, bikers and motorists. Now is the time for citizens to speak up. And now is the time of city staff to manage traffic proactively. These intersections are not noted on your map of congestion and delay. They are instead safety concerns.  How will the Rail Corridor Solutions impact our neighborhood? Please respond when solutions are ironed out for southern sections of the rail corridor in Palo Alto.  I have other commitments and will not be able to attend much or any of the meeting tonight, but want to continue to voice my concern of my intersection.    Sincerely, Christine Selberg  281 Everett Ave., Palo Alto, 94301 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, October 20, 2018 5:19 PM To:jason@jason4rwc.com; reddy4rwc@gmail.com; christina@christina4rwc.com; rick@rickhunter.org; cbolanos@smcgov.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; jbeiers@smcgov.org; council@redwoodcity.org; Jonsen, Robert; drutherford@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; epatoday@epatoday.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; citycouncil@menlopark.org; apardini@cityofepa.org; Kilpatrick, Brad; stephanie@dslextreme.com; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC; Kan, Michael; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; Constantino, Mary; mbuell@cityofepa.org; Minor, Beth; Zelkha, Mila; sdremann@paweekly.com; allison@padailypost.com; emibach@padailypost.com; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; sscott@scscourt.org; jalcaraz@cityofepa.org; Kniss, Liz (internal); Stump, Molly; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; lgauthier@cityofepa.org; lmoody@cityofepa.org; moore2j@att.net; Bains, Paul; Lee, Craig; fields.randal@gmail.com; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; cats4jazz@gmail.com; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; smanley@scscourt.org; myraw@smcba.org; mharris@scscourt.org; cmartinez@cityofepa.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; dsilberman@smcgov.org Subject:Black lives Matter and ACLU want answers re latest taser death FYI:     https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/19/aclu‐demands‐sheriffs‐taser‐policy‐in‐unarmed‐black‐mans‐millbrae‐ death/amp/      Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:27 PM To:cbolanos@smcgov.org; jason@jason4rwc.com; reddy4rwc@gmail.com; jbeiers@smcgov.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; christina@christina4rwc.com; council@redwoodcity.org; rick@rickhunter.com; epatoday@epatoday.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Jonsen, Robert; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Council, City; apardini@cityofepa.org; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; lmoody@cityofepa.org; lgauthier@cityofepa.org; drutherford@cityofepa.org; David Silberman; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; jalcaraz@cityofepa.org; mbuell@cityofepa.org; Constantino, Mary; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; HRC Subject:Black Lives Matter: Death of Facebook official's brother probed FYI: October 3 Taser death involving members of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office—‐more details emerge...       https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/17/millbrae‐civil‐rights‐attorney‐demands‐footage‐of‐fatal‐encounter/      Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Bob Miller <bwmiller@bellsouth.net> Sent:Sunday, October 21, 2018 5:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Bob Miller/Dr. Ford Thank you so much for honoring Dr. Ford. I’m a 100% service connected Vietnam veteran who was shot down twice in Vietnam in 1968, and she alone, has made my ordeal worthwhile. In my opinion, Dr. Ford should not be out of pocket for this superb effort on the part of all concerned Americans and I’m more than willing to donate. If we don’t support those who stand and face evil then the words of Thomas Paine, “The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion,” are the words of a fool and my life of fighting for truth has been one of error.   With warm regards,  Bobby W. Miller  7200 Radice Ct. #207  Lauderdale, FL 33319    Sent from Mail for Windows 10    1 Carnahan, David From:Wayne Douglass <waynejdouglass1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 2:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Buyers' Remorse Despite objections from cities and police chiefs, state officials on Friday declined to stop marijuana firms from making home deliveriesacross California, including in areas that have banned pot shops.     1 Carnahan, David From:Daved Levin <levidalee@aol.com> Sent:Friday, October 19, 2018 12:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:CANDIDATE CONTACT INFORMATION PLEASE Would you please send me the e‐mail(s) and phone number(s) of the candidates who are running for Mayor and City  Council seats in November? On the county website , they don’t list the candidates contact information ‐they say who is  running but there is no email or phone numbers for the candidates.  Thank you for your time and I sure appreciate this.  David Levin  818‐981‐1366    Sent from Mail for Windows 10    1 Carnahan, David From:allan <arvinch@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, October 21, 2018 4:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Christine Blasey Ford Really, Palo Alto?  You think she should be honored? You actually believed this woman?  No memory, no  proof, no witnesses.  One thing for sure ‐ she needs more therapy ‐ and maybe you city council members  should consider getting help, also.  1 Carnahan, David From:Howard Bentley <howard.bentley@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, October 21, 2018 3:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Dr Ford honoring She lied and it has been proven as such. She lied about her fears and trauma in order to damage a sitting president and  derail his nominee based on vague unsubstantiated uncorroborated innuendo    To honor her is a disgrace and so blatantly partisan as to make you all look like cowardly ignoble petty crybabies still  whining about losing an election.     An election where you favored and likely voted in favor of a rape apologist and woman who relegated victim intern  Lewinsky to crazy stalker in order to protect her womanizing cheating accused rapist husband who used his power as  governor and president to sexually assault numerous persons who detail credible accounts with corroborating evidence.    You conveniently ignore the very real sexual assaults of your own to fantasize about non existent behavior from people  with whom you disagree in order to achieve your subversive political aims.     You are the worst Americans. Cowards liars and traitors to the rule of law, and the outcome of elections.     I wonder how you all would feel about a concerted effort to investigate the increasing rumors surfacing about several of  your councils alleged past pedophilia? Guilty until proven innocent and then engage the media machine? Perhaps you’d  like some of the very same treatment Dr Ford displays?    You are honoring a liar and dishonoring yourselves     You are disgraceful unamerican petty partisan cowards   1 Carnahan, David From:kkais@aol.com Sent:Thursday, October 18, 2018 9:11 AM To:Council, City Dear Council, You must be nuts honoring Dr. Ford. Liz, you can call Trump a despot and vent your hate against him, but to honor a person who did not tell the truth, and may have mental problems of her own, makes the council look crazy. Why don't you honor O.J. Simpson at the same time. I've made an unscientific poll here at the Vi, and can't find anybody who thinks what you are proposing is a good idea. Kent Kaiser 1 Carnahan, David From:shawn sasse <sassetoo@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 9:54 AM To:ParkRec Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Feedback on the Aquatics Program under Tim Sheeper's Contract TO: Parks and Recreation Commission Members  I would like to provide feedback regarding the aquatics program under Tim Sheeper's contract in preparation for your meeting Tuesday, October 23, 2018. The 2015 decision to contract out the pool to a private sub-contractor was made without asking the swimming community if this is what they wanted (regular users including lap swimmers, Rinconada Masters, PASA). Many did not want the pool privatized, yet we were told by the Recreation Community Services Department that this decision was not up for discussion. Ensuing meetings and contentious negotiations between the swimming community and the Recreation Community Services Department/Tim Sheeper led to a reasonably agreeable one year contract. Now, one year later, Tim Sheeper's contract is up for renewal - for 5 years. It is not the same contract. There are significant changes. The community masters team of 40+ years has been denied a sub- contract (they were informed by Tim Sheeper last week), a new masters team administered by Tim Sheeper is the likely replacement, and lap swimmers are in the dark as to how the lanes/hours will be utilized going forward. The ramifications of all these changes appear to be negative for the swimming community. They are not in keeping with the Recreation Community Services Department's commitment to Masters, PASA, lap swimming, and recreational swimming that this is "a service agreement where Tim Sheeper is working for us to provide the services that we want". (Minutes from Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting on May 23, 2017, page 11).  'Community' has been taken out of the community pool. Where is the Recreation Community Services Department's commitment to serve the interests of the swimming community? While they have held public outreach forums, they don't appear to have accepted the feedback. They have misrepresented the March 6, 2018 public outreach meeting (noted in their PRC Memo 10.18.18) stating that the swimming community was happy with Tim Sheeper's operations. In fact, the meeting was contentious, and the Recreation Community Services Department was defensive toward any feedback against Tim Sheeper and the current aquatics contract such as high drop-in fees, lack of 10 pass books, early closing hours on weekends, dislike of privatization, no communication channels for maintenance problems, lack of support for PASA and Masters, etc.   With this new contract, we are concerned more than ever about the amount of control Tim Sheeper has on price, schedule, programs, operation hours, regulations, Masters, and PASA and how much the Recreation Community Service Department is truly advocating for the swimming community.   Sincerely, Shawn Sasse Rinconada Masters swimmer and lap swimmer 1 Carnahan, David From:Gwen Fischer <fischer.gwen@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 5:44 PM To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City Subject:Feedback Regarding Tim Sheeper's Aquatics Program and 10/23/18 Meeting   I am writing to ask that city council members reject Tim Sheepr's current bid for a 5 year contract to manage the Rinocanda Pool. As a long time Palo Alto taxpayer and resident I am beyond disturbed and angry at how he has managed our town pool. Prior to Tim's 18 month trial contract, our community pool was a welcoming place for all types of swimmers and pool users. Lap swimmers, Master's swimmers, family and recreation swimmers and PASA all enjoyed our pool and the accessibility that it offered--there was a place and space for everyone who wanted to use it. Over the past year, Tim has quickly and systematically reduced the community's access to the pool and he most recently denied a sub-contract to the long running (40 years) community Master's program, most likely in favor of bringing his own program to our town pool. For the past 18 months, Tim's privatized operations have been conducted with a complete lack of transparency and communication. The degree of secrecy and disregard for community involvement and input is so high that most pool users don't even know who to talk to for maintenance or locker room issues. Over the span of just 18 months Tim has completely removed the "community" from our community pool. It is my belief and opinion that Tim has an agenda solely focused on his own pursuits and goals without regard to the Palo Alto swimming community. If he is granted the 5 year contract that he has proposed I believe he will turn our community pool into a "peak performance aquatics center" dedicated to the exclusive use of high level master's swimmers and those training for triathlons, as he has done with the Burgess Park Pool. I am asking you to examine Tim's proposal through the eyes of a community pool user--the lap swimmers who want to enjoy the space of 14 lanes and the freedom to swim according to their own needs without having to join a Masters team in order to gain access, the moms with young children who want to spend a hot July weekday swimming at the pool without having to enroll their kids in an expensive summer camp run by Tim, and the family who wants to enjoy the community pool throughout the summer days and weekends, all day long, without having to wait until after 2pm. This is how our community wants to use our community pool. Rinconada pool was built for our community and it needs to remain the community treasure that it once was. I urge you to deny Tim a 5 year contract based on his current proposal. With Regards, Gwen Fischer Palo Alto taxpayer and lap swimmer 1 Carnahan, David From:Jack Koepfgen <outdoor57@att.net> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 4:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Palo Alto Lap Swimming and Proposed Contract extension City Council,  Below is an emai chain l between myself and Jazmin LeBlac concerning the proposed contract being considered for  Rinconada Pool Operations.   I thought it might be helpful to address/discuss these concerns when considering his  proposal.  Would the concessionaire, Mr. Sheeper be able to change fees and schedules without council or user input during the 5  year contract or is his proposed schedule and fee fixed for the contract period  Thanks for your consideration       From: Jack Koepfgen [mailto:outdoor57@att.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:59 PM To: 'LeBlanc, Jazmin' Subject: RE: Palo Alto Lap Swimming and Proposed Contract extension   Thank you for the response Jazmin.  I am glad to hear that they will maintain the lap swim schedule as is for Tue, Thurs  and the weekends.   As for the fees, I would recommend that if you are negotiating a 5 year contract, any fee increases  would be pre‐agreed upon and included for comment as opposed to “moderate changes from time to time”.  I  understand potential fee increases needed  to cover cost but would be skeptical of fee increases that go to increased  profit margins.   This is what a lot of people are worried about especially since Mr. Sheeper is using a public asset to run  a business.   Do you know what the individual per swim cost will be for PA Seniors?  Right now it is 4 per swim.  Thank you   Jack Koepfgen  2465 Tasso Street  Palo Alto  94301   650‐329‐1730    From: LeBlanc, Jazmin [mailto:Jazmin.LeBlanc@CityofPaloAlto.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 10:46 AM To: Jack Koepfgen Subject: RE: Palo Alto Lap Swimming and Proposed Contract extension   Hi Jack,    Thanks for your email.  I work in the Community Services Department Administration and am one of the staff who have  been working on developing our new contract with Team Sheeper.  I re‐read the memo going to the Parks and Rec  Commission this evening and realized that the first bullet on page two describing schedule changes could be pretty  alarming to lap swimmer.  I apologize about that.  They have proposed maintaining the morning and afternoon schedule  ‘as‐is’ with no changes except that on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, from 6 to 8 the pool would not continue to have  exclusive use by the masters swimmers but would instead be shared with lap swimmers.  On Tuesdays and Thursdays,  the pool would continue to be exclusively available to lap swimmers during those hours.   I will include the proposed  January schedule that Team Sheeper has sent staff in tonight’s presentation so that the changes are they’ve proposed  are less vague.      2 Regarding the fee increases, I wish we could say that we will not increase fees at all during the term of Sheeper’s  contract.  Unfortunately, they cannot sustainably operate the pool without making moderate changes from time to  time.  We hope that the small increases for seniors in Palo Alto will be workable for most residents, and worthwhile  when considered with the increased in lap swim hours proposed.      If you scroll down, I’ve included their proposed January schedule in this email.  If you have any further questions or  thoughts, feel free to reach out to me directly on my office line at 650‐463‐4950.    Thanks,   Jazmin    The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.     Jazmin LeBlanc | Senior Manager, Strategy and Operations    Community Services Department  1305 Middlefield Road | Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.463.4950 | Jazmin.LeBlanc@CityOfPaloAlto.org     3     From: Jack Koepfgen <outdoor57@att.net>   Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 7:08 PM  To: Jeff.Greenfield@cityofpaloalto.org; Jeff.Lamere@cityofpaloalto.org; Ryan.McCauley@cityofpaloalto.org;  Don.McDougall@cityofpaloalto.org; David.Moss@cityofpaloalto.org; Keith.Reckdahl@cityofpaloalto.org; LeBlanc,  Jazmin <Jazmin.LeBlanc@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Douglas, Stephanie <Stephanie.Douglas@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Eva, Sharon  <Sharon.Eva@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Palo Alto Lap Swimming and Proposed Contract extension    As a Palo Alto Senior Resident, I am concerned about the proposed changes to the lap swimming schedule and fee  structure being considered for Tim Sheeper’s Management of the Rinconada Pool operation for the next 5  years.   Specifically, the idea of sharing lanes with the Masters program in the early morning and the proposed monthly  4 fee increase represent an erosion of the services now provided to lap swimmers.   While the current management  operation has been acceptable in comparison with the City running the Program, this latest proposal seems to represent  a continued effort to turn a profit vs. providing a public service.  The fee increase, while small, is hard on people with  fixed incomes and combined with a more crowded pool in the morning  by multiple user entities, likely will cause a  degradation of service to all  parties involved for an increase in cost.   I would hope these issues are taken into  consideration when reviewing Mr. Sheeper’s proposal for continued management of pool operations.  In addition, any  proposed changes should be communicated with full transparency to the swimming community at large with enough  time to comment before these changes are considered.  City assets should not be used for enhancing private business  interests.  Jack Koepfgen   1 Carnahan, David From:Dick Jacobsen <rmj@wsjproperties.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 3:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Rinconada Pool Contract Dear Council Members,  I am a regular user of the Rinconada Pool, swimming during the lap swim at 6am three times a week.  I am concerned  about the possibility that our access to the pool for lap swimming may be cut back in order to accommodate the  expansion of the Masters program. While it is possible (although not certain) that the Masters swimmers may be better  swimmers from the athletic point of view, they are certainly not more dedicated to or worthy of the opportunity to have  access to our public pool. The need  the Masters swimmers have and the benefit they may derive from their expanded  use of our pool in no way exceeds that of our lap swimmers. I have been a Palo Alto resident and property tax payer for  over 40 years. I urge you in the strongest terms possible to make sure that the pool accessibility for lap swimmers is not  cut back in order to expand the Masters program's use of the pool.  Thank you for your consideration,  Richard Jacobsen  761 Southampton Drive, Palo Alto  1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Friday, October 19, 2018 2:45 PM To:Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; diffenbaugh@stanford.edu; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; steve.hogg; Loran Harding; beachrides; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; Leodies Buchanan; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Raymond Rivas; info@superide1.com; jerry ruopoli; Mark Kreutzer; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; leager; newsdesk; nick yovino; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; popoff; russ@topperjewelers.com; Joel Stiner; Steve Wayte; terry; Mayor; Mark Standriff; midge@thebarretts.com Subject:Fwd: CARB is out of control, says Mendota council member.   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:33 PM  Subject: Fwd: CARB is out of control, says Mendota council member.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 2:29 PM  Subject: CARB is out of control, says Mendota council member.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                    Friday, October 19, 2018                To all‐  Here is a scary piece by Robert Silva, a council member in Mendota, California. CARB (California Air  Resources Board) is ignoring its directive from the legislature and proposes climate change rules that will raise the price  of gasoline, electricity, and many other items a LOT. Just what we need after the 2001 hosing we got on electricity from  FERC and the gouging we get on gasoline from OPEC.                https://thebusinessjournal.com/blog‐cap‐and‐trade‐costs‐will‐bleed‐valley‐communities/              The Board at CARB should find themselves in court facing a well‐funded series of lawsuits. Being bribed? Well, we  have jails for that.                 What DO we do about climate change? Solar, wind, electricity from thorium reactors, lots of them. ZPG will be  adopted. A lot of mothers‐in‐law will be angry about ZPG, but we don't run this country by mob rule, as Sen. Grassley  observed.                Just ZPG and thorium reactors would go a long way toward addressing climate change.    1 Carnahan, David From:Kniss, Liz (internal) Sent:Thursday, October 18, 2018 5:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: From VTA: Court of Appeal Upholds Validity of VTA’s 2016 Measure B     Sent from my iPhone    Begin forwarded message:  From: VTA Board Secretary <Board.Secretary@vta.org>  Date: October 18, 2018 at 5:50:54 PM PDT  To: VTA Advisory Committee Members <VTAAdvisoryCommitteeMembers@vta.org>, "VTA Board  Secretary" <Board.Secretary@vta.org>  Subject: From VTA:  Court of Appeal Upholds Validity of VTA’s 2016 Measure B  VTA Advisory Committee Members and 2016 Measure B Citizens Oversight Committee:       Today the State of California Court of Appeal issued a decision to uphold the validity of VTA’s 2016  Measure B (“Measure B”) saying that the measure is enforceable as written.       For more details, please visit:  http://www.vta.org/News‐and‐Media/Connect‐with‐VTA/Court‐of‐ Appeal‐Upholds‐Validity‐of‐VTAs‐2016‐Measure‐B#.W8koB3tKiUk      If you have any questions, please reply to this e‐mail.      Thank you.      Board Secretary’s Office  Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority  3331 North First Street, Building B  San Jose, CA 95134-1927  Phone 408-321-5680  board.secretary@vta.org              Conserve paper. Think before you print.   1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 3:11 PM To:Loran Harding; Dan Richard; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Doug Vagim; Joel Stiner; beachrides; Mayor; Mark Standriff; huidentalsanmateo; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; terry; Council, City; Mark Kreutzer Subject:Fwd: Tump's Showdown on Frontline. Plus tonight, The Pension Gamble, Frntline   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:48 PM  Subject: Fwd: Tump's Showdown on Frontline. Plus tonight, The Pension Gamble, Frntline  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:27 PM  Subject: Tump's Showdown on Frontline. Plus tonight, The Pension Gamble, Frntline  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                    Tues. Oct. 23, 2018                   To all‐                   Trump's Showdown.  1 hour, 54 minutes. Very interesting. I've seen most of it twice, and will see it again.                   https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/watch/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fil m‐trumps_showdown&utm_content=header                   And tonight, Oct. 23, 2018, Frontline will show "The Pension Gamble", detailing how some states have  mismanaged public employees' pension funds. Sure hope they don't come after us taxpayers to make up the shortfall.  Your risk of that is on a state by state basis.                   They say in Showdown that the only way Trump can be removed is through elections or impeachment, and both  would require the agreement of the American people.  So he stays until a majority want him gone. The problem there is  that impeachment is a lot harder to do than elections, and elections are years apart. I'll bet that the majority wanted  Lyndon gone by late 1967, but the only practical way to accomplish it was to make it clear to him that he would lose in  '68 if he ran again, and that's when he bailed.                 So Lyndon kept murdering young Americans until noon on January 20, 1969. At that point, the drunken little  crook Nixon took over and murdered 25,000 more. Elections, therefore, will not stop a murdering rampage by a series of  Presidents and Congress. What we need is a fourth branch of the federal government, a standing war‐crimes tribunal to  indict, try, convict and sentence to death Presidents of the United States and the members of Congress who authorize  2 military action by them based on a total fabrication of evidence, as happened with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in  1964.                               Until we have such a tribunal, we are in danger of being murdered by the totally corrupt federal government that  alleges to represent us.                  L. William Harding               Fresno  1 Carnahan, David From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 4:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:Paul Machado; Neilson Buchanan; Carol Scott Subject:Grade separation Dear City Council,    there has been a lot of discussion, lots of money spent on studies (in the hundreds of thousands) but so far no  actionable solution has been found how/if to separate the rail tracks from the car crossings along the train tracks  running through Palo Alto.    We always hear tunneling is too expensive. Is it? Can you show us the numbers from an actual bid received from the  Boring Company?    Please read on:    https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business‐news/elon‐musk‐says‐his‐first‐tunnel‐will‐open‐december‐n922726    This happens 400 miles south of us.    And we, Palo Altans, always wanting to be ahead of everybody else, cannot ?    Why have you, Dear Council, not done this so far?    Once the numbers are on the table one can tackle the difficult question of how to raise the money, but first we need to  know what the numbers actually are.    Please do not loose even more time by trying to solve problems (like over/underpass) for which you will not get a  majority from the residents but start working on something that can be a solution, i.e. tunneling through the whole  length of Palo Alto. And once Palo Alto puts the stakes into the ground, it would be very surprising if neighboring cities  would not follow suit and join Palo Alto in a deep tunnel bored by the Boring Company.    thanks    Wolfgang Dueregger    P.S.:I have no affiliation whatsoever with Tesla, Elon Musk or the Boring Company.         1 Carnahan, David From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, October 18, 2018 6:45 PM To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Historic Resources Board; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission; Shikada, Ed; Info, Plandiv; PlannerOnDuty; Transportation; Planning Enforcement; Lait, Jonathan; Nikzat, Sherry; French, Amy; Gerhardt, Jodie; Reich, Russ; Campbell, Clare; Egli, Elizabeth; Cervantes, Yolanda; Lee, Elena; Moitra, Chitra; Monroe, Margaret; Maqbool, Erum; Atkinson, Rebecca; Gutierrez, Samuel; Hodgkins, Claire; Owen, Graham; McKay, Scott; Sauls, Garrett; Condit, Danielle; Jocelyn Dong; gsheyner@paweekly.com; price@padailypost.com; sdremann@paweekly.com Cc:boardchair@pah.community; Diane Dittmar Subject:Help Us Say Yes and To Believe! Dear City Council Members, Planning and Transportation Commissioners, Parks and Rec Commissioners, Members of the Architectural Review Board, City Staff and Members of the Press: Today, Palo Alto Housing Staff and Board Chair were kind enough to conduct several Venturans on another tour of one of the properties they manage. Palo Alto Housing is going out of their way to convince us that they will manage their proposed project on Wilton Court in order to minimize the anticipated impacts on Ventura. At "Tree House" which situated on Charleston near El Camino, I was struck by the fact that Wilton Court has half the lot size but will essentially be three times as dense. Still we are being asked to say “yes.” Or rather we are being forced, by changes in the zoning code, to say “yes,” and to either like it or lump it. I’d much rather say “yes” and believe! Wouldn’t you rather that as well? As you know Ventura is being asked to absorb an inordinate number of new developments. 8 are in the pipeline right now. And of course NVCAP is in play. Many of us have trust issues with the City and with good reason. We have not been seen as worthy of the City's consideration as a neighborhood to be loved and protected, but rather as a community ripe for redevelopment where massing and densification will be concentrated, due to changes in the zoning laws that have specifically targeted Ventura. Well we don’t like it. And we are not going to lump it. However, we do like Palo Alto Housing very much and we don’t like your forcing them to be a human shield for ambitious and greedy massing and densification plans for Ventura. PAH is tasked with having to do their own advocating with Venturans. Why aren’t you all doing more to help them? To help us? If we are to accept Wilton Court - which will serve a noble and righteous cause, and if we are to be bombarded in perpetuity by for-profit developments in order to slake the unslakable thirst that we did not cause, then the City needs to give us something for it. We need to see gestures of good will flowing from City Hall to Ventura. You know we need more parkland and open space. All these developments will exacerbate that need. Go get that piece of AT&T land and buy it and put a park there for us. Show us by your actions that you really do care about us. Make all new developers’ fees in our neighborhood be in direct service to Ventura. Make these new developments sing out and welcome Venturans. I want to be able to visit these spaces and places and see my neighbors there. I don’t want to see people there that will deem us out of place because they think we’re weird or too artsy or too poorly dressed or inadequately tricked out with the latest cars and gadgets. We want to “wave” and say “hello neighbor,” and to have them respond in kind. We want to feel welcomed in our own neighborhood. During the tour of beautiful Tree House, I found myself enraged that Ventura and PAH have to compete for the crumbs offered. Why are you not doing more to care for the current residents while welcoming new residents? We want help with traffic, with parking, with congestion, with displacement, with maintaining and improving places to shop, to walk and to bike, with retention of what we love about Ventura. We ask you to help us, if you want us to help you. It seems only fair. We want to know what the City plans to do to care for the people that live in Ventura. Until we experience genuine caring and concern for residents of Ventura, then we will remain on guard, suspicious and resistant. Wouldn’t you rather have us as allies, champions and happily cooperative, even helpful! Make us believe that you care. Make us believe in a change that will benefit all Palo Altans, and not only the people that live outside of Ventura. Help us say “yes,” and to believe. Thank you for your kind attention to these concerns. With profound sincerity, Becky Sanders Ventura Neighborhood 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, October 18, 2018 11:05 PM To:rick@rickhunter.org; reddy4rwc@gmail.com; christina@christina4rwc.com; jason@jason4rwc.com; rick@rickhunter.com; Bains, Paul; Council, City; citycouncil@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org; epatoday@epatoday.org Subject:Homeless families get green light to sleep in SanJose parking lot https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/18/safe‐parking‐site‐for‐homeless‐families‐gets‐green‐light/amp/      Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, October 20, 2018 10:27 PM To:gkirby@redwoodcity.org; reddy4rwc@gmail.com; christina@christina4rwc.com; jason@jason4rwc.com; jbeiers@smcgov.org; cbolanos@smcgov.org; council@redwoodcity.org; rick@rickhunter.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Jonsen, Robert; dcbertini@menlopark.org; epatoday@epatoday.org; citycouncil@menlopark.org; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; apardini@cityofepa.org; Kilpatrick, Brad; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Lee, Craig; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; Kan, Michael; cromero@cityofepa.org; mdiaz@redwoodcity.org; HRC Subject:In Laquan McDonald Case, Video Overrules Chicago Cop's Falsified Report | The Marshall Project   https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/10/16/the‐video‐doesn‐t‐lie‐even‐if‐the‐officer‐did      Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Wednesday, October 24, 2018 10:39 AM To:Council, City Subject:Most important ballot measure Proposition 10: Here's why you should vote for a measure even though it won't instantly help renters  1 Carnahan, David From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 4:43 PM To:Council, City Cc:Paul Machado; Neilson Buchanan; Carol Scott Subject:New garage building on California Ave Dear City Council,    thank you for approving and funding the new garage building off California Avenue. It has taken a lot of your energy, but  also perseverance, patience and compromise from us residents in Mayfield and Evergreen Park neighborhoods.     On suggestions from us residents in Evergreen Park, we also achieved that the eastern side of El Camino has become  available for parking for the workers and patrons of the small businesses bordering El Camino (between Stanford Ave  and Park Blvd).    Both, the garage and this new commercial parking zone should be sufficient supply of parking for small businesses  between Oregon and Park Blvd. We want to remind you that we residents want to have our neighborhood returned to  the pre‐existing status quo (that existed until about 18 months ago) that after the garage is built, business permits will  be sold for parking in the new garage and along El Camino, and no longer for parking in our residential streets (College  Ave, Oxford, Stanford, Leland, Park Ave and Park Blvd). The comprehensive plan clearly states that the City wishes to  foster commercial development, but not at the expense of the quality of life in residential areas.    We have seen a significant uptick in traffic in our small neighborhoods especially in the mornings and early evening  hours ‐ which is dangerous and adds more noise and pollution.    Another negative consequence is that our street cleaning essentially no longer works. It used to be that we residents  paid attention to Monday mornings and either left around 8 AM or parked our cars on our lots so that street sweeping  was possible. Now, as soon as we leave in the morning, somebody pulls in and parks and thus any street cleaning  becomes impossible. Please check the 300 block of Stanford Ave if you wish. But many other blocks will show you a very  similar picture.    We also noticed that cars from commercial businesses stay parked over night, so this whole situation of commercial  parking intrusion into our small neighborhoods must be temporary and completely reversed once the new garage is  built.     We want to be very clear: the current commercial parking in our neighborhood must be temporary as it was promised to  us. It is unacceptable to use the new garage capacity to approve additional commercial development around California  Ave under the pretext that enough parking will be available. The commercial parking permits from Mayfield and  Evergreen Park must be transferred to the new garage building as soon as feasable.    thank you    Wolfgang Dueregger      1 Carnahan, David From:George Herman <george.e.herman@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 10:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Old Palo Alto Parking I was going to speak last night, but I was not clear on how to get on the list of speakers…  For over a year now, the residents near Bowdoin park have been suffering with commuters using our neighborhood for parking their vehicles. By 9  AM, every parking spot on High St was/is taken. This has gotten so bad and is now overflowing in to Emerson and Ramona. This situation does not  allow residents to park close their house from 9 am to 6 pm. In addition, people who used to come to the park cannot find parking, so the park  largely goes unused. (This is especially aggravating, when considering that most/all of the parking are non‐residents.) I go over to the Caltrain  parking lot at ~10 am on most days, and I find that the lot is of ½ to 2/3 full. The people that are parking in the resident areas are parking for free.  While lots that charge go largely unused. On a daily basis, I see bikes narrowly miss getting hit by a car looking for parking. If the city isn’t bothered  by unhappy residents, they should be bothered by a safety issue.  The residents were upset enough that the neighbors that live by Bowdoin park had got submitted a petition that the parking situation was creating  an unsafe environment and making the quality of life for residents unbearable. The city then met with us a number of times of times over about a 4  months period. In May, the city had recommend installing 2‐hour parking at Bowden Park to encourage turnover for park visitors. They also  suggested annexing our blocks into the Evergreen Park‐Mayfield RPP as an alternative to launching a separate RPP. We were told if we would  gather enough support from residents in a more extensive section of the neighborhood, the city could recommend adding to the EPM RPP. We  were told this could happen pretty quickly. In July, we were informed that workorder for the signs had been submitted and we should see some  action the next couple of weeks. (To date, we have not seen any action.) In August, we submitted a petition with 45+ signatures of the impacted  residences.Upon submission of the petition, we were then told that there could be no action until late 2019. At a minimum, I would have expected  to city to have the signs up at the park by this time, and the city should have notified each of the residents that signed the petition as to the late  2019 date. Every promise made by the city on this issue has not happened.  Using a residential area for free business and Caltrain parking is not something the residents can live with. This problem is only getting worse with  time.  The problem will get worse while the California Ave parking structure is being built.  The residents have taken numerous actions and the city  has not delivered on anything. The city really needs to address the issue asap!  ‐ George Herman  2331 High St  Palo Alto     1 Carnahan, David From:Charlotte Giovangrandi <acgiovan@sonic.net> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 11:35 AM To:Council, City Subject:Open swim at Rinconada Pool - Team Sheeper - 10/23/18 meeting Importance:High Hi,   I will not be able to attend tonight’s meeting regarding the renewal of Team Sheeper’s contract for 5 years to manage  Rinconada Pool. I am asking you to please make sure Rinconada Pool remains what it is supposed to be, namely a  community pool here to serve all the Palo Alto residents who would like to swim there. Open swim hours need to  remain as they have been for decades, especially the 6‐9 AM slot 3‐4 times a week. It also needs to remain affordable.  Not all Palo Alto residents are rich, contrary to what it seems, and many employed people (a lot of teachers, for  example) use it to exercise before or after work. Most of them could not come mid‐morning or mid‐afternoon because  they work, and many of them could not afford another fee increase. Thanks for your consideration!    Charlotte Giovangrandi  750 California Ave,  Palo Alto, CA 94306‐1406    1 Carnahan, David From:Frans Honig <wordpress@castillejamasterplan.com> Sent:Friday, October 19, 2018 3:20 PM To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Please Support Castilleja Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council,     My name is Frans Honig and I live in Menlo Park, California. I am writing to you as a friend of alumni and supporter of  Castilleja School.     Castilleja was founded 110 years ago to equalize educational opportunities for women. Today, Castilleja seeks to close  the female leadership gap by gradually adding students over four years. Making this opportunity available for more  young women is central to furthering that mission.     As a Palo Alto resident, I am proud to have Castilleja in our city. The school has been an indispensable community  partner and is committed to maintaining its neighbors’ current quality of life. Castilleja has already implemented robust  Traffic Demand Management initiatives, and has repeatedly pledged to neighbors not only to do more, but that the  admittance of new students will be dependent on the continued success of the school’s traffic programs.     Now more than ever, at a time when national politics has devolved into shouting matches and one‐upmanship,  Castilleja’s mission of serving girls and young women from Palo Alto and other nearby cities is critically important.     Please do not let the loudest voices in the conversation obscure the robust support for Castilleja found throughout our  wonderful city.     Sincerely,    Frans Honig   fransc.honig@gmail.com    1 Carnahan, David From:Marija Jovanovic <pubspro@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 3:33 PM To:parkrec.comission@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Council, City Subject:Proposed Changes to Rinconada Pool and the Master’s We, the Rinconada swimmers, are the taxpayers of Palo Alto who have given our tax money to build the pool and  maintain it for 40+ years.   We are a diverse group of people united by our love for swimming, for our coaches, and our care and respect for each  other.  We feel that we deserve to keep the pool for our community recreation needs instead of giving it away to a private  party.  It would be a sad day if our Master's program is effectively canceled.   Please reconsider this new contract that disregards our needs and look towards finding a win‐win solution instead.  Thanks and regards,  Marija Jovanovic  612 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto    1 Carnahan, David From:Richard Bone <rgab1@pobox.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 4:23 PM To:parkrec.comission@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Council, City; carol.macpherson22@gmail.com; jimshaw45@gmail.com; jimlevison@gmail.com Subject:Proposed Changes to Rinconada Pool and the Rinconada Masters' contract To whom it may concern:   When it is revealed that a U.S. Masters-affiliated swim club, that has been using the Rinconada Pool facility for more than 40 years without blemish, flaw, incident or upset, is about to be turfed out for no stated reason it would be the most blinkered city official who did not take notice.     True, Palo Alto has changed a lot over those 40 years. But many of its citizens and their needs have not. The basic parameters of a regular lap swim are the same year to year and are not that complicated. The Rinconada Masters members have been model citizens and responsible users of the facility since before many of its current staff were born.   What is the point of keeping and maintaining such a pool facility if a body of its core, dedicated, and frequent users are going to be summarily jettisoned from its community without thought, consideration or reason?  The Rinconada Masters lap swim program should be cherished and upheld as a constant of the community and not simply discarded during an administrative upheaval.    Richard Bone    ‐‐    Richard G. A. Bone    Rinconada Masters member since 2012    rgab1@pobox.com;  cell:  650 714 7897          1 Carnahan, David From:Courtney Nordlund <courtney_nordlun@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 5:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Public pool preservation of the public pools I am emailing you because I am unavailable to attend the meeting tonight.  I like how our community pool is now. The  hours and availability of lap lanes for those training or not training for high athletic events are fine by me. They fit well  with my lifestyle. The one thing to change if changes are made would be that the water temperature in the showers are  inconsistent and it would be nice if people can adjust the temperature and how long the showers are on for according to  the individual’s preference. Thanks Palo Alto resident Courtney Nordlund    Sent from my iPad  1 Carnahan, David From:ted selker <ted.selker@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 4:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail in the valley could really help.... Palo Alto needs to manage its noise, saftey ,and space. Most cities of even moderate size in Europe are now putting in subways. We are the richest and most congested place I know: why aren't we reclaiming the surface and drilling a tunnel for the rail and highspeed rail... It would eliminate noise, improve saftey and allow us to consider faster trains... I did the calculation a few years ago... the Billions of dollars of realestate and increased value of real estate along Alma and Park would be amazing. The tunnel could include Alma too leaving a small surface road that has access to the underground at san Antonio, Charleston, and Page mill for example ____ I know some rail lines have microphones and charge trains if they have flats on their wheels... it makes the rails slower and increases maintenance... i hear clunking wheels on the freiught trains moving on the lines in palo alto, this should not be so. Ted Selker,  PhD   Ted.selker.com    land 6503835079 cell 6177593001    1 Carnahan, David From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent:Saturday, October 20, 2018 5:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:RE: Correction of mistaken comments about me in an email to you from Wayne Douglass Dear Council Members ‐ sorry to take you time with this, but I saw that a Wayne Douglass, whom I do not know,  submitted an email to you that mentions me by name (twice) and wrongly states something I never did (his email,  below).  Somehow he thinks I said Barron Park has not flooded in the past, and that I should know better since (he  thinks) I have lived in Barron Park since 1980 or 81.     What I have said lately on the Barron Park email list is that the neighborhood does not have a flood problem now. This is  simply true and not controversial. And I moved to this neighborhood in Nov. of 1993 after having lived since 1970 on  upper Page Mill Rd. in Palo Alto ‐ a 17 year difference.     Just wanted to set this straight since it was in an email submitted to you all.     Winter Dellenbach    From: Wayne Douglass <waynejdouglass1@gmail.com>  Date: October 20, 2018 at 12:18:43 PM PDT  To: "city.council@cityofpaloalto.org" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Bol Park proposal ‐ FYI  This is the text of a comment I sent to the Weekly regarding the Bol Park proposal. Lydia Kou should be  particularly interested, but are all supposed to vote on this cockamamie idea:  As usual, everybody has an opinion, but few have facts. Winter, in particular, ought to know better,  since,  I think, she has lived in Barron Park since before the flood (and there WAS one in 1980 or '81 on  Chimalus), where I rode my bicycle in 6 inches of water after Matadero Creek overflowed for the  umpteenth time. Following that event, which was the beginning of an El Nino cycle after a drought, the  COUNTY launched a FLOOD CONTROL project to mitigate the effects of groundwater overflow (Winter  has that right) from large rainstorms coming into the creeks flowing through Barron Park, viz., Barron &  Matadero Creeks. Adobe Creek, if I remember rightly, was NOT part of the project, for reasons I don't  understand.  The project was actually pretty well designed. (1) A retention basin was dug UNDER the pond near Gunn  High School and the pond's natural outlet, Barron Creek, was cleared of underbrush and debris from  previous storms to permit water to flow unimpeded to the Bay. This couldn't have been easy, since  Barron Creek remained covered. (2) In case the rain from the foothills was so heavy as to overwhelm the  system, a SECOND outlet from the retention basin was dug to connect to Matadero Creek to permit  water to flow unimpeded to the Bay. Matadero Creek was neither covered in Barron Park nor on the  other side of El Camino Real, but on the Ventura neighborhood side, the creek bed had been covered by  concrete, but not all the way to the Bay. James Witt ought to remember this SECOND outlet, since he  bought the property near the donkey corral.  Pretty slick, I thought. Use natural features of the landscape, but improve water flow with a dual‐use  retention basin that controls and directs the flow where you want it to go.  No unnecessary digging of  channels; no pumps, etc. Neat, but not greasy. The basic design must have worked because I don't recall  instances of flooding on Chimalus since then.  Alas, design is one thing, but construction is another. I watched progress on this project because my  wife and I had bought a house a block or so from Matadero Creek, on the Ventura side of El Camino  2 Real, and we had to purchase flood insurance from FEMA as a condition of our mortgage. The project  promised to make that expense unnecessary. The project moved with excruciating slowness. Bol Park  was unusable for around two years. Chain link fences around construction trailers and construction  material cluttered the landscape, along with earth moving equipment of all manner and description.  Gunn High School students must remember the chaos. I sure do.  When construction was completed and the material and equipment hauled away, the county engineers  met with the city council to congratulate themselves on a job well done. There was only one problem.  They had screwed up. The flood problem in Barron Park was solved, but a neighborhood on Ross Road  near Matadero Creek, was now on the flood plain because the bridge over the creek would block the  water runoff from a 100‐year flood, exactly the situation my wife and I had hoped would be solved for  us to avoid paying flood insurance on our mortgage. Oops! Now the residents along Ross Road would  have to pay flood insurance, too. In the fullness of time, FEMA agreed that our house was no longer on  the flood plain and we stopped paying flood insurance. The screw‐up, according to the county, was "a  calculation error." "What did they do?" I asked my wife. "Forget to carry the 1?"  Numerous public records of this fiasco should exist, including the Weekly, which covered the county/city  council meeting, and the county must have records of the project, if someone will tell them where to  look. Steve Staiger should know where, even if Doug Graham, Barron Park historian, or Doug Moran do  not. Is Bob Moss still around? He should know, if the others do not.  In short, the retention basin, is already there; the disruption to Bol Park has already happened; the  donkeys are still in the corral (I hope); the May Fete has happened. God's in His heaven, and all's right  with the world.  My wife, alas for me, is dead.     ‐‐Wayne Douglass, who lost a city hall election that put Tom Dubois, Eric Filseth, and Cory Wolcott,  among others, into office, and who no longer lives in Palo Alto       1 Carnahan, David From:Minor, Beth Sent:Thursday, October 18, 2018 7:07 PM To:Caroline Lucas Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: October 29 agenda Hi, there is not a time as of yet.   Sent from my iPhone    On Oct 18, 2018, at 6:58 PM, Caroline Lucas <clucas@thistlemail.com> wrote:  Hello‐    What time is the honoring of Dr. Ford at the Oct. 29 meeting?    Thank you.    Caroline      ‐‐   _______________________________  Caroline Lucas  clucas@thistlemail.com  1 Carnahan, David From:Laura Bajuk <lbajuk@paloaltomuseum.org> Sent:Saturday, October 20, 2018 8:26 AM To:Tom DuBois Cc:Ramberg, David; Council, City Subject:Re: PA Museum receives $500k in new grants for capital campaign Thank you!    Things are moving fast and well!    Lydia and Liz will speak at our house party this weekend. $60k in pledges already raised by the party committee, which is  awesome!    🤓  Laura Bajuk    On Oct 19, 2018, at 10:38 PM, Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> wrote:  Great news, thanks for the update!    On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 4:12 PM Laura Bajuk <lbajuk@paloaltomuseum.org> wrote:  Hello to our council members and key city staff:    I wanted to share some good news: In addition to the $250k from the Hewlett Foundation granted recently, the  Packard Foundation has just approved a grant of  the same amount. In essence, Bill and Dave continue to work to  improve our community.    That brings recent grant activity to half a million dollars. Individual gifts are also coming in ‐ your November 30  challenge, plus the match from Hewlett, is increasing gifts, and bringing in new donors. And we're working on more  with the intent to reach or surpass your goal.    Your support and advice has been and remain critical ‐ thank you!    Best, Laura    Laura Bajuk  Executive Director  Palo Alto History Museum  LBajuk@PaloAltoMuseum.org    Celebrating $11.3 million raised in 11 years    1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:17 AM To:Neilson Buchanan; Clerk, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Council, City Cc:Dave Price; Bill Johnson; Jocelyn Dong Subject:RE: proper notice: agenda for Oct 15 and Oct 22 Council Meeting Hi,      We have worked with IT and now have a work around that works.  The calendars pertaining to council and council  standing committees will be updated by my staff.    Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>   Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 8:35 AM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Shikada, Ed  <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; De Geus, Robert <Robert.DeGeus@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City  <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>; Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>; Jocelyn Dong  <jdong@paweekly.com>  Subject: proper notice: agenda for Oct 15 and Oct 22 Council Meeting    Please note that the City website is not functioning properly and states misleading information about the traffic summit study session for Oct 22. Here are my recommendations. 1. Correct the "home page" which states council meeting at 6pm. The Council agenda states 5pm. 2. Take out paid ads in newspapers, make the correction and provide proper notice about Council attention to one of Palo Alto's most pressing issues. 3. Increase the priority for the IT department to fix the bugs acknowledged below on October 9. I appreciate the City Clerk's attention to this matter. IT must give stronger support. here is the link to the 6pm notice on the main webpage for the city...ie the calendar page and its links 2 Special City Council Meeting Council Chambers, Ground Floor, 250 Hamilton Avenue, PA 94301 When:Monday, October 22, 2018 Time:6:00 PM Event Type:City Government, City Council https://cityofpaloalto.org/cals/default.asp?viewby=7&CalDate=10/22/2018&EventDateID=75243 Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com On Tuesday, October 9, 2018, 8:55:55 AM PDT, Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Nielson, The calendar has not been working since last week. Our IT department is working with the company to troubleshoot it. Thanks and have a great day. B- Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329-2379 3 From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 8:37 AM To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: agenda for Oct 15 Council Meeting thanks, this is helpful... but I just went on the city website calendar and there is no link to agenda. Something is amiss. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com On Tuesday, October 9, 2018, 8:30:06 AM PDT, Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: It is posted…. Here is the link. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=71038.53&BlobID=67076 4 Thanks and have a great day. B- Beth Minor, City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329-2379 From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 7:49 AM To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: agenda for Oct 15 Council Meeting Has Oct 15 meeting been cancelled? Agenda is not posted. Thanks, N> Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell 1 Carnahan, David From:Gillian Rose Brassil <gbrassil@stanford.edu> Sent:Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:28 PM To:Stump, Molly Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: request for comment: Peninsula Press Thank you, Molly,    I'll keep that in mind as I continue to report this story.    Best,  Gillian    On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Hello Gillian ‐     Under state law, the Council is not permitted to make any further official statement on Measure F, beyond taking an  official position on the measure as they did at their regular open meeting in September.      Individual Council Members are free to speak to you on their own time, as private citizens.     In light of these restrictions, any Council Member who is interested should respond individually to Gillian, on your own  time and using only private resources. Thank you.    Molly Stump  City Attorney   Sent from my iPhone    On Oct 17, 2018, at 11:56 AM, Gillian Rose Brassil <gbrassil@stanford.edu> wrote:  Hi City Council members,     My name is Gillian, I'm a reporter for the Peninsula Press.    I'm working on a story about Measure F and I am looking for comment from the City Council members  about their stance on the Measure. I read in the Palo Alto Weekly that the Council was unanimously  opposed to the issue and was hoping to receive some follow‐up comment on the issue.    I have a deadline of Friday, Oct. 19, and would appreciate any insights members had on Measure F  before then. Would someone from the Council be willing to speak with me briefly in‐person or over the  phone in the next few days?    Best,    Gillian  ‐‐   Stanford University | Class of 2019  2 M.A. Candidate | Journalism  B.A. Candidate | Communication          ‐‐   Stanford University | Class of 2019  M.A. Candidate | Journalism  B.A. Candidate | Communication  1 Carnahan, David From:Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 7:06 PM To:David.Levinson@comcast.net Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Rinconada Masters swimming program Thanks for this ‐ I was not aware there was a new issue.  Council heard from several people tonight and we will find out  what is going on.    Best,    Tom    On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:45 AM David Levinson <David.Levinson@comcast.net> wrote:  To the Palo Alto City Council:     The existence of the Rinconada Masters swimming program, which the City of Palo Alto has been supporting since the  early 1970s, is under serious threat from Tim Sheeper (aka Palo Alto Swim and Sport), who is proposing to eliminate the  program and assume total personal control of who can use Rinconada Pool and when.  Many of us swimmers plan to  attend the October 23 Parks and Rec meeting to voice our concerns and make them public.  Please do not take any  action on the control of the Palo Alto aquatics programs until these concerns have been seriously addressed.       David A. Levinson   1 Carnahan, David From:KC Holman <kcholman@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 8:56 PM To:Carol Heermance Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: the extension of the Rinconada Pool Management with Tim Sheeper   Thank you, Carol, and you may know that I’ve asked City staff to look at this and as it   interfaces with the City’s agreement with Keepers contract.     Glad you are going to PARC meeting. It should be a good venue to also voice the concerns and elevate them.     Best,    Karen           Sent from my iPhone    On Oct 22, 2018, at 10:25 AM, Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com> wrote:  We have been happy with the pool management so far, however we have heard rumors that Tim Sheeper wants to take over the management of the Masters Group. We understand that he would like to have the Masters Group and the lap swimmers share the pool. This was the main concern of the lap swimmers two years ago when the city was considering outsourcing to Tim Sheeper. At that time he agreed to keep the programs separate. If the Sheeper contract is extended for another five years and he takes over the management of the Masters Program, we fear that he will combine the lap swimming hours with the Masters Program thus reducing the number of lap swimming lanes, which was a primary concern about Sheeper management. This weekend we received an email about the Tuesday night meeting at the city that considers extending the agreement with Tim Sheeper for five years. This communication from a fellow lap swimmer was the first time we heard about this meeting. Evidently, according to a city employee, the lap swim email list was lost. If true, this is inexcusable on the part of the city, especially because there was so much concern two years ago from the lap swimmers. Richard and Carol Heermance 208 N California Ave Palo Alto 2 Carnahan, David From:Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 7:03 PM To:cheermance@gmail.com Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: the extension of the Rinconada Pool Management with Tim Sheeper Thanks for this ‐ I was not aware there was an issue.  Council heard from several people tonight and we will find out  what is going on.    Best,    Tom    On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:25 AM Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com> wrote:  We have been happy with the pool management so far, however we have heard rumors that Tim Sheeper wants to take over the management of the Masters Group. We understand that he would like to have the Masters Group and the lap swimmers share the pool. This was the main concern of the lap swimmers two years ago when the city was considering outsourcing to Tim Sheeper. At that time he agreed to keep the programs separate. If the Sheeper contract is extended for another five years and he takes over the management of the Masters Program, we fear that he will combine the lap swimming hours with the Masters Program thus reducing the number of lap swimming lanes, which was a primary concern about Sheeper management. This weekend we received an email about the Tuesday night meeting at the city that considers extending the agreement with Tim Sheeper for five years. This communication from a fellow lap swimmer was the first time we heard about this meeting. Evidently, according to a city employee, the lap swim email list was lost. If true, this is inexcusable on the part of the city, especially because there was so much concern two years ago from the lap swimmers. Richard and Carol Heermance 208 N California Ave Palo Alto 1 Carnahan, David From:Phil Burton <philip-b@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 5:00 PM To:'Tom DuBois'; 'Nadia Naik' Cc:Levin, Adina; 'Chris Logan'; 'Dave Shen'; De Geus, Robert; 'Elizabeth Alexis'; 'Goodwin Eileen'; 'Greg Brail'; 'Inyoung Cho'; Keene, James; 'Kari Hodgson'; 'Mandar Borkar'; 'Megan Kanne'; 'Parag Patkar'; 'Patricia Lau'; 'Penny Ellson'; Shikada, Ed; Carrasco, Tony; Council, City; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com Subject:RE: The issue of 2% grade: Tom (and everyone else),    For our purposes, we need to confine the discussion to diesel‐engine hauled trains.  Electric locomotives have operating  characteristics that permit much high short‐term loading than diesel engines.    The steepest grade in use on a mainline railroad is at Raton Pass, NM on the BNSF, a 3.3%  grade.  (Source:  http://trn.trains.com/railroads/abcs‐of‐railroading/2006/05/grades‐and‐curves).  From the same  source:    On main lines, grades are generally 1 percent or less, and grades steeper than about 2.2 percent are rare. The effect of grades on train operations is significant. For each percent of ascending grade, there is an additional resistance to constant-speed movement of 20 lbs. per ton of train. This compares with a resistance on level, straight track of about 5 lbs. per ton of train. A given locomotive, then, can haul only half the tonnage up a .25- percent grade that it can on the level. Descending grades carry their own penalties in the form of equipment wear and tear and increased fuel consumption.    The last two sentences are why Union Pacific will oppose an increase in the 1% grade standard in the current Trackage  Rights Agreement.  Just as BNSF manages to run trains over Raton Pass, UP can run trains on a 2% grade.  It’s an issue of  economics.  A steeper grade uphill grade creates the need for higher horsepower and more locomotives to pull a train of  a given length.  The increase in motive power comes at a cost of increased fuel consumption and possibly increased  labor costs.  There will also be some increase in noise from the locomotives.  I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know if Union  Pacific under the existing Trackage Rights Agreement can be compelled to agree to a 2% grade simply because we want  them to.  On the assumption that we cannot compel Union Pacific’s agreement here, then a successful negotiation with  Union Pacific (either directly or with Caltrain as intermediary) will have to address these economic issues.  Considering  the huge cost savings achievable by a 2% grade as opposed to a 1% grade for the various grade separation alternatives,  City of Palo Alto can probably justify an economic agreement with Union Pacific to offset their increased costs of  operation.    Larger descending grades also have a safety issue.  Maximum train speed may need to be restricted to prevent a  “runaway.”    Phil Burton    From: Tom DuBois [mailto:tomforcouncil@gmail.com]   Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 10:17 AM  To: Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>  Cc: Adina Levin <aldeivnian@gmail.com>; Chris Logan <christine.logan@gmail.com>; Dave Shen  <dshenster@gmail.com>; De Geus, Robert <Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.org>; Elizabeth Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com>;  2 Goodwin Eileen <apexstr@pacbell.net>; Greg Brail <greg@brail.org>; Inyoung Cho <inyoungcho0@gmail.com>; James  Keene <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kari Hodgson <karihodgson@gmail.com>; Mandar Borkar  <mandar.borkar@gmail.com>; Megan Kanne <kanne.megan@gmail.com>; Parag Patkar <parag@virtunetsystems.com>;  Patricia Lau <patlau2010@gmail.com>; Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>; Philip Burton <philip‐b@comcast.net>;  Shikada, Ed <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tony Carrasco <tony@carrasco.com>; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org;  etty.mercurio@aecom.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com  Subject: Re: The issue of 2% grade:  And in April 2017, the rail committee at my urging agreed to have Palo Alto sign on to the letter with several other cities in the Caltrain Local Policy maker Group to Union Pacific requesting the 2% grade. On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:07 AM Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, The issue of whether 2% grade is viable for grade separations along the corridor continues to be discussed. As a refresher for policy makers and to provide information for AECOM (who did not receive this information previously), I'm summarizing previous points made on this issue. It is important to note that unlike clearance levels (which are determined by the California Public Utilities Comission), the % grade of operations is determined by Caltrain/UP. The 1% "requirement" is absolutely negotiable. Consider the following: 1) Freight trains can handle 2% grade. They "prefer" to stay flat, but diesel trains can climb to 5% or more if needed. Passenger trains are much more flexible because they weigh less - so 2% for them is fine. And keep in mind that we are requesting 2% grade for very short distances. 2) In 2010, the High Speed Rail Authority actually planned for trains to go 2% grade in Palo Alto. Rather than link to the EIR, here's a quick explanation from a technical blog which looks at Caltrain/HSR issues where this was noted back in 2010: From the blog:  Freight grades: we were told all along that 1% is the limiting gradient for heavy freight. Not so in Palo Alto, where there is a 2% grade shown in the track profiles (page 15). Recall that the steepness of a grade has no impact on passenger comfort, frequent references to roller-coasters notwithstanding. (This question of dynamics seems to confuse civil engineers, who deal mostly with statics.) If a freight train can handle a 2% grade in Palo Alto, it can certainly handle a 2% grade anywhere else; that's the concept of ruling grade. Considering that steeper grades would greatly reduce the footprint of any elevated section, for example, the massive Mary Avenue rail overpass in Sunnyvale shown on page 18, why are 2% grades not the rule? 3) Freight Users confirm that 2% is possible - When Palo Alto was arguing with HSR for tunnels and trenches, HSR blamed freight as the reason we could not look at 2% on the corridor. This was refuted by the Peninsula Freight User 3 Group (PFRUG) - which are essentially Union Pacific's customers (since UP is notoriously shy about saying anything in public). Their correspondence is attached. 4) UP is actually looking to outsource their operations on the Peninsula to a short-haul operator per an agreement they have in place with Caltrain. Other cities (not Palo Alto) sent feedback to UP about this issue. Former Mayor Ed Lee of San Francisco and San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo sent a letter in 2017 (attached) to Union Pacific specifically requesting that the new operator on the line should be able to operate at 2%. They wrote in part "We ask that Union Pacific, as part of your RFP (Request for Proposal), indicate to potential bidders that this change is likely and that the short-line operator will be expected to operate on a system that includes grades up to two percent. " (bolding is mine). As always, if you have any questions, please let me know. Nadia Naik Co-founder, CARRD www.calhsr.com 4 Carnahan, David From:Tony Carrasco <tony@carrasco.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 2:08 PM To:nadia naik Cc:greg@brail.org; Phil Burton; Penny Ellson; Levin, Adina; Mandar Borkar; Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis; parag@virtunetsystems.com; christine.logan@gmail.com; dshenster@gmail.com; karihodgson@gmail.com; kanne.megan@gmail.com; inyoungcho0@gmail.com; patlau2010 @gmail.com; Council, City; Eileen Goodwin; De Geus, Robert; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal Subject:Re: The issue of 2% grade: Dear Council members; Rail Committee Chair Cory and City Manager Ed,  Pleas find a way for us be able to use a 2% grade and an 18' nominal height clearance from the relevant  authorities.  At this point, these two numbers are critical in the geometry of several cost effective as well as visually  attractive alternatives that could be discarded if we are to use a less than 2% grade or a higher than 18'  clearance.      On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 1:47 PM Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> wrote:  CAP Members, For background, the reason for my flurry of emails is that the City is urgently working on a letter to Caltrain on these issues and I wanted the City to have all relevant information to be able to draft a strong letter. At the Rail Committee Meeting held last Wednesday, there was a draft paper copy of a letter to Caltrain (not available online) asking Caltrain about these issues. (ATTACHED) My emails are a summary of issues that have been raised since before the formation of the CAP and since before AECOM came on board - hence the long cc list. Ed: Thanks so much for your quick response. I’m glad you found my emails useful. I’m not sure that simply forwarding my emails to Caltrain is appropriate since they are not written with Caltrain as the intended audience. I’m happy to have staff use my research as their own to bolster the City’s talking points, but I think it would carry much more weight with Caltrain if the City includes the salient point in the official letter. None of the issues in my emails are new per se. The issue of height clearances in the SF tunnels is something CARRD has raised to the City staff, consultants and the council for several years. The issue of the San Francisquito bridge clearance is something I noticed last week when I happened to be stopped at the PA Ave grade separation while a train went by. This prompted us to research the Caltrain Final EIR extensively and discovered that the clearance was specifically called out in the EIR – something that was a surprise to us because we had never fully read the EIR. We spent several days researching the issue and consulting with experts to send the appropriate information to your team since we know that the City is currently understaffed and that the Caltrain letter is urgent. 5 The issue of 2% grade is also something that we have been raising for several years now both in writing and in numerous public statements at Rail committee and City Council meetings. My email was simply a summary of all of the previous emails I've sent to the City Staff and City Council on this issue. Nadia   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>  Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:27 AM  Subject: RE: The issue of 2% grade:  To: Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>  Cc: Goodwin Eileen <apexstr@pacbell.net>, De Geus, Robert <Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.org>,  etty.mercurio@aecom.com <etty.mercurio@aecom.com>, millette.litzinger@aecom.com  <millette.litzinger@aecom.com>, Keene, James <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, Gaines, Chantal  <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>    Thanks Nadia; unless you see a problem we’ll attach both this and your clearance emails to our letter to Caltrain.  This  obviously required a lot of work; thanks so much for your energetic advocacy!     For what it’s worth, it would have been helpful to know about this sooner (assuming you didn’t do all this overnight) so  we could set expectations with our team.  Clearly we can be effective partners in this effort while respecting the  independence we all need to respect.     Thanks again!  ‐‐Ed        From: Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 10:06 AM  To: Greg Brail <greg@brail.org>; Philip Burton <philip‐b@comcast.net>; Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>; Levin,  Adina <aldeivnian@gmail.com>; Mandar Borkar <mandar.borkar@gmail.com>; Elizabeth Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com>;  Carrasco, Tony <tony@carrasco.com>; Parag Patkar <parag@virtunetsystems.com>; Chris Logan  <christine.logan@gmail.com>; Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com>; Kari Hodgson <karihodgson@gmail.com>; Megan  Kanne <kanne.megan@gmail.com>; Inyoung Cho <inyoungcho0@gmail.com>; Patricia Lau <patlau2010@gmail.com>;  Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Goodwin Eileen <apexstr@pacbell.net>; De Geus, Robert <Robert.DeGeus@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  etty.mercurio@aecom.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; Keene, James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: The issue of 2% grade:     Dear City Council Members,   June 19, 2017 Francisco Castillo Director of Public Affairs Union Pacific Railroad (916) 789-5957 fcastillo@up.com Re: Cities’ Letter to Union Pacific to inform Short-Haul Freight Operator Request for Proposals (RFP) regarding Peninsula Grade Separations Thank you for this opportunity to comment on your RFP process. We look forward to the opportunity to develop a close relationship with a smaller, specialized short-line freight operator. We believe that this change will facilitate a collaborative passenger-freight relationship and also allow Union Pacific Railroad to focus its resources on the operation of its extensive mainline network. The Peninsula cities consider the Caltrain corridor to be a vital resource for a vastly improved passenger operation, as well as a coordinated and complementary rail freight service. We note three concurrent actions along the right-of-way that create significant opportunity: • Electrification of Caltrain – which will allow higher levels of train service at lower cost; • Assignment of freight rights to a short-line operator – allowing a coordinated and locally-based collaboration between passenger and freight service; and • Eventual grade separation of the Caltrain right-of-way from San Francisco to San Jose, as appropriate. We believe that these projects and changes are complementary, and to achieve the most benefit for all parties, all the parties should work together to develop new “ground rules” that strengthen the economy and enhance the quality of life of our dynamic region. The electrification of Caltrain will allow for higher grades, as electric service can easily deal with up to a two percent grade. At the same time, the short-line operator will be starting service with a “clean slate.” Past design criteria have considered long, heavy freight trains that need limited grades. Short- line operators generally operate short trains during limited windows of operation, and the grade restrictions are less severe. Grade separations, which are in everyone’s interest, are more easily and thoughtfully delivered if the engineering criteria allow for grades in excess of those provided for today (one percent). The existing, restrictive criteria create large projects that consume huge sums and create significant neighborhood impacts. In anticipation of Caltrain electrification, the Peninsula cities expect to work with Caltrain to amend the design criteria to provide for a two percent grade design standard. Grades exceeding two percent are likely to require design exceptions. We ask that Union Pacific, as part of your RFP, indicate to potential bidders that this change is likely and that the short-line operator will be expected to operate on a system that includes grades up to two percent. Projects exceeding this standard will still require a design exception, for which the short-line operator will have significant consultation rights. The undersigned want to see the at-grade crossings eliminated along the entire corridor, to promote the safety and health of the railroads, enhance the safety and quality of life of residents and businesses along the corridor, and create opportunities for smart growth in the historic centers of Peninsula communities. Separating train traffic from other modes at intersections will take many year and even more capital investment than electrification itself, and it will be led by the cities where those crossings remain. To complete corridor-long grade separation, we wish to partner with Union Pacific, its designated short-line operator, Caltrain, and regional agencies. We see the selection of a short-line operator as an opportunity to modernize and improve freight rail, possibly including an electrified fleet, as well as to make improvements that will benefit everyone along the corridor. Working together, we can support the short-line operator, as well as the new Trackage Rights Agreement, when the matter comes to the Caltrain Joint Powers Board as well as the federal Surface Transportation Board. In partnership. Edwin M. Lee Sam T. Liccardo Mayor, City and County of San Francisco Mayor, City of San José Port of Redwood City Port of San Francisco Seaport Industrial Association San Francisco Bay Railroad SF Chamber of Commerce SF Dept. of the Environment ILWU Local JO BAE Systems SF Ship Repair Ca/stone CEMEX Central Concrete Clean Harbors Environmental Darling International Dean 's Services Graniterock Lehigh Hanson Lyngso Garden Materials Marine Highways, LLC METRO Ports Operating Engineers Local 3 Pacific Agri-Products Peninsula Building Materials Pine Cone l umber Sheedy Drayage Co: Sierra Point Lumber Sims Metal Management South City Lumber Summit Signal The Pasha Group Unilever Univar Waste Solutions Group January 24, 2017 California Freight Advisory Committee Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street, Bldg. B San Jose, CA 95134-1927 DELIVERED BY EMAIL Re: Freight Rail in the South Bay Area Region Dear Members of the CFAC: The Peninsula Freight Rail Users Group (PFRUG) offers the following comments on item 3 of your agenda: Overview of Goods Movement in the South Bay Area Region. PFRUG members include the freight rail shippers on the Caltrain corridor, the two public ports on the San Francisco Bay Peninsula (San Francisco and . Redwood City), and business and labor stakeholders. We have participated actively in the planning process for Caltrain modernization and California High Speed Rail (HSR) over many years, giving input to the Peninsula Rail Program, the Caltrain Modernization Project, the California High Speed Rail Authority, the Bay Area Goods Movement Collaborative, and the State Rail Plan. As you consider the future of rail service regionally and statewide, we urge you to take into account the complementary and mutually reinforcing benefits of moving people and goods by rail. There is a vital public interest in preserving the viability of freight rail service on the Peninsula, which generates high-quality jobs and significantly reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. Over the past decade, roughly 20,000-30,000 loaded rail cars have carried 2-3 million tons of cargo on the Caltrain corridor each year. This is the equivalent of at least 100,000 truck trips annually, cargo that is now moved by night that would otherwise add to traffic congestion during the day. In peak years the numbers are substantially higher, emphasizing the need to plan for the future. Peninsula Freight Rail Users Group I 675 Seaport Blvd I Redwood City, CA 94063 1 For the record, Caltrain's commitments regarding freight rail include the following statements in its Strategic Plan 2015-2024: • • • • • • • "(T)he agency must work with local and regional transit providers as well as passenger and freight rail operators to ensure the smooth flow of people and goods through the corridor. (p. 18) (T)he Caltrain right-of-way provides the only freight rail access to the Peninsula and San Francisco. The use of the corridor for freight fulfills a critical goods movement function in a socially and environmentally responsible way and the agency will sustain its efforts to partner with freight users and smoothly integrate freight and commuter rail operations. While Caltrain faces a finite corridor capacity and a complex regulatory environment, the agency will strive to address these challenges in a collaborative and transparent manner with its rail partners. (p. 18) Continue to accommodate freight and passenger tenants whose operations are compatible with Caltrain and blended system service, and support compatibility between passenger and freight service to the extent possible. (p. 19) Caltrain is committed to accommodating freight on its corridor along with its other existing tenants. (p. BS) Staff has added additional language to Focus Area 5 of the plan narrative to emphasize the value Caltrain places on its partnership with the freight providers who use its corridor. (p. B5) The corridor also plays an important role in goods movement, with Union Pacific providing freight services to customers along the San Francisco Peninsula. (p. A3) At the regional and local level, Caltrain must work to sustain its partnerships with existing tenant rail services that use the Peninsula Corridor, including both freight and passenger services." (p. 6) PFRUG appreciates your work to plan for the future of rail in California, and the fact that public agencies are taking a more integrated approach to the movement of goods and people by rail. Freight and passenger service are certainly compatible on the shared corridor, and we look forward to contributing to a world-class system that serves both. Sincerely, Greg Greenway Executive Director Peninsula Freight Rail Users Group I 675 Seaport Blvd I Redwood City, CA 94063 2 1 Carnahan, David From:Patricia Lau <patlau2010@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:08 PM To:Phil Burton Cc:Gregory Brail; Levin, Adina; Council, City; Eileen Goodwin; Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis; Keene, James; Mandar Borkar; Penny Ellson; De Geus, Robert; Carrasco, Tony; christine.logan@gmail.com; dshenster@gmail.com; Shikada, Ed; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; inyoungcho0@gmail.com; kanne.megan@gmail.com; karihodgson@gmail.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; nadia naik; parag@virtunetsystems.com Subject:Re: URGENT: The Importance of resolving Caltrain Clearance Issues Phil,    Thanks very much for sharing your expertise regarding the overall US railroad industry, and specifically the short line  operation that exists from San Francisco to San Jose.  Because my knowledge base is limited regarding freight cars, I am  reading articles and reports to enhance my understanding about public health and safety measures related to  transporting goods in this manner.      Once again, thanks for your help.    Pat    Patricia Lau            On Oct 23, 2018, at 4:09 PM, Phil Burton <philip‐b@comcast.net> wrote:    Patricia,   I don’t have access to that Wall Street Journal article, but I know a lot about the railroad industry in  general.   The US railroad industry is composed of five major “mainline” systems, and hundreds of small and  “short line” or “branch line” operations.  The five mainline systems operate in many states across one or  more major regions within the US.  Union Pacific and Burlington Northern‐Sante Fe (BNSF) are the two  systems operating in the western part of the US.  All these companies operate many thousands of miles  of track connecting cities and states.  They all operate trains that run hundreds of miles between major  cities and or major rail yards, where freight cars are forwarded to their destinations.  Some premium  trains operate at 60 mph.  These companies are trying to manage costs by running longer trains, thereby  minimizing labor costs for train crews.     The “weight and pulling force” issue relates to overall train “tonnage” and grades.  Tonnage refers to the  weight of the cars, loaded or empty.  Overall train tonnage and grades limit the ability of one or more  locomotives to move a train up a hill.  Rails often use multiple locomotives to pull longer and heavier  trains.  There is nothing unsafe about such operations, if operated properly and “drawbar” limits are not  exceeded.  Not seeing that WSJ article, I’m not sure I understand just how such operations “have a  2 negative impact on traffic and create a safety hazards.”  The only possibility is that longer trains mean a  greater delay for automobiles at grade crossing, but most rail lines see fewer than ten trains a day.   None of the above applies to short line and branch line rail systems, which operate much shorter trains  for much shorter distances.  For our purposes, the Caltrain system from San Francisco to San Jose is a  short line operation.     Phil Burton   From: Patricia Lau [mailto:patlau2010@gmail.com]   Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 9:53 AM  To: Gregory Brail <greg@brail.org>  Cc: Phil Burton <philip‐b@comcast.net>; Adina Levin <aldeivnian@gmail.com>; City Council  <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Eileen Goodwin <apexstr@pacbell.net>; Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis  <ealexis@gmail.com>; Keene, James <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>; Mandar Borkar  <mandar.borkar@gmail.com>; Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>; Robert De Geus  <Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tony Carrasco <tony@carrasco.com>;  christine.logan@gmail.com; dshenster@gmail.com; ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org;  etty.mercurio@aecom.com; inyoungcho0@gmail.com; kanne.megan@gmail.com;  karihodgson@gmail.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; nadia naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>;  parag@virtunetsystems.com  Subject: Re: URGENT: The Importance of resolving Caltrain Clearance Issues Nadia, Thank you for taking the time to coordinate this effort. I understand that vertical clearance is the main topic of your letter. However, I would like to add a comment. Regarding the key concepts in the response from Caltrain, under (3) it states that “a few additional railcars on some freight consists would not substantially change environmental conditions for air quality, greenhouse gas emissions or regional traffic”. However, I’ve read recent articles including, Why Railroads Are Making Freight Trains Longer and Longer, Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2018, that discuss the length of the freight trains as being problematic in terms of weight and pulling force. Companies and investors are advocating for longer trains to save on fuel, crews, and other resources to reduce the cost of rail transportation. Some of the super long trains are two to three miles long (200 cars or more), and require additional locomotives. This trend will definitely have a negative impact on traffic and create a safety hazard. Patricia Lau On Oct 22, 2018, at 9:01 PM, Gregory Brail <greg@brail.org> wrote: Thanks for putting this together — it’s a critical topic and it sounds like it could have an effect. 3 What do we collectively know about the 2% grade issue? I understand that it’s outside of Caltrain’s acceptable range. I also understand that it’s a pretty steep grade for a freight train such as the gravel trains that pass through Palo Alto. Do we have any way to find out how much more noise such a train ascending or descending a 2% frade would make versus one on a 1% grade? Similarly, would steeper grades require a freight operator to shorten trains (and thus run more trains) or use additional locomotives? Or, are there steeper grades on the freight route that would make all of this moot? I’m asking because I feel that if we don’t understand all the impacts, and I fear that designing solutions for Palo Alto that imagine that the 1% grade requirement will just go away might be fruitless. (I have the same fears about the creeks, but that’s not a question for Caltrain but for someone who understands municipal water infrastructure.) On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:32 PM Phil Burton <philip-b@comcast.net> wrote: Should not this letter to Caltrain also raise the issue of maximum grades, the requested 2% instead of the current 1%. Phil Burton Sent from my iPad On Oct 22, 2018, at 3:16 PM, Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> wrote: Understanding water table constraints is equally important to choosing the best and most cost effective grade sep option. We can’t be the only city with this problem. From: Tony Carrasco [mailto:tony@carrasco.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 3:12 PM To: nadia naik Cc: City Council; Keene, James; ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org; Robert De Geus; Eileen Goodwin; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; ch ristine.logan@gmail.com; dshenster@gmail.com; greg@brail.org; inyou ngcho0@gmail.com; karihodgson@gmail.com; Mandar Borkar; kanne.megan@gmail.com; parag@virtunetsystems.com; patlau 2010@gmail.com; Phil Burton; Adina Levin; Penny Ellson; Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis Subject: Re: URGENT: The Importance of resolving Caltrain Clearance Issues Bravo Nadia! Clearance dimensions, height and width, is one of the most significant cost reduction and Design feel benefits from keeping the roadway flat for bikes and Pedestrians and on top of the rail. 4 On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 1:34 PM Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, At the last rail committee meeting, a draft letter to Caltrain was circulated that deals with a number of question the City wants to ask Caltrain. We know this letter will be sent soon. Attached is a detailed letter relating to the Caltrain vertical clearance (height) issue along the corridor. We would ask that you consider our letter before sending your response to Caltrain as it gives important additional information we have not discussed previously. Thanks for your attention to this. If you have any questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Nadia Naik Co-Founder, CARRD www.calhsr.com -- Tony Carrasco CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES http://www.carrasco.com/ 1885 El Camino Real, Palo Alto CA 94306 650-322-2288 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avg.com   1 Carnahan, David From:Courtney Nordlund <courtney_nordlun@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 5:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received Your welcome and on any documents printed are names read out or will it be stated that a certain issue was raised and  not the person’s name who raised it? Courtney  Sent from my iPad    On Oct 23, 2018, at 5:40 PM, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all nine Council  Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council  packet.     If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call  329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting.     If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an  explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification.     We appreciate hearing from you.  1 Carnahan, David From:William Ross <wross@lawross.com> Sent:Thursday, October 18, 2018 11:21 AM To:Lee, Elena; Info, Plandiv Cc:Council, City Subject:Request for Notice, North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Working Group Meetings Attachments:Lee (Request for Notice, North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Work Group Meetings) 10.18.18.pdf; North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan.pdf Please see the attached.    William D. Ross, Esq.  Law Offices of William D. Ross  A Professional Corporation  400 Lambert Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94306  Tel: (650) 843‐8080; Fax: (650) 843‐8093  E‐Mail:  wross@lawross.com    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E‐MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL  USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY‐CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS  PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY  NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY  PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E‐MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE  AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM.  THANK YOU    William D. Ross Karin A. Briggs David Schwarz Kypros G. Hostetter Of Counsel Law Offices of William D. Ross 400 Lambert Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone: (650) 843-8080 Facsimile: (650) 843-8093 Los Angeles Office: P.O. Box 25532 Los Angeles, CA 90025 File No: 1/10 October 18, 2018 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Elena.Lee@CityofPaloAlto.org PlanDiv.Info@CityofPaloAlto.org Ms. Elena Lee, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue – Fifth Floor Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Request for Notice, North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Working Group Meetings Dear Ms. Lee: This office has been a business located at 400 Lambert Avenue within the City of Palo Alto (“City”) for over 25 years. The business is registered with the City. The enclosed reproduced Notice to the October 17, 2018 Meeting of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (“Plan”) Working Group was received from a friend of an employee at Stanford. As you are aware, Government Code Section 65033 requires that maximum efforts be utilized by local agency planning entities to facilitate full public participation in land use decisions. In addition to this office not receiving notice, at least two residents within the Plan area did not receive notice, as well as another long-standing business. Additionally, the meeting was not listed on the City Meeting website. An initial notice to all properties within the Plan area, and within five hundred feet of the Plan boundaries would comply with the referenced State Legislation intent as well as the “Community Engagement” intent expressed in Plan documents. Accordingly, timely written notice of all future proceedings associated with any aspect of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Working Group and the Plan is Elena Lee, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto October 18, 2018 Page 2 requested. Also, please consider this a request under the Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et sec.) for all documents and communication associated with the type and extent of notice given by the City in any way associated with the proposed Coordinated Area Plan. Your timely review of this matter is requested. Very truly yours, William D. Ross WDR:jf cc: City Council Enclosure 1 Carnahan, David From:Lauren Pack-Ben-Shoshan <lauren@ben-shoshan.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 24, 2018 9:00 AM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Riconada Pool Good morning,    My name is Lauren Ben‐Shoshan; I live on Louis Road here in Palo Alto.   I just wanted to raise my voice in chorus to the lap swimmers you heard at last night's meeting concerning preserving lap  swim at Riconada Pool. Swimming under the redwood trees and open skies of Riconada is one of the true joys of living in  Palo Alto. Free lap swim allows swimmers of all abilities to go at their own pace, listening to their own bodies needs; it  empowers each swimmer to self‐determine and enjoy their own workout. Masters classes ‐ while nice for some ‐ simply  do not allow that space and time. However, open lap swim does. For those recovering from injury, those who need the  meditative peace of a solo swim in our face‐paced community, or those who simply do not like being told how to work  out, open lap swim provides the refuge they need. Freedom to engage in open, unstructured recreation is important for  children and adults. Please preserve lap swim at Riconada. Thank you.    Best,  Lauren Ben‐Shoshan  1 Carnahan, David From:bryan kirk <bryan.kirk@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 7:45 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission; LeBlanc, Jazmin; Douglas, Stephanie; Eva, Sharon Subject:Rinconada Aquatics Program Dear City Councilmembers and City staff:    We wanted to send this email as we are not able to attend the parks and recreation meeting tonight to discuss the new  pool proposal.      At different times, we are recreational swimmers, lap swimmers, Master’s swimmers, triathletes, youth swim team  members and parents, and people who simply like hanging out at the pool.  As residents of Downtown North, we have  been users of both the Burgess Park pool in Menlo Park and the Rinconada pool.      Over the last ten years, we have been very disappointed to watch as the Burgess Park pool has gradually drifted from a  wonderful community resource to what at times seems only a “pool‐for‐hire” dedicated to enriching and promoting the  various Team Sheeper programs with community use squeezed to a minimum.  We taught our eldest child (now 9) to  swim ourselves mainly at Burgess.  With our second child (now 6), we fought to be able to teach him ourselves in what  was the gradually shrinking availability for open swim.  First, it was two lanes, then one, then none for most of the hours  we previously used.  Finally with our third child (now 3), we gave in and paid for swim lessons simply for the chance to  get in the pool with him (and largely teach him ourselves in the context of the swim school “lessons”).    In a similar way, we’ve seen lap swim hours shrink and lanes disappear.  We’ve also seen competing programs (Solo  Aquatics) be squeezed by the Team Sheeper programs, alongside the general community.    WE DON’T WANT WHAT HAS HAPPENED AT BURGESS TO HAPPEN AT RINCONADA.     Open swim and lap swim are community resources.  Successful Master’s and youth swim programs take decades to  build and become on par with the programs that currently exist at Rinconada and have through their cultures and  participation become community resources in themselves.      While we recognize there are economic concerns in sustaining a pool, a “pool‐for‐hire” is not a community pool.  A pool  that’s a platform to expand proprietary programs is not a community pool.  In fact, it’s a conflict of interest that needs to  be very carefully monitored and regulated by the city to ensure the community’s interests are truly being served.      We are fortunate to live in an area with great aquatic resources.  Stanford has amazing facilities with a world‐class  Master’s program.  Menlo Park has great facilities, which sadly at this point are what they are.  Rinconada is our  community’s pool.  We need to protect all the components that go into that — lap swim, open swim, PASA, Rinconada  Master’s.  There’s opportunities to build around them certainly, but the core as it exists today should not be  compromised.  We hope you as our representatives can recognize that and hear the voices of the people for whom that  bit of water is a big part of their lives.     Best regards,    Bryan & Jane Kirk    180 Emerson Street, Palo Alto  (650) 279‐9072  1 Carnahan, David From:David Levinson <David.Levinson@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 4:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rinconada Masters swimming program To the Palo Alto City Council:    The existence of the Rinconada Masters swimming program, which the City of Palo Alto has been supporting since the  early 1970s, is under serious threat from Tim Sheeper (aka Palo Alto Swim and Sport), who is proposing to eliminate the  program and assume total personal control of who can use Rinconada Pool and when.  Many of us swimmers plan to  attend the October 23 Parks and Rec meeting to voice our concerns and make them public.  Please do not take any  action on the control of the Palo Alto aquatics programs until these concerns have been seriously addressed.      David A. Levinson   1 Carnahan, David From:alemmenes@juno.com Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 4:37 PM To:Council, City Cc:ParkRec Commission; LeBlanc, Jazmin; Douglas, Stephanie; Eva, Sharon Subject:Rinconada Pool To whom it may concern,     My name is Ann Lemmenes and my husband and I have been home owners and Rinconada pool users in Palo Alto for  over 20 years.  My husband grew up in Palo Alto, so prior to moving here we visited Palo Alto and swam at Rinconada  while visiting his family.  He grew up enjoying this pool and our two younger children learned to swim there and spent  many happy hours practicing those skills and enjoying long summer afternoons with friends there.  Since retiring from  my competitive swimming career I have been a dedicated lap swimmer and use Rinconada pool 3 times a week in the  early morning time slot (6‐7am) to get my workout in before I start my official day. In the summertime I try to bring my  granddaughter over to enjoy the pool that her mother once played in.     We love this pool and the spirit and civic benefit that a public pool provides to a city.  I teach in Palo Alto and used to see a lot of my students from both Palo Alto and East Palo Alto frolicking in the water on a hot summer day.   This summer I  went over with my granddaughter on a hot day.  Unfortunately the recreational swim times have been rather drastically  shortened causing an overload of people wanting to play/swim in the pool during those reduced hours.  We stood in a  long line with a lot of other people (mostly parents with children), while we waited for swimmers to leave so the next  person in line could enter.  After waiting for a significant amount of time, in the hot sun, we left very disappointed that  we could not swim.  Longer recreational swim hours are needed at this very valuable public venue.     On a more personal note I have Multiple Sclerosis and I rely on Rinconada pool to provide me the opportunity to stay in  shape in one of the few ways left to me.  I swim in the morning because that is when I have the energy to work out.  By  the end of my teaching day I do not have the ability to complete a work out of any value at all.  Please keep the lap  swim schedule as it currently is and extend or otherwise increase the lap swim hours offered.   I don't have the  numbers (but I'm sure you can get them), but there are a large group of lap and recreational swimmers that value and  utilize this public pool (when I swim in the mornings we almost always having to double up in the lanes).  To forfeit what  a community pool provides to the citizens of the area would be a huge loss.      Please bear in mind that a public pool should be held in trust for the community and not given over to any one specific  group.  Thank you,  Ann Lemmenes, my family, and the community of Rinconada swimmers      ____________________________________________________________  Thinning Hair? Pour This On Your Head And Watch What Happens revivethinninghair.com http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3142/5bcfb0ac5956830ac3074st02vuc  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.SponsoredBy Content.Ad   1 Carnahan, David From:Kossler, Bob <bob.kossler@hpe.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 3:07 PM To:ParkRec Commission Cc:Council, City; Carol Macpherson Subject:Rinconada Pool Attachments:Rinconada Masters.pdf TO: Parks and Recreation Commission Members (parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org) CC: Palo Alto City Council (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org) FR: The Rev. Robert J Kossler SB: Proposed Changes to Rinconada Pool and the Master’s Swim Program DT: 23 October 2018 Today I would like to express my concerns regarding proposed changes to the use of Rinconada Pool. As I understand the current situation, the Palo Alto Recreation and Community Services department negotiated a contract for Tim Sheeper to manage the pool facilities. This contract had a duration of one year and is now up for renewal. Recreation and Community Services is now negotiating a new contract with Tim Sheeper. My understanding is that this new contract no longer allows for the Rinconada Masters Swim Team to use the Rinconada Pool. Tim Sheeper announced last week that the new contract no longer includes the Rinconada Masters Team. Other changes impact others. My focus is on the Master's program. The Rinconada Masters are a diverse group of swimmers. We cover a large swath from an age standpoint. I am impressed by the dedication of the swimmers to the sport and each other. Monday, Wednesday and Friday, the team struggles with pool covers and outdated equipment. We work out together, and we support each other, especially when life becomes a challenge. Carol and Terry provide skilled, thoughtful coaching. Nobody is left out, and all are welcome. Rinconada Pool is a respite for many of us who work far too many hours. The team allows us to be a true community. It would be sad to see this community dissolved by Tim Sheeper and the changes under consideration by both the City Council and the Parks and Recreations committee. I urge you to please reconsider. Regards, Bob+   TO: Parks and Recreation Commission Members (mailto:parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org) CC: Palo Alto City Council (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org) FR: The Rev. Robert J Kossler SB: Proposed Changes to Rinconada Pool and the Master’s Swim Program DT: 23 October 2018 Today I would like to express my concerns regarding proposed changes to the use of Rinconada Pool. As I understand the current situation, the Palo Alto Recreation and Community Services department negotiated a contract for Tim Sheeper to manage the pool facilities. This contract had a duration of one year and is now up for renewal. Recreation and Community Services is now negotiating a new contract with Tim Sheeper. My understanding is that this new contract no longer allows for the Rinconada Masters Swim Team to use the Rinconada Pool. Tim Sheeper announced last week that the new contract no longer includes the Rinconada Masters Team. There are other changes that impact others. My focus is on the Master's program. The Rinconada Masters are a diverse group of swimmers. We cover a large swath from an age standpoint. I am impressed by the dedication of the swimmers to the sport and to each other. Monday, Wednesday and Friday, the team struggles with pool covers and outdated equipment. We work out together, and we support each other, especially when life becomes a challenge. Carol and Terry provide skilled, thoughtful coaching. Nobody is left out, and all are welcome. Rinconada Pool is a respite for many of us who work far too many hours. The team allows us to be a true community. It would be sad to see this community dissolved by Tim Sheeper and the changes under consideration by both the City Council and the Parks and Recreations committee. I urge you to please reconsider. Regards, Bob+ 1 Carnahan, David From:Heidi Kerscher <hkerscher@pausd.org> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 12:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rinconada Pool Hello,    I am writing in the hopes to persuade you to keep the early swim hours at Rinconada Community Pool. I am a mother,  teacher, wife, friend, and many more things in a single day and swimming laps on Tuesdays and Thursdays is the ONLY  thing that I do for myself! Swimming in a spot that is affordable, accessible to all and is in a good location are one of the  many reasons I strongly want the morning pool hours to stay as they are even if a new contract is awarded. Changing  the schedule to accommodate only those that do not work, or have flexible schedules, unlike teachers, creates an access  problem and quite honestly just follows an action that separates the community between the haves and the have nots.    I strongly encourage you, as members who were voted in by all people of Palo Alto, to keep the community access to a  pool, and affordability  for all.     Best,     Heidi Kerscher  1 Carnahan, David From:Yoffe, Bonnie Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 12:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rinconada Pool Attachments:Rinconada City Council letter.docx TO: Palo Alto City Council As a City employee for the last 21 years I have had the pleasure of enjoying my Masters swimming workout at Rinconada Pool before work several days a week. The program is highly valued by the swimmers under the very experienced direction of Carol Macpherson. I, and many of my fellow Masters swimmers, are very concerned about the City’s decision to contract out the pool to a private sub-contractor without valuable input from the current and long-term pool users. Our community Masters team of over 40 years has been denied a sub-contract. There will also be significant impacts on the many lap swimmers who value their program at the pool. We are unclear about the hours and lanes available to us all in the future. I am a strong believer in “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. These outsourcing changes are detrimental for the local swimming community, as far as providing the pool utilization support and services that we, the community members, want for our programs. With a new contract, we are very concerned about the amount of control the private contractor has on the price, hours of operation, scheduling, and aquatic programs at the pool. We need the Recreation Community Service Department to listen to and value our input in advocating for our swimming community. Sincerely, Bonnie Yoffe, DVM City Veterinarian Palo Alto Animal Services and Rinconada Masters swimmer for the last 20 years 1 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Gregory <jennifergregory311@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rinconada Pool Contract Dear City Council Members    Because I understand the Palo Alto City Council is considering signing a 5‐year contract with Team Sheeper, the  organization that runs the Burgess Pool in Menlo park, I want to communicate my strong desire that the current  availability of lap swim is preserved, both in its quantity (number of lanes) and in its timing (early morning hours,  especially from 6‐7 am).    It is very important to me that Rinconada Pool remain accessible to lap swimmers who are not participating in an  organized program (like Masters), especially in the prime early morning hours.  I have been swimming 3x/week at 6am  at Rinconada Pool for 17 years.  The vast majority of time during this period I have observed the pool to be well‐utilized  (lanes full, two people in many lanes).  I see many swimmers who have swum regularly for years.      I have always appreciated having a local pool where I can do the early morning workout that is right for me.  I regularly  express thankfulness for Rinconada Pool at Thanksgiving dinner.  It seems to me there are many people who like to work  out this way, need to do so early in the morning (so as to interfere less with work and the flow of their day, and because  their motivation to exercise is highest then‐ I know mine is), and want to do their own workout, not to participate in an  organized sport.  It's like being able to go for a run by yourself rather than join the track ‐and‐ field  or cross‐country  team.  I, for one, would likely never have begun swimming as an adult (an activity that I believe has benefited my  physical and mental health tremendously) if A) a public pool had not been available or if B) I had been required to join  an organized program like Masters.    I, for one, would be open to paying more for my monthly lap swim pass, if that is what it would take to preserve lap  swim availability as it is.    Thank you for your time.    Sincerely    Jennifer Gregory  Palo Alto, CA  (650)400‐6320 (cell)  1 Carnahan, David From:Daniel Gains <daniel.gains@protonmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 10:05 AM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Rinconada Pool Lap Swim Schedule To Whom It May Concern:     I am writing regarding a recent proposal to change the Rinconada Pool lap swim schedule.    The current pool schedule strikes the perfect balance between masters swim and open lap swimming.  During open lap  swim, a wide variety of people of different ages and abilities are currently able to swim at their own pace and in their  own manner.  Importantly, this is without the need for mandated instruction or a membership to a 3rd part organization  that is required for masters swim.    I request that the city council and the parks and recreation commission require the open lap swim schedule to remain as  is so that the the widest diversity of residents can continue to enjoy the pool.    Thank you,    Daniel Gains      1 Carnahan, David From:Dominic Phillips <dominicmphillips@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2018 9:07 AM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Rinconada pool proposal To whom it may concern,     My name is Dominic Phillips and I live across the street from Rinconada Pool on Hopkina Ave. I am unable to attend the  parks and recreations meeting this evening to discuss the new pool proposal but wanted to share my concerns in an  email. I utilize Rinconada pool three mornings per week at 6am for lap swimming. This is an incredibly popular time slot  as all lanes are utilized throughout the morning and we often share lanes. I'm concerned that Tim Sheeper's proposal  doesn't have lap swimmers best interests at heart. His proposal to introduce a large Masters program at Rinconada pool  and give those swimmers access to most lanes every morning will negatively impact lap swimmers that enjoy access to  our town pool. Team Sheeper currently manages Burgess Park Pool and the schedule is extremely limited for lap  swimmers. Please help us keep Rinconada pool lap swimmer friendly.    Dominic Phillips  1 Carnahan, David From:Barbara Rieder <barieder@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 1:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rinconada Pool City Council Members and Mayor,  I am writing to express my concern about the future of our city pool and retention of the City's control for a balanced  and shared usage for all swimmers. Apparently there has been reduced transparency for a couple of major changes.  While my husband and I have been happy with midday lap swimming, we are concerned that the proposal submitted by  Tim Sheeper could significantly reduce access for Palo Alto residents.  We are eager to see a compromise that will work satisfactorily for all parties!    Barbara Rieder  650‐321‐1159    Sent from my iPad  1 Carnahan, David From:William Robinson <williamrobinson@goldenworld.com> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 7:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Town Hall 10/22 - Park BBvd Phase 2 Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bike Boulevard Projects Data shows that for years bicycle activity along Park Boulevard has surpassed  Bryant Bike Blvd by 50%. Happily the completion of the Homer tunnel in 2005  further increases bicycle use, climate friendly and quiet.    The council of May 2015 approved design contracts for Phase 1 and 2  Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard Projects. Phase 1 (aka Ross  Road) has been truncated. Phase 2, which includes Park and Wilkie, was  envisioned to begin construction fall 2018 – that’s now, how come not?    Who are Phase 2 users?  Bicyclists and pedestrians along Park are mostly different than those near Ross,  Bryant and Louis. Many do not live in Palo Alto; they arrive by transit, or bike in or  through, or walk to shopping, dining, business, education or medical centers. They  enrich our city’s wellness but probably would not show up at a meeting like this.  Since community outreach is unlikely to reach those users, the dedication and  experience of PABAC should weigh heavily on moving Phase 2 forward.    As a member of PABAC for 13 years I strongly urge the City to reenergize resources  for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Park and Wilkie concept plans have  existed since 2014 but final, construction ready documents have not been  reviewed. Wm Robinson, PA ‘Rob’ William Robinson 650-464-8933   1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 7:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Town Hall WE all know the many issues caused by over development, and over developers, have resulted in a huge imbalance of too many jobs and not enough residences. Then the result of those decisions have made a scenario that we cannot build our way out of, without more desecration of our city, our neighborhoods, our livability. If we were wise and that may be too much to hope for, we would stop all construction except what is necessary, like the new police building, and really take a clear look at where we residents and our city is right now. We would also work with Mountain View, as their new multi story residents, El Camino and San Antonio and the huge one a couple of blocks south on the P.A. side, to look at our cities as a whole. Traffic doesn't stop at the city limits of Palo Alto, or Mt. View, this is a regional, multi-cities mess. Those buildings will add to congestion, pollution, more cars, no shuttles will not take care of the problem. For any solution, we all must stop and reassess if it makes sense to continue on as if there is no tomorrow. And no one is taking the environment into account. An EIR for one development is really disingenuous, there must be an EIR for the whole area. Insanity is when you continue to do the same thing, and expect a different result. I believe it was Einstein said that, or something very close to it. Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 1 Carnahan, David From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Monday, October 22, 2018 8:31 PM To:Council, City; A-MIKE BECHLER; Geri Mc Gilvray; Keene, James; Dorian Manke Cc:klnordman54@gmail.com Subject:TRAFFIC   Dear city leaders,    How I wish I could get there!  It is painful to walk.    We DO  need TRAFFIC CALMING ON MIDDLEFIELD SOUTH OF Oregon Ex. and north of COLORADO in Midtown.    We have NO protection.  We started all the city speeding in 2009, and, it has ramped up and up for 9 years now.      Please put your $11,000,000.( I was sitting in your meeting when council gave it to themselves. ) into pensions and into a  full traffic team authorized to enforce all red light running everywhere in our precious little town.    We don’t need the head count tax, very few shops here anymore. Many is Los Altos are very nice.    The police are not doing their job.  They do not care about my street, and, do not enforce.  Not at all.      We need a full signal on MORENO, a real street, instead of the the two  parking lots....  WE NEED enforcement on Sundays.   Josh M. Would not advocate for sequencing at OREGON to give us a space to exit our driveway.    I didn’t mind what they did to ROSS, though it was never crowded.     THE LOCAL TRAFFIC IS SPEEDING all the time now because it can.     Sam Trans and VTA are useless here, empty for 10 years now, AND, the mean step sister to our trains.    The trouble on my street is   ONLY LACK OF ENFORCEMENT.    Why are you all so against it?      I would like to enjoy my neighborhood again. It was so lovely!    Tickets should not cost so much either.      Thank you ,  Geri McGilvray     EVERYDAY SAFETY AND WALKABILITY, etc.    650‐328‐2416        Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Craig CHampion <craigschampion@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, October 21, 2018 5:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Trash on Embarcadero Bike Path behind Paly High School Hello,    The bike path behind Paly High School is filthy with trash and broken glass; I have never seen it so bad.  I also notified  Public Works through 311, but appreciate your follow up to make sure it is done.  It is disgraceful that we permit such  filth to accumulate like this.  This path needs to be regularly maintained and should not wait for complaints like this to  initiate action.  Thank you,    Craig Champion  2150 Barbara Drive  ' P aced Before Meeting [ ] Received at Meeting CUBBERLEY C O-DESIGN MEETING 1 SUMMARY ~~Palo i-\lto f-l "111!it:.I \,honl IJ,,u 1,1 • PAVLO ALTO concordio -1--1-.... .......... 1 ABOUT MEETING l Over 240 community members participated at the first Cubberley Co-Design meeting. They informed future program needs and expressed preferences related to the balance between building heights and green space. The Palo Alto Unified School District and the City of Palo Alto hosted the first of four Cubberley Co-Design meetings at the Cubberley Pavilion on September 27th, 2018. At the meeting, residents shared their goals and visions for the future of Cubberley that will include a new community center and create the potential for a future school on site. Community members participated in two interactive exercises to provide their ideas for the future. The first focused on what additional programs and activities the site should provide. In the second activity, residents used blocks to illustrate their preferred balance between building mass and green space on site. This document summarizes the input gathered at the meeting. Full verbatim comments and input are available for download as a separate file on the project website at www.pausd.org/cubberleycodesign. ACTIVITY 1 : Program Needs Prior to Activity 1, Concordia gave a brief presentation about the history and goals of the Cubberley Co-Design master planning project, including the needs of the School District and the City. The City's vision is to create a community center that provides a multi-cultural learning environment, that supports the visual and performing arts, and offers wellness opportunities to support the social, emotional and physical health of all people. The School District's primary need is to create the ability to house a large school on the Cubberley site in the future. With that as the baseline, meeting participants then proposed new ideas, recommended shared uses, and prioritized their favorite ideas. Residents proposed nearly 600 ideas in total and 219 unique ideas. The most common individual ideas for new programming included community gardens, a pool, and a cafe. Groups also discussed teen centers, multi- generational spaces, and more spaces to support and show art. Theaters and other large performance spaces were also requested, particularly for dance programs, as well as large flexible spaces for gatherings and programs such as ballroom dancing. Participants also requested different types of health and wellness facilities including senior services, cardiac rehab, stroke rehab, and mental health services for all ages. Affordable housing was another popular, but contentious idea. Many thought affordable housing, particularly for teachers, would be a good use for the site, but some disagreed outright. One group proposed that the adjacent School District site at 525 San Antonio Road, which is zoned R-1, would be a more appropriate location for housing. Meeting participants proposed modernized athletic spaces, pickleball courts, and skate parks. Among ideas related to greenspace, in addition to community gardens, participants proposed a dog park, general open space, and playgrounds. Participants also requested a variety of creative working spaces such as maker spaces, workshops, and co-working spaces. They proposed a variety of food- based services including cooking classes, food programs for those in need and seniors, and farmers markets. Participants would like to make the area more bike friendly with dedicated paths, parking, and repair facilities. Top ideas by frequency of mention Community garden Pool Wellness center Affordable housing 0 5 10 15 Cafe ------- Dance class ------ Gyms -----· FOP AL Dog park Art gallery Makerspace ----• Open space ----• Shared space Affordable rent Greempace ---- Play spaces ---- Ptckleball Parking Adult education Evert space Skate park Transportation Theatre Afterschool care Co-working space --• Natural Habitat Ballroom dancing - Med1tat1on - Cooking class - Teen center - Parking underground - Job traintr@ - Flexible Space - Meeting space - Media center - Mult1generat1onal space - Non-profits - Farmers market - Track - Art classrooms - 20 25 The chart above shows the most frequently mentioned ideas documented in Activity 1 across all table groups. Some tables included the same idea more than once. although this was infre- quent. Duplicate ideas from the same table were not removed from the dataset. •• ••• 3 Program Clusters Many of the ideas residents proposed relate to one another closely. To get a better understanding of common themes and clusters of ideas, we grouped them together by similarity. The graphic shows how programs cluster together and create broader trends. The ~ize of each wedge is proportional to the frequency of proposed ideas at the meeting. For instance, participants proposed a Tech Center, Tech lab, Fix-it Cafe, Robotics, STEM classrooms, Tech museum, Tech space, and Technology class. The graphic to the right groups these ideas together as "Tech Space" in the outer ring and then organizes that under "Creative Work Spaces" in the inner ring. "Collaborative/co- working spaces" and "Makerspace" also share this category. While they are distinct programs, they share some common features: in this case dynamic and flexible work spaces. These clusters can help inform program adjacencies and program stacking. Among the most popular new ideas, or clusters of ideas, are more outdoor green spaces, community gardens, a health and wellness center, gallery space, makerspace and collaborative work space, food -related programming from a cafe to community kitchen, and housing. Residents indicated which programs or spaces they believe have the potential to be shared between the community center and school. The most common ideas for shared programming include swim center (pool), all the outdoor fields and courts, auditorium, theater, and gyms. Culinary space, professional learning space, dance programs, and a library were also commonly requested to be shared use. Residents also connected ideas directly to one another, indicating preferences related to shared uses and adjacencies. About half the groups connected the community center's gyms, auditorium, and theater to their counterparts on the school side, indicating that they could be shared and/or combined. Many tables connected school art classes to the community center's artist studios. Several groups suggested that a future school cafeteria be tied into a culinary class or culinary space and some also connected this to the community gardens. Participants also grouped community center music classes with school music and choir programming. •' 4 Prioritized Ideas Groups were asked to add stickers to their top 5 favorite ideas to indicate a higher priority. The list be1ow shows all the ideas that table groups prioritized with their stickers. The number in front of the first few indicate how many groups prioritized those ideas, with dance programs being prioritized by four table groups. The list of prioritized programs echoes much of what was already discussed: 5: Theatre 4: Dance programs (specific note on one: 12,000sq ft sprung floor) 3: Community garden 2: Auditorium 2: Food/food court 2: Housing (1 low cost, 1 teacher housing) 2: Senior center including mental and physical therapy. Administration office Affordable opportunities After school (5-12 y/o) All fields Artist Studios Ballroom dance Vision Community health center Co-working space Culinary space Culinary & vocational arts Event space Fix-it cafe (for bike, toasters, etc.) FOPAL Gyms Include Greendell and 525 San Antonio in plan Makerspace More classrooms Multicultural education Multi-use gathering space Music classes Lastly, groups added post-its to describe their overarching vision for the site. Residents reiterated many of the same themes described above. They envision a multi-generational center for lifelong learning, for health and fitness, for hanging out during the day in beautiful, inspirational outdoor spaces. They said that the gyms, theaters, fields, and auditoriums should be shared between the school and community center. Some recommended housing for teachers. Others emphasized the need for the programs to serve the community and integrate into future school curricula, leveraging dance, art, and makerspace activities from the community center as central assets for the school. The word cloud to the right shows all the text used in these vision descriptions. The size of each word is proportional to frequency of word usage in the vision statements. Music performance space Nature spaces Outdoor use Preschool program Professional learning space Reduced rent esp. for non-profits Separate health/wellness center Soccer fields State of art high school Trade/bike workshop Underground pool Upholstery class Workout room 5 ACTIVITY 2: Massing Exercise In the second activity, residents shared their preferences related to building height, green space, and parking strategy. Each table group was given tiles representing 425,000 sf of buildings and the anticipated required parking. 425,000 sq ft is a preliminary estimate of size based on the assumption that the largest possible school that may be needed would be 250,000 sq ft, comparable to Paly High or Gunn High, and future community center size may increase by 20% to 225,000 sq ft of indoor space. The table sheet showed the height restrictions and setbacks that are required by zoning. Participants were asked to show their preferences about the relationship between building height and green space by stacking the blocks and arranging them on the site map. The parking tiles could be used to show parking lots on one side, or turned over with the green side up to indicate underground parking. Stacked parking tiles indicated parking garages. Consistent with their request to increase green space expressed in Activity 1, the majority of groups proposed underground or structured parking. Of all the 238 parking tiles across the 27 tables, 67% of the tiles were used as underground parking and 24% were used as multi-level structured parking garages, with the remaining 8% used as surface parking. A quarter of the groups that proposed structured parking also indicated that the roof of the garage should be an occupiable green roof. Participants stacked their blocks to an average height of 2.5 stories. Single story and 5 story buildings were infrequent. Most groups used a variety of heights between 2 and 4 stories, generally with taller buildings towards the center of the property, away from the street edge. Almost all groups preserved the field areas as they are and grouped buildings on the north half of the site. .. While participants used underground parking in their exercise, they also expressed concerns related to cost, feasibility, safety, and accessibility of underground parking. Some suggested surface parking for safety reasons and for easy access for less mobile users. They also want parking to be near their final destination. They are interested in expanding the main entrance to help with traffic. Participants commonly indicated the desire for greenspace and landscaping around the perimeter of the site to make it better for surrounding residents and to cultivate a cohesive campus feel. They also added comments indicating the desire for courtyards and green occupied roofs to activate outdoor spaces on the site. Many table groups requested bike parking and safe bike/walking paths around the entire site. Some reiterated the desire to ensure the site is eco-friendly. Participants also want the age of users to be considered when programming. For instance, FOPAL is mainly run by older volunteers and would prefer to be on the ground floor. Although this activity did not focus on programs, some participants suggested housing on site. Some participants said the top floor(s) of multi-storied buildings could be reserved for teacher housing. Participants also suggested leaving enough greenspace between buildings (perhaps with covered walkways) to have an amphitheater. Next Steps Concordia is using the recommendations collected at Meeting 1 to inform bubble diagrams that show different program arrangements and adjacencies. These will be a central part of the activity at Meeting 2. Meeting 2 will be November 1st at the Cubberley Pavilion, from 7-9p.m. All are welcome, whether they came to Meeting 1 or not! Meeting 2 will build on the work done at Meeting 1 and move the project towards a final program. You can RSVP for Meeting 2 now at eventbrite here: https:/fgoo.gl/LKByri For more information about Cubberley Co-Design, visit the web page at: www.pausd.org/cubberleycodesign 09/27 Program Needs & Major Spatial Relationships 11 /01 Honing the Program Vision 01/24 Design Direction and Aesthetics 05/09 Evaluating the Draft Plan ) FINAL PLAN .., .P~~ Ccmvnf~ POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE -TENTATIVE AGENIGOl:INCt~ MEETING ~~~ 1ola.3J 1Z ~· . [ ] Placed Before Meeting -: lfuESDAY, 0etober 23, 20l!8 POU€¥ AND SERVICES COMM. MEETING! ~ Received at Meeting 1. Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the Status Updates of the Audits of the Citywide Cash Handling and Travel Expense; Cable Franchise and Public, Education and Government (PEG) Fees; Continuous Monitoring: Payments Audit; Utility Meters; and Inventory Management 2. Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the Status Update of the 2016 Disability and Workers Compensation Rates Audit 3. Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the ERP Planning: Data Standardization Audit 4. Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the ERP Planning: Separation of Duties Audit 5. Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2018 [uES9A Y,, Novemberr m.3, 20:1!8 P9111CY AND SERVICES €0MM. MEE'JilNGj 1. Review and Acceptance of the Fire Department Emergency Medical Services Future Needs Assessment 2. Review of Council Procedures and Protocols 3. Audit of Code Enforcement ~UESl!>A¥, E>eeember M:, 201!8 P.G>LICY AND SERVICES €0MM. MEETINGj 1. Audit Updates lfUESDAY, Fet:>ru,r:y 12, 2019 POLie¥ AND SERVICES CG>MM. MEETINGj 1. Audit of Mobile Device Inventory and Security 2. Audit of ERP Data Reliability I' POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE-TENTATIVE AGENDA To be s,cheduled and potential P&S agenda items ' 1. Council Referral -Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 2. Council Referral -Colleagues Memo Regarding Renter Protection in Palo Alto 3. Council Referral -To review revised language, options, and implications associated with modifications to seismic compliance in the City's Municipal Code 4. Lobbyists (1) speak about all things legislative, and (2) get approval for the following year's legislative guidelines 5. Review economic analysis regarding the housing inclusionary program 6. Auditors Quarterly Report 7. Audit Status Updates 8. Consideration of Soda Tax Informational Items • Senior Programs update • Fiber to the premises update • Track Watch update • Homeless Services including living in vehicles update e> RouteSFO ...1. San Francisco "T"' International Airport Courtyard G (Curbsl STOP ID: 3356l0 e e Court}'.ara A (Curb;lffe) ST P ID: 335637 Millbrae Transit Center I:] = (Westside) Cl Cal·· t'l m Terminal 8 Terminal O Sam Trans Customer Service 1-800-660-4287 (TTY 650-508-6448) www.samtrans.com/SFO BUS FARE Adult (Age 19to64) Youth (Age 18 & younger. Two children 4 years and younger ride free with one farepaying adult) Eligible Discount (Age 65+, disabled & Medicare cardholder. Proof of eligibility or identity required) Local Day Pass Ride Local Routes All Day $2.25 $5.50 $1.10 $2.75 $1.10 $2.75 NOTE: Exact change please. lil'w.pquUIUDl.].it]UlU hUiuUip qUihqUihUipht 1-800-660-4287. ~flim~.ID!J1it1-800-660-4287. Pour traduction, appelez au 1-800-660-4287. Obersetzung unter 1-800-660-4287. 3fc¥TG ~ c;rffl', 1-800-660-4287 q'{. Clif1 Per traduzioni chiamare 1-800-660-4287. lm!RO)~m$1<1:, + 1-000-660-4201 *C"cl:3~~ < tt.c=1, '· ~ Qj~ ~ti~AI '2!. 1-800-660-4287~ o £ ~~ti~~Al.2.. 1.800.660.4287 ~ J-:;I ,4.fol ~~ '-"'W 1.800.660.4287 o.;W 4 ,.._Ji ..sl.Ji Para tradu~ao, ligue para 1-800-660-4287. Ecm1 B8M Hy>KHbl yc11yr111 nepeBOA4111K8, 06paL1.1a~T9Cb no re11eq>0Hy 1-800-660-4287. Za prevodjenje nazovite 1-800-660-4287. Para traducci6n llama al 1-800-660-4287. Para sa pagsasalin sa ibang wika, tumawag sa .:1-800-660-4287. ' fin djch thul;lt, xin gQi 1-800-660-4287. Route SFO Ca/train SFO Connection Direct bus service from Millbrae Transit Center to San Francisco International Airport. Weekday service is 5:46 am -11 :43 pm; Saturday from 8:18 am -11:57 pm; Sunday from 10:03 am -11 :33 pm. • • ' ~ f Weekdays Millbrae Transit Center to SFO lnt'I Airport Saturdays Millbrae Transit Center to SFO lnt'I Airport Sundays Millbrae Transit Center to SFO lnt'I Airport Millbrae Transit SFO Airport Millbrae Transit Millbrae Transit SFO Airport Millbrae Transit Millbrae Transit SFO Airport Millbrae Transit Center Terminal 3 Center Center Terminal 3 Center Center Terminal 3 Center 5:46AM 5:57 AM 6:04AM 8:18AM 8:29AM 8:36AM 10:03 AM 10:14 AM 10:21 AM 6:36AM 6:47 AM 6:54AM 8:42AM 8:53AM 9:00AM 10:27 AM 10:38AM 10:45 AM 7:13 AM 7:24AM 7:31 AM 9:06AM 9:17 AM 9:24AM 10:51 AM 11:02 AM 11:09 AM 7:41 AM 7:52AM 7:59AM 9:30AM 9:41 AM 9:48AM 8:13 AM 8:24AM 8:31 AM 11:33 AM 11:44AM 11:51 AM 10:03 AM 10:14AM 10:21 AM 8:43AM 8:54AM 9:01 AM 11:57 AM 12:08 PM 12:15 PM 9:17 AM 9:28AM 9:35AM 10:27 AM 10:38AM 10:45 AM 1:03 PM 1:14PM 1:21 PM 9:39AM 9:50AM 9:57 AM 10:51 AM 11:02 AM 11:09 AM 11:33 AM 11:44AM 11:51 AM 1:27 PM 1:38 PM 1:45 PM 10:03 AM 10:14 AM 10:21 AM 10:32AM 10:43 AM 10:50AM 11:57 AM 12:08 PM 12:15 PM 1:51 PM 2:02 PM 2:09 PM 11:07 AM 11:18AM 11:25 AM 1:03 PM 1:14 PM 1:21 PM 2:33 PM 2:44PM 2:51 PM 11:30 AM 11:41 AM 11:48 AM 1:27 PM 1:38 PM .1:45 PM 2:57 PM 3:08 PM 3:15 PM 12:03 PM 12:14 PM 12:21 PM 1 :51 PM 2:02 PM 2:09 PM 3:21 PM 3:32 PM 3:39 PM 12:30 PM 12:41 PM 12:48 PM 2:33 PM 2:44PM 2:51 PM 1:30 PM 1:41 PM 1:48 PM 4:03 PM 4:14 PM 4:21 PM 2:57 PM 3:08 PM 3:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:41 PM 2:48 PM 4:27 PM 4:38 PM 4:45 PM 3:21 PM 3:32 PM 3:39 PM 3:10 PM 3:21 PM 3:28 PM 4:21 PM 5:33 PM 5:44PM 5:51 PM 3:39 PM 3:50 PM 3:57 PM 4:03 PM 4:14 PM 5:57 PM 6:08 PM 6:15 PM 4:08 PM 4:19 PM 4:26 PM 4:27 PM 4:38 PM 4:45 PM 4:34PM 4:45 PM 4:52 PM 5:33 PM 5:44PM 5:51 PM 6:21 PM 6:32 PM 6:39 PM 4:59 PM 5:10 PM 5:17 PM 5:57 PM 6:08 PM 6:15 PM 7:03 PM 7:14 PM 7:21 PM 5:20 PM 5:31 PM 5:38 PM 6:21 PM 6:32 PM 6:39 PM 7:27 PM 7:38 PM 7:45 PM 5:43 PM 5:54 PM 6:01 PM 7:03 PM 7:14PM 7:21 PM 8:01 PM 8:12 PM 8:19 PM 6:16 PM 6:27 PM 6:34PM 7:27 PM 7:38 PM 7:45 PM 8:33 PM 8:44PM 8:51 PM 6:40 PM 6:51 PM 6:58 PM 8:01 PM 8:12 PM 8:19 PM 7:03 PM 7:14 PM 7:21 PM 8:57 PM 9:08 PM 9:15 PM 8:33 PM 8:44PM 8:51 PM 7:21 PM 7:32 PM 7:39 PM 9:21 PM 9:32 PM 9:39 PM 8:57 PM 9:08 PM 9:15 PM 7:51 PM 8:02 PM 8:09 PM 9:21 PM 9:32 PM 9:39 PM 10:03 PM 10:14 PM 10:21 PM 8:25 PM 8:36 PM 8:43 PM 10:27 PM 10:38 PM 10:45 PM 9:02 PM 9:13 PM 9:20 PM 10:03 PM 10:14 PM 10:21 PM 9:31 PM 9:42 PM 9:49 PM 10:27 PM 10:38 PM 10:45 PM 10:51 PM 11:02 PM 11:09 PM 10:02 PM 10:13 PM 10:20 PM 10:51 PM 11:02 PM 11:09 PM 11:33 PM 11:44 PM 11:02 PM 11:13PM 11:20 PM 11 :33 PM 11:44 PM 11:51 PM •nmed to meet northbound San Mateo County 11:43 PM 11:54 PM 12:01 AM 11 :57 PM 12:08AM 12:15 AM Caltrain trains. TRANSIT DISTRICT Date February 15, 2018 March 15, 2018 April 19, 2018 May 17, 2018 June 21, 2018 July 19, 2018 August 16, 2018 September 20, 2018 October 18, 2018 ~i~JU04 EETING City-School Liaison Committee 2018 Schedule October 18, 2018 lo l1<§'l lZ OReceived Before Meeting --. -~ . , ~ #IT M~~• u g Item • Library collaboration with PAUSD to issue students Library Cards • 2018 Council Priorities • Agenda planning for 2018 • Review of Recent City Council/PAUSD Board Meetings • 2018 Summer Programs (City) • Planned bike and pedestrian improvements to Churchill Ave -City Chief Transportation Official • Discussion of Agenda Topics for April and May • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • Update Coord inated North Ventura Area Plan • City and District Comments and Announcements • Future Meetings and Agenda's • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Safe Routes to School -Rosie Mesterhazy, MPH, LCI #5255. Safe Routes to School Coordinator, City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division Department of Planning+ Community Environment • Cubberley Master Plan Update • Future Meetings and Agenda's • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Summary of Contracts and Support Services provided between City and PAUSD • Future Meetings and Agendas Cancelled due to Council and PAUSD Holiday Break • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Cubberley Master Plan -Introduce Bobbie Hill from Concordia {Consultant) • Stanford General Use Permit {GUP) • Future Meetings and Agenda's • Review Recent City Council/ PAUSD Board Meetings: • City and District Staff Comments and Announcements • Previously Item 4 -CANCELED and MOVED TO 10/18 -Introduction of PAUSD Superintendent with the City Manager • Stanford General Use Plan Update • Coordination Between City and PAUSD on Capital Improvements • Cubberley Master Plan Update • Future Meetings and Agendas • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Introduction of PAUSD Superintendent with the City Manager • Cubberley Master Plan (specific topics to be added) • Future Meetings and Agenda's 1 ' -· ,,n ~ J1i .sT ~-·Jn::. ............. ' .. ,..,~ I 1 •' r'" ~f ) ~ • v ' " .. "'CJ , I('. ·-.J • • • j November 15, 2018 December 21, 2018 City-School Liaison Committee 2018 Schedule October 18, 2018 • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Cubberley Master Plan (specific topic to be added) • Future Meetings and Agenda's • Review of Recent City Council and PAUSD Board Meetings • City and District Comments and Announcements • Cubberley Master Plan (specific topics to be added) • Future Meetings and Agenda's To be Scheduled and/or Potential Items for discussion with tent. dates: • Cubberley Master Plan (Month/Standing • Traffic School Team (May 2019 Josh Mello) item Kristen O'Kane) • Teacher housing -thoughts and potential • Introduction of PAUSD Superintendent collaboration (TBD) w/City Manager (Sept Jim Keene and Don • Stanford -PAUSD/City -Coordination and Austin) shared interests (TBD) • Consideration of a joint Town Hall with • Ways for City and District to work together BOE and City Council (TBD -purpose and more effectively to accomplish shared structure needs to be defined Rob de goals (Aug-Nov Kristen O'Kane) Ge us) 0 Shared use of facilities • Invest in May Fete Parade (Dec Kristen 0 Cost of services O'Kane) • Middle School Athletics (Nov. Kristen • Reaffirming Palo Alto's Commitment to a O'Kane) Diverse, Supportive, Inclusive and • Emergency Preparedness (Dec. Ken Protective Community and prepared Dauber) recommendations to support and extend • Teacher & staff housing (TBD) the Council resolution (Oct Minka van der • Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (Nov Zwaag) Jonathan Lait) • Stanford General Use Plan (GUP) -(Aug and Sept Jonathan Lait) • City Internships for PAUSD students that align with City's existing job shadow day (TBD Kristen O'Kane) • State Mandates that impact PAUSD and City (As relevant mandates are identified) • Grade Separation (Oct Rob de Geus) 2