Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181126plCC 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: 11/26/2018 Document dates: 11/07/2018 – 11/14/2018 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. CITY OF PALO ALTO At Places Memorandum Updttfe ai,,. lk+~r~ Ao.J-~ vlf1-2~ l(lA~ I eo• •NCIL MEETING CITY OF t Vt t.f / 2018 PALO ALTO Bfieceived Before Meeting ORecelved at Meeting TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER AGENDA DATE: November 14, 2018 SUBJECT: Rail Committee Agenda Item: Update on lnteragency Activities Staff is providing supplemental information for the agenda item titles Update on lnteragency Activities: 1. October 25, 2018 -Letter from City of Palo Alto Rail Committee Chair Wolbach to Jeannie Bruins, Chair, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 2. November 5, 2018 -Letter and follow-up responses from Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding an October 12, 2018 meeting between AECOM and City staff and the Santa Clara Valley Water District on grade separation alternatives 3. June 28, 2017 -Letter from former City of Palo Alto Mayor Scharff to Francisco Castillo Director of Public Affairs, Union Pacific Railroad Deputy City Manager October 25, 2018 Jeannie Bruins, Chair Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 1250 San Carlos Ave San Carlos, California 94070-1306 Dear Ms. Bruins, Ci!Jof Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council The City of Palo Alto and members of our community are actively working to identify a preferred solution for our four existing at-grade rail crossings. While we are making progress there are several recurring technical questions that we need answered by Caltrain for the City to be able to evaluate the feasibility of alternatives under consideration. This letter requests your assistance in responding to these time sensitive and highly critical questions. The questions are generally: what are the economic, engineering, and regulatory constraints that impact our grade separation options? Please clarity current constraints, and how and where Caltrain might be flexible with design criteria exceptions? Specifically, the questions City staff, community and consulting team have are as follows: 1. Under what conditions would Caltrain accept a grade variance from 1% to 2%, and what would the approval process be? 2. Under what conditions would Caltrain accept a variance to the existing vertical clearance for poles and wires, and what would the approval process be? 3. How are grade separation design criteria and constraints likely to change in the future? 4. What should the City of Palo Alto assume regarding freight on the Caltrain right of way in the future? 5. What is Caltrain's criteria regarding Shooflies that are likely needed for several grade separation under consideration (e.g. trench for East Meadow Ave and Charleston Road alternative) 6. What level of funding support needed to grade separate because of the PCEP can or could be expected from Caltrain? 7. The cost of maintenance for grade separation alternatives may vary greatly, what should the City of Palo Alto assume regarding who will pay for the cost of maintenance? PrintccJ with soy-b01s~d inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2477 650.328.3631 fax The City of Palo Alto appreciates your attention to these questions so that we can effectively and efficiently proceed with our community focused effort to define a preferred solution for our four at grade crossings. Thank you, Cory Wolbach Chair, Rail Committee On behalf of Mayor Liz Kniss cc: Caltrain Board of Directors Palo Alto City Council 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3614 I !4081 265-2600 I www.volleywoter.org November 5, 2018 Mr. Jarrett Mullen, Senior Transportation Planner Office of Transportation City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 File: 33812 Various Santo Oora Volley Waler Oislric(:) Subject: Palo Alto Grade Separation Study-Technical and Regulatory Factors for Waterways Dear Mr. Mullen: Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the four conceptual design alternatives for the subject project, presented at our October 12, 2018 meeting. The alternatives are varying vertical alignment options along the existing Caltrain corridor, within the City of Palo, to replace existing at-grade road crossings with grade separated crossings. The Caltrain corridor crosses San Francisquito Creek, Matadero Creek, Barron Creek and Adobe Creek. The District has easement rights over Matadero, Barron, and Adobe Creek across the Caltrain corridor, and any modification to those creeks will require the District's approval and issuance of a Water Resources Protection Ordinance encroachment permit. Although the District has no right of way over San Francisquito Creek at the Caltrain bridge, the District has an interest in ensuring that flood conveyance and stream stability is maintained. The District has the following comments on the four design options presented: Option 1: Citywide Tunnel 1a. San Francisquito Creek-This creek is not shown on the plans for this option, and the crossing is assumed to be at-grade, similar to the existing bridge crossing. If the new crossing does not constrict the channel and has a soffit elevation equal or higher to the existing bridge soffit, then the District does not anticipate that significant hydraulic impacts will need to be addressed. 1 b. Matadero Creek and Barron Creek-The top of the tunnel would be at least 15 feet below the invert of either creek; therefore, there should be no impacts to flood capacity. Impacts to the creek during construction and any groundwater impacts should be studied. 1 c. Adobe Creek-The Caltrain crossing is proposed to be in a trench which would intersect Adobe Creek. Any modification to Adobe Creek would heed to: • provide the same conveyance capacity as existing conditions; • provide equivalent District maintenance requirements as the existing condition and not increase District maintenance costs: Our mission is to provide Silicon Valley safe, clean water for a healthy life, environment, and economy Mr. Jarrett Mullen Page2 November 5, 2018 • be functional during all flow events with sediment and debris loading; • allow fish passage; • be designed to not increase the potential for flooding or adversely impact existing flooding conditions; and • be permitted by various regulatory agencies (depending on the proposed creek modification). Option 2: Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Hybrid 2a. Barron Creek and Adobe Creek-The plan includes at-grade crossings at Barron Creek and Adobe Creek, similar to the existing condition. If the new crossing does not constrict the channel and has a soffit elevation equal or higher to the existing bridge soffit, then the District does not anticipate that significant hydraulic impacts will need to be addressed. 2b. San Francisguito Creek and Matadero Creek-These two creeks are not shown on the plans for this option, and the crossings are assumed to be at-grade, similar to the existing bridge crossings. If the new crossings do not constrict the channel and has a soffit elevation equal or higher to the existing bridge soffit, then the District does not anticipate that significant hydraulic impacts will need to be addressed. Option 3: Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Viaduct and Full Trench The plan shows either a viaduct over or full trench through Barron and Adobe Creeks. 3a. Viaduct over Barron Creek and Adobe Creek-This plan would raise the crossing at Barron Creek and Adobe Creek higher than the existing condition. If the foundations for the viaduct are located outside the District's easement for each creek, then the District anticipates no direct impacts. 3b. Full trench through Barron Creek and Adobe Creek-The Caltrain crossing is proposed to be in a trench that would intersect both Barron Creek and Adobe Creek. See comment 1 c, above, for impacts that would need to be addressed for both the creeks. 3c. San Francisguito Creek and Matadero Creek-These two creeks are not shown on the plans for this option, and the crossings are assumed to be at-grade, similar to the existing bridge crossings. If the new crossings do not constrict the channel and has a soffit elevation equal or higher to the existing bridge soffit, then the District does not anticipate that significant hydraulic impacts will need to be addressed. Option 4: Palo Alto Avenue Hybrid 4a. San Francisguito Creek-The Caltrain crossing is proposed to be at-grade or higher than the existing crossing. If the new crossing does not constrict the channel and has a soffit elevation equal or higher to the existing bridge soffit, then the District does not anticipate that significant hydraulic impacts will need to be addressed. 4b. Matadero Creek, Barron Creek. and Adobe Creek-These three creeks are not shown on the plans for this option, and the crossings are assumed to be at-grade, similar to the existing Mr. Jarrett Mullen Page 3 November 5, 2018 bridge crossings. If the new crossings do not constrict the channel and has a soffit elevation equal or higher to the existing bridge soffit, then the District does not anticipate that significant hydraulic impacts will need to be addressed. In addition to the above comments, the District has provided responses to your questionnaire dated October 29, 2018 (attached). If you have any questions, you may contact me at ( 408) 630-2319, or by e-mail at yarroyo@valleywater.org. Please reference District File No. 33812 on future correspondence regarding this project. Sincerely, ~~ Yvonne Arroyo Associate Engineer Community Projects Review Unit Enclosure: Completed Questionnaire provided in City's October 29, 2018 letter cc: U. Chatwani, S. Tippets, M. Richardson, Y. Arroyo, D. Mody, C. Houston, C. Grande, J. Codianne, File ENCLOSURE Connecting Palo Alto Follow-Up questionnaire to SCVWD & Hyperlinks to Grade Separation Design Options 1. What are the key regulations that apply to lowering or covering an existing creek corridor? There are four creeks that are crossed by the Caltrain corridor (owned in fee title by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board) being analyzed for grade separation. The District has no right of way at the San Francisquito Creek crossing. The District has easement at the Matadero Creek, Barron Creek, and Adobe Creek crossings. Modifications to creeks where the District has easement will require a District Water Resources Protection Ordinance encroachment permit. Prior to issuance of a District encroachment permit to lower or cover an existing creek, the District must make the findings defined in Section 2.3.3A of the Water Resources Protection Ordinance, which may be found here: https://www.valleywater.org/sites/default/files/WRPO.pdf 2. What other regulatory agencies have oversight of creeks, such as the RWQCB and Army Corps of Engineers? Lowering or covering any of the four creeks will require regulatory approval from other agencies, including but not limited to California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally, in areas within a FEMA floodplain, the City's floodplain administrator must follow National Flood Insurance Program regulations to demonstrate the project will not adversely affect the risk of flooding or follow the process to modify the floodplain limits. 3. Have syphons or other engineering solutions been used to redirect creek corridors for projects of similar magnitude? District staff does not recall an instance where a creek corridor has been placed in siphons to accommodate an infrastructure crossing (i.e. highway, road, utility, rail, etc.) or for any other reason. The infrastructure crossings of creeks in Santa Clara County involve crossings over the top of the creek via a bridge or culvert structure. Any creek modification will need to provide the same conveyance capacity as existing conditions, provide equivalent District maintenance requirements as the existing condition and not increase District maintenance costs, be functional during all flow events with sediment and debris loading, allow fish passage, be designed to not increase the potential for flooding or adversely impact existing flooding conditions, and be permitted by various regulatory agencies (depending on the proposed creek modification). Additionally, a siphon design will need to address flooding impacts which may result from sediment, debris loads, and blockages at or in the siphon during high flow events. 4. Can SCVWD remove sediment in the creek? • Does SCVWD have an existing permit for this type of maintenance? If yes, are there restrictions? 3 The District has several permits to remove sediment from creeks in accordance with our Stream Maintenance Program (SMP). Information on our SMP, including our permits to conduct the program, can be found on our website at: https://www.valleywater.org/flooding-safety/stream-maintenance- program The SMP and our regulatory permits have several limitations, including how much sediment can be removed, where it can be removed, when it can be removed, mitigation requirements, etc. A siphon design will have to consider equipment access and address working in confined spaces in order to remove sediment. 5. What are the historic flows within Matadero, Barron, and Adobe creeks? • Has there been historic flooding in these creeks? If so, when? • What are the ordinary high water elevations at Alma Street? Please see attached exhibit for recorded historic flooding limits (excluding the flooding limits from the Christmas flood of 1955 prior to District flood protection improvements on each channel) on Matadero, Barron, and Adobe creeks. Also, on the exhibit is a table of flows and corresponding water surface elevations on each creek at a point just upstream of the Caltrain crossing for the 100-year flow and "ordinary flow" or 2.33-year event. The District has completed improvements on each of the three creeks to provide 100-year flood protection in areas that include the Caltrain crossing. 6. Who owns the Matadero, Barron, Adobe, and San Francisquito creek right-of-way? • Is flood control also in the SCVWD jurisdiction? See answer to Question 1 on District right of way at the crossings owned in fee title by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. In accordance with the District Act (https://www. va lleywate r.org/ sites/ de fa ult/fi les/Santa%20Cla ra%20Va I ley%20Water%20D istrict%20- %20District%20Act. pdf ), the District provides flood protection to Santa Clara County, in addition to providing wholesale water supply and advancing stream stewardship. Hyperlinks to Remaining Design Options 1. Citywide Tunnel: https://pagradesep.com/wp-conte nt/u ploads/2018/08/Citywide-Tun ne 1-WBP- Profile. pdf 2. Meadow Drive & Charleston Road Hybrid: https://pagradesep.com/wp- co nte nt/ up loads/2018/08/M ea dow-D r-Ch a rlesto n-Rd-Hybrid-M CL. pdf 3. Meadow Drive & Charleston Road Viaduct & Full Trench: https://pagradesep.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/Meadow-Dr-Charleston-Rd-Viaduct-Full-Trench-MCV-MCT.pdf 4. Palo Alto Avenue Hybrid: https://pagradesep.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Palo-Alto-Ave- Hybrid-PAH.pdf Page 2 of 3 .. , ; Ordinary WSE (ft) .... Adobe 2700 39.9 500 30.1 ....... ......_ Barron 250 28.1 230 28.0 Matadero 2700 28.0 480 21.6 June 28, 2017 Francisco castillo Director of Public Affairs Union Pacific Railroad Via Email: fcastlllo@up.com City of Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council 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, speclallzed 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 caltraln 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 uground rules" that strengthen the economy and enhance the quality of life of our dynamic region. The electrification of Caltrain wlll 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. Shortllne 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 dellvered 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 electrfflcation, 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. P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2571 650.328.3631 fax 1 Carnahan, David From:Art Liberman <art_liberman@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 12, 2018 3:33 PM To:Council, City Cc:Richardson, Harriet; Keene, James; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Audit of Code Enforcement Activities I would like to commend the City's Auditor, Ms. Richardson, for an extraordinarily thorough and perceptive analysis of the code enforcement processes and the identification of the most serious current problems. Code enforcement is very complex, encompassing as it does many types of offenses and involving multiple departments, and multiple issues. Ms. Richardson's analysis and recommendations showed a masterful command of the code enforcement activity, and she states clearly what changes the City ought to implement. After implementing these recommendations, officials throughout the City ought to be able to refer to the code violation data and learn from it what policies need updating by asking and finding answers to questions such as: What are the most frequent types of code violations and what ones that have received the most enforcement actions? How many code violations of a specific type have been issued in the past year, in the past five years? How much time does it take to remediate a specific code violation and has that time increased in the past year, in the past five years? How often do voluntarily remediated code violaters re-violate and are cited again? Is it good policy and is it fair for some code violations pursued vigorously, with application of steep monetary penalties, while others – ones asking for voluntary compliance – are left to fester? As a member of the public, I commend Ms. Richardson for reaching out to the public to obtain their input with a survey. I emphatically support her recommendations for more transparency of the process, to increase the amount information available to the public and to make that information easier to find. I wanted to attend the Policy and Services Committee meeting on Nov 13th, but I have a conflict and so I will to provide you with a few recommendations of my own. My deep interest in the code enforcement activities, probably similar to what happens with other citizens, comes from a personal experience. Mine is a code violation issue with a hoarder near my home. This is a repeat offense, which - despite 23 inspections since the most recent code violation was noted in 2016 - remains unresolved. How much has it cost the city so far to resolve this issue, and how much more will it cost? My specific recommendations - 1) Set definite time based limits for the remediation of code enforcement activities – I agree with the objective allowing violator to voluntarily remediate, but they should not be given open ended time for remediation. 2) Set a time based schedule of penalties to incentivize rapid remediation of code violations. The longer the violation exists, the greater the penalty. 3) Incorporate additional wording in the Municipal Code that would apply to hoarders by updating the categories now defined as junk, debris and materials to include salvage materials– this section now only includes building materials in 9.56.030 and the section on the discarding of refuse in Section 2 5.20.030(a). Some hoarders collect salvage materials, identified in section 5.20.020(34) on their property that, when done in excess, are likely to cause a public nuisance and health and safety concern and become infested with vermin. This is one example of where a change is needed to the Code. 4)Require Fire Department inspection of the property in hoarder cases to assess if there is adequate access to property in case of an emergency, and require the homeowner to pay for the Fire Department inspection. 5)Include an accelerated process in the municipal code (with faster issuance of citations, higher penalties, etc) for repeat code violators – hoarders, gas blowers, noise generators, etc. Currently, when the problem violation reappears and causes another similar violation, the process begins all over again from the start. This is not right. 6)Require code enforcement staff to regularly inform the person who filed the complaint about the status of the cleanup – without their having to file a public information request. Currently everything happens in the dark. 7)Make code enforcement data more readily available to the public, including the status and more details. The recent addition of Building Eye/Enforcement (which I just stumbled upon) is a good first step. One further note. I understand how difficult it is to be a code enforcement official, which involves combining a command of the Municipal Code with good people skills to be able to deal with the violator and the public. From my interactions, I know they do a very good job. However, the City's recent Lead Code Enforcement Official, James Stephens who is no longer with the City of Palo Alto, did not possess those necessary people skills. While he may have been thought of highly by some City officials, he was arrogant with residents who raised code violation issues. He acted in an unsympathetic if not actually defensive manner to a citizen who complained about a use of a store on El Camino. This was documented in a 2017 story in the Palo Alto Weekly. Code enforcement: one of City Hall's most controversial, and misunderstood, jobs Code enforcement: one of City Hall's most controversial, and misunderst... By Gennady Sheyner  For a team that consists of just three people, Palo Alto's code enforcers  have been facing an unprecedented ...  Furthermore, in his interactions with me, this individual suddenly completely refused to reply to my emails when I asked him for updates on the code enforcement violation near my home. Because of this I complained about his attitude to Hillary Gitelman, the previous Director of Planning and Community Development. Thank you Arthur Liberman 751 Chimalus Drive CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: HARRIET RICHARDSON, CITY AUDITOR DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2018 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2 – Policy and Services Committee Recommends the City Council Accept the Code Enforcement Audit This memo corrects numbering in the City Manager’s response to the audit as follows: • Report page 54 – Recommendation 1.2, items f through j should be numbered a through e • Report page 55 – Recommendation 2.1, items e through h should be numbered a through d • Report page 55 – Recommendation 2.2, items e through h should be numbered a through d • Report page 58 – Recommendation 3.1, items g through l should be numbered a through f The above corrections match the numbering for the recommendations in the body of the audit report. HARRIET RICHARDSON City Auditor 1 Carnahan, David From:shani kleinhaus <shanibirds@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 12:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Listening to residents: Tonight’s agenda item 3 Dear Chair Fine and Committee Members,    I always found it perplexing that in Palo Alto, the public is not entitled to pull item from consent without a requirement of  support from 4 council members. I have never seen such restriction on the democratic process in any other city in our area.     The California Code of Regulation (§ 1181.9. Commission Meeting Notice, Agenda, and Consent Calendar  states clearly, “C(2)  At the request of any member, party or interested party, any matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and may be  considered at the same meeting as a separate item of business.”    Charter Cities in our area follow the state regulation:     Mountain View, “...If a citizen wishes to speak on an item on the Consent Calendar, he or she may do so at the time  announced by the Mayor and request the item be pulled. If an item is pulled, it is considered after the Consent Calendar items  are voted upon”.     San Jose, “... If a member of the City Council, staff, or public requests discussion on a particular item, that item may  be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately.” While San Jose does not guarantee a discussion of an  item, I have never (in 9 years of watching council) seen a request for removal of an item from consent denied. Of course, City  Council members may withhold comment, but the item is pulled nonetheless.     Sunnyvale, “...If a member of the public would like a consent calendar item pulled and discussed separately, please submit a  speaker card to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting or before approval of the consent calendar".    On tonight’s agenda item 3,   Please update the City Council Procedures and Protocols Handbook section 2.4 ‐ G Public Comment to allow any member of  the public to remove an item from the consent calendar and hearing the public comment at a later time, prior to the vote  on the item. It is the right thing to do to ensure transparency and public trust.    Thank you,    Shani Kleinhaus  Corina Way,  Palo Alto      1 Carnahan, David From:Laurie Winslow <lljwinslow@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 9, 2018 11:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Put the train Underground Dear City Council,   On the subject of what to do with Caltrain through the City of Palo Alto, my vote is to put the train Underground or at  the very least in a trench. Underground would have the added advantage that we could have bike paths and walking  paths and a linear park on the top. It also doesn't divide the city the way the current proposal to close roads would.  Laurie Winslow  1 Carnahan, David From:Rachel Kellerman <rkellerman@mac.com> Sent:Thursday, November 8, 2018 12:25 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Gaines, Chantal Cc:Tom Kellerman; Megan Kanne; Barbara Ann Hazlett; YORIKO KISHIMOTO Subject:Connecting Palo Alto Mailer - Neighborhood Traffic Impacts Decision Criteria Not Included Dear Honorable City Council Members, Mr Shikada, Mr de Geus, Ms Gains,     I attended the CAP meeting yesterday and was dismayed that the decision making criteria concerning the local traffic  impacts of all rail grade crossing options was omitted from the Connecting Palo Alto mailer that is being sent to all Palo  Alto addresses. Criteria bullet point 8 on the mailer reads: Maintain or improve local access while on the Connecting  Palo Alto Fact Sheet posted on the Connecting Palo Alto webpage it reads: Maintain or improve local access while  reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets. (References: https://pagradesep.com/wp‐ content/uploads/2018/08/City_of_Palo_Alto_FactsheetV2.pdf   I have also attached my copy of the mailer‐apologies for  the scribbles.)      Why is this important? Council has instructed staff to consider neighborhood traffic impacts when weighing all rail grade  crossing options.  Neighborhood traffic impacts should not be an afterthought, but an integral part of the consideration  process.   I don’t have enough neighborhood input to speak authoritatively on a number of issues related to rail grade  crossings, but I know without a doubt that neighborhood traffic is a huge concern for Professorville neighbors if Churchill  and Palo Alto Avenue are closed to East/West traffic.  Neighborhood traffic reduction criteria also did not appear on the  “decision matrix” slides that were presented yesterday.      We are not asking for the mailer to be reprinted but we are asking that all future communication, especially the decision  making matrices that are presented at community meetings, include the entire criteria as agreed upon by the Council  and posted on the CAP webpage: Maintain or improve local access while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood  streets.      As always, we greatly appreciate all your hard work on this difficult and complicated matter.      Regards,  Tom and Rachel Kellerman      2 • CITY OF PALO ALTO Join us at our upcoming community meetings where we will discuss separating the street from the, railroad at the four existing railroad crossings: Churchill Avenue, Charleston Road, Meadow Drive, and Palo Alto Avenue. Ideas will be evaluated with the following criteria being considered: • Improve East-West connectivity .- • Reduce traffic congestion and delays - 0Provide clear and safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists • Support continued rail operations • Finance with feasible funding source • Minimize right-of-way acquisition • Reduce rail noise and vibration • Maintain or improve local access ~-~---------- • Minimize visual changes along the corri • Minimize disruption and the duration of construction Provide your feedback during the next two community meetings at the Mitchell Park Communitv. C nter El Palo Alt oom, 3700 Middlefield Road. \ CN"'<-61\:)v-7 , ~ Wednesday November 28, 2018 6 :00 -8:00 pm Railroad crossing ideas to be discussed: • Charleston Road M~~,1~~~ Wednesday January 23, 2019 6:00 -8:00 pm Railroad crossing ideas to be discussed: • Churchill llvenue • Palo II/to llvenue • Citywide Tunnel 1 Carnahan, David From:Deborah Waxman <deborahwaxman8558@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, November 9, 2018 3:16 PM To:Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg Subject:Support for under grounding the train Dear City Council Members,  I live in Palo Alto near the Charleston/Alma intersection.  I’ve lived here for more than a decade, through  the many suicides at the Charleston and the West Meadow intersections and through the increasingly  dense noise and traffic. The current trains already pose a significant hazard and a cost to our quality of  life. Adding above grade options will greatly exacerbate these issues.  I strongly oppose an above‐grade rail design as unsafe, unsightly, and a huge contributor to the already  severe traffic congestion at this intersection.   I understand your concern about costs, but I also know the cost to safety, property values, and quality of  life that will endure for decades. We have already lost two families, who have moved away because they  can’t endure the options that have been proposed. I urge you to consider the long‐term impacts of this  project rather than succumbing to short‐term cost concerns. Underground tracks will minimize train  noise and safety issues, and free up land for better, more neighborhood friendly uses.  It would also save  many families from the loss of their homes through eminent domain.   I can only hope that you will consider a tunnel option and allow the communities to find ways to fund a  tunnel rather than peremptorily deciding against an option that will do so much good for the  community.  Thank you for your consideration,  Deborah Waxman  4166 Park Blvd  Palo Alto, CA 94306    1 Carnahan, David From:Ben Tarbell <bentarbell@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 10:20 AM To:Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg; electcormack@gmail.com; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert Subject:Rail Committee Request Dear City Council members and city staff,    Thank you for your service to our city.    I am a 12 year resident of South Palo Alto (off E. Meadow) and writing to request further consideration of tunnel or  trench train track options at Charleston/Meadow.  Please add these options to the AECOM work plan so we can  investigate them further.  If required to do so, please eliminate the viaduct option or merge it with the hybrid option to  allow for more time and resources to continue investigation of the underground options.    Rail committee, please make a motion to add this to the next city council meeting agenda for their approval.    Thank you for your consideration,    Ben Tarbell  2 Carnahan, David From:Michal Sadoff <michalsadoff@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 9:52 AM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; robert.deGeus@cityofpalotalto.org Subject:Request for Rail Committee and City Council regarding items for AECOM work plan Hello to the Rail Committee, City Council members, and City staff. I am a resident in Greenmeadow. The matter of our future rail design matters greatly to me. For reasons of aesthetics, preservation of the character of our city, and noise, I am NOT in favor of a viaduct or hybrid. I DO want the city to put more resources into exploring a tunnel, as I do not think that has gotten sufficient exploration. I understand that now is the time to ask that the Rail Committee members place onto the City Council agenda a recommendation that the council approve that AECOM work on the below items, and that the Council approve these: 1. MOST IMPORTANT: Add Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train in tunnel and freight at grade) to AECOM work plan for next level detail. 2. Suggest that AECOM explore moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) so that it further reduces impact to residential properties; 3. Eliminate or merge raised options; Eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid; Spend more time and resource on studying underground options; Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my request. Sincerely, Michal Ruth Sadoff 431 Adobe Place 3 Carnahan, David From:The Cowies <cowies@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, November 12, 2018 10:48 PM To:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg; electcormack@gmail.com Subject:Please tunnel the train at Meadow and Charleston Hi Folks,    Please keep working on getting the train tunneled at Meadow and Charleston. It’s super important in so many ways.  Thanks for all you are doing!!    Liz Cowie   El Dorado Ave  Palo Alto  4 Carnahan, David From:Gregory Brail <greg@brail.org> Sent:Monday, November 12, 2018 10:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Public comment: Request to stop removing grade separation options Dear City Council Members:    In advance of Wednesday's Rail Committee meeting, I am writing to request that the Council hold off on eliminating any  more grade separation options for South Palo Alto until the Council and staff are able to gather more information and  hear more public input.    At the previous Rail Committee meeting, a proposal was made to eliminate the viaduct option from consideration. I urge  the Council and Committee to wait until we all have more information before making this decision.     As a member of the Community Advisory Panel on Grade Separation, I am concerned that the Council is moving quickly  to limit our choices without giving the staff and the CAP enough time to understand the options and share them with  the entire city.      When all is said and done, I believe that the viaduct may not be as obvious a non‐starter as many believe. For example:   Without detailed engineering drawings and 3D graphics, it is premature to make assumptions about the visual  impact of a 20' viaduct versus a 15' embankment.   Similarly, without a thorough understanding of the impact of a 30' deep trench on our creeks and on the  surrounding community, it is premature to move this solution closer to reality by eliminating an alternative.  I hope that the Council can instead continue to carefully study the matter, reach out to the community, staff, and the  CAP. We will all be able to make a considered decision together in a few months.          Gregory Brail        2046 Edgewood Drive        greg@brail.org    5 Carnahan, David From:Marilyn Bauriedel <mbauriedel@ursu.com> Sent:Monday, November 12, 2018 9:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Further concerns about Rail Crossings in Palo Alto Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members:    As you continue to work on the options and plans for the Palo Alto rail crossings I would urge you to do the following:    Add Charleston/Meadow tunnel to the AECOM work plan for next level detail;    Have AECOM explore moving the trench towards Alma (Eastward) to further reduce the impact on residential  properties, and    Eliminate or merge the raised options; eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid; spend more time and  resources on studying underground options.    I live in the Fairmeadow Eichler neighborhood and will be very much affected by how these new crossings are handled.    Thank you.    Marilyn Bauriedel  3673 South Ct  Palo Alto        Marilyn U. Bauriedel  mbauriedel@ursu.com        6 Carnahan, David From:Miriam Madigan Brown <mrmadigan@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 12, 2018 8:59 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.o; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg; electcormack@gmail.com; Keene, James; Council, City Cc:Mandar Borkar Subject:REQUEST: Add further rail options to AECOM Work Plan Greetings City Council and City Staff:    My family and I are residents of the Ventura neighborhood in Palo Alto, we bought a home here 15 years ago. We have  two children in the neighborhood public schools, and my husband and I are active members of the community ‐  volunteering in youth sports leagues, in the schools, and with local organizations such as PACCC.    We care a great deal about the community and are deeply invested in ensuring that Palo Alto remains a community that  prioritizes quality of life for residents.    With this in mind, I ask that you please help us guide toward wise long‐term decisions in the railway planning that is  currently taking place.  What is under consideration right now will be with our community for a long, long time ‐ decades  (centuries?) into the future.  It is critical that we not take short‐sighted approaches, but rather look at this work through  a truly big‐picture lens ‐ asking "how might we" work toward a plan that meets both the needs for more transportation,  AND increases livability rather than eroding it further.    More specifically, I ask that the rail committee make a motion on Wednesday to add to the next City Council agenda  approval to have AECOM work on the following:      1. TOP PRIORITY: Add Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train in tunnel and freight at grade) to AECOM work plan for next level detail. 2. Direct AECOM to explore moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) so that it further reduces impact to residential properties; 3. Eliminate or merge raised options; Eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid; Spend more time and resource on studying underground options Adding these options to the work plan will ensure that we are able to fully consider and weigh the tradeoffs of a range of options as we make this critical decision for our community. Please support this full consideration by adding these items to the AECOM workplan. Thank You, Miriam Brown Fernando Ave. 7 Carnahan, David From:Laurie Winslow <lljwinslow@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 12, 2018 3:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail UNDERGROUND The rail UNDERGROUND isn't a rock band! It's me voting as a citizen to ask that you consider more strongly the idea of  putting the train in a tunnel preferably or a trench. That introduces some problems but it solves more long‐standing  problems and some of the new ones that extra trains will create.  Laurie Winslow  8 Carnahan, David From:Harry Makler <hmakler@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, November 10, 2018 4:40 PM To:Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert Cc:Mandar Borkar Subject:As our representatives... To our city’s staff and council members     Toward contributing to our and our neighbors quality of life and their safety and well‐being, as our representatives  please do all you can — and as soon as possible —  to promote the under grounding or at least the tunneling of all trains  at least within the boundaries of our city.    kind regards…..harry makler    1 Carnahan, David From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 12, 2018 9:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Goodwin Eileen; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; Elizabeth Alexis Subject:Public Comment: Request to add an alternative for study for the Meadow/Charleston Grade separations Attachments:CARRD Comment - Short Electric tunnel only recommendation.pdf Dear City Council Members,    We support the Staff Report recommendation to not eliminate any grade separation alternatives at this  time. While the Viaduct is the least favored alternative, it remains worthy of further analysis because it is the  lowest cost and allows more connectivity than a Hybrid (which functions effectively as a wall).    In addition, we would like to propose an alternative that was mentioned previously: a short tunnel for  electrified trains, with freight remaining at the surface.  Please see the attached letter for further details.  If you have any questions, please let me know.  Nadia Naik  Co‐founder, CARRD     November  12,  2018       Subject:  Recommendation  of  adding  alternative  of  short  tunnel  for  electrified  trains  only  with   freight  at  the  surface  for  Meadow  and  Charleston  alternatives.         Dear  City  Council  Members,       We  support  the  Staff  Report  recommendation  to  not  eliminate  any  grade  separation   alternatives  at  this  time.  While  the  Viaduct  is  the  least  favored  alternative,  it  remains  worthy  of   further  analysis  because  it  is  the  lowest  cost  and  allows  more  connectivity  than  a  Hybrid  (which   functions  effectively  as  a  wall).       In  addition,  we  would  like  to  propose  an  alternative  that  was  mentioned  previously:  a  short   tunnel  for  electrified  trains,  with  freight  remaining  at  the  surface.  The  slope,  clearance,   ventilation  and  Fire  Life  Safety  requirements  driven  by  freight  and  other  diesel  trains  in  the   tunnels  add  significant  costs  to  the  tunnel  proposal  currently  under  consideration.    Freight   tentatively  remaining  at  the  surface  for  the  present  would  not  liberate  all  of  the  ROW  land  for   other  uses,  but  the  vehicular  crossing  capacity  issue  would  be  addressed.         A  key  condition  has  recently  changed  along  the  corridor  making  this  a  feasible  alternative;   Caltrain  is  no  longer  considering  running  both  diesel  and  electric  trains  and  will  now  have  a  fully   electric  fleet.  In  addition,  the  Dumbarton  Rail  project  recently  received  approval  to  begin  its   investigation  of  whether  to  rebuild  the  old  rail  bridge  that  formerly  carried  freight  across  the   Bay.    If  this  came  to  fruition,  freight  might  be  partially  or  fully  diverted  to  a  Dumbarton  route   and  no  longer  pass  through  Palo  Alto,  leaving  the  right-­‐of-­‐way  above  the  tunnel  free  for  other   uses.         We  have  identified  a  similar  tunneling  project,  the  San  Francisco  Central  Subway  Tunnel,   which  seems  to  indicate  that  tunneling  may  even  be  much  cheaper  than  a  trench.       HMM  Trench  Study:     As  you  may  recall,  in  2014,  HMM  gave  a  rough  estimated  cost  for  a  trench  below  Meadow  and   Charleston  at  $488  Million  (in  2014  dollars).       Here  was  the  breakdown:      2           Central  Subway  Tunnel  Without  Freight     Also  in  2014,  the  Central  Subway  project  in  San  Francisco  completed  a  1.7  mile  dual  subway   tunnel  using  two  20.7  ft  diameter  tunnel  boring  machines  (TBM).  While  the  overall  cost  of  the   project  is  very  high,  the  vast  majority  of  the  cost  is  related  to  several  very  deep  and  complex   stations.  The  cost  to  complete  the  tunnel  portion  of  the  project:  $234  million  dollars  (2014   dollars).  For  reference,  the  distance  from  Loma  Verde  Ave  to  San  Antonio  Road  in  Palo  Alto  is   1.6  miles.  Palo  Alto  would  likely  have  a  additional  costs  beyond  what  was  needed  on  the   subway  project  (signaling,  larger  diameter  bore,  etc.)  but  the  price  difference  is  worth   investigating  and  maybe  minimal  with  the  use  of  a  single  bore  tunnel.     Unlike  Palo  Alto’s  right  of  way,  these  tunnels  were  built  in  densely  urban  San  Francisco  and   under  an  active  BART  line1.  The  TBMs  went  through  various  soils  ranging  from  soft  soils  to   thinly  bedded  siltstone,  shale  and  sandstone  bedrock  -­‐  with  some  area  designated  as   “Potentially  Gassy  with  Special  Conditions”  by  Cal/OSHA2.  The  TBMs  also  had  to  navigate  the                                                                                                                   1   http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/     2   http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/    3   steep  and  turning  alignment  in  an  area  where  they  dealt  with  low  cover,  nearby  utilities,  and   sensitive  structures  requiring  analyses  and  precautions  to  limit  settlement  impact  and  ensure   the  structures  in  downtown  SF  were  safe.    Given  Palo  Alto  is  in  a  suburban  area  with  less   constraints,  it  seems  reasonable  to  consider  this  alternative  closely.       Palo  Alto  Short  Tunnel     Another  way  to  reduce  the  cost  of  a  tunnel  is  to  reduce  the  diameter.  In  2014,  the  High  Speed   Rail  Authority’s  White  Paper  on  Tunneling  describes  how  they  achieved  significant  cost   reductions  by  reducing  maximum  operating  speeds  assumptions  in  the  tunnels  from  220  mph   to  200  mph,  thereby  allowing  them  to  reduce  tunnel  diameters  from  29.5’  to  28’  ID  (Inside   Diameter).  3     CARRD  requested  from  AECOM  information  on  the  tunnel  assumptions  being  used  for  the  City   wide  tunnel  (which  include  freight)  and  they  responded  that  they  are  using  a  “28  ft  Inside   Diameter  Tunnel”  which  would  large  enough  to  allow  200  mph  speeds.  A  significantly  smaller   diameter  would  be  required  to  accommodate  planned  speeds  of  110  mph.  And,  as  noted  in  our   previous  public  comment  on  height  clearances,  the  Caltrain  Electrification  EIR  specifically  notes   that  the  clearance  levels  at  the  San  Francisquito  creek  bridge  (where  freight  passes  today)  is   actually  19ft.  It  is  therefore  worth  investigating  whether  the  tunnel  dimensions  for  a  short,   electrified  train  only  tunnel  in  Palo  Alto  where  maximum  speed  for  both  Caltrain  and  HSR  is  110   miles  per  hour  would  allow  us  to  have  a  tunnel  diameter  that  is  less  than  28’.       Other  key  things  to  consider  for  the  short  tunnel  with  freight  on  the  surface  (EOT)  option:       • Without  freight,  the  1%  grade  requirement  could  more  readily  change  to  2%  or  even  3%   grade,  which  would  allow  for  more  design  flexibility.   • Caltrain  and  freight  could  continue  operations  during  construction  with  minimal   disruption  except  at  the  site  of  tunnel  boring  machine  entrance  and  exit.   • Traffic  during  construction  would  be  minimally  disrupted   • Tunnels  in  stations  are  expensive,  but  this  option  would  not  impact  stations   • Tunnels  are  faster  to  build.  Construction  time  is  dramatically  reduced  because  the  work   window  issues  and  the  phasing  required  on  the  road  side  are  much  less.     • It  would  go  under  the  utilities,  reducing  the  cost.     • It  could  go  under  the  creeks.     • It  does  not  impact  the  streets.     • The  equivalent  of  shoofly  tracks  are  needed  near  the  portal,  but  not  along  the  entire   right-­‐of-­‐way.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             3  California High-Speed Rail Program Whitepaper On Cost Reduction Strategies, July 25, 2014    4   • With  careful  planning  and  analysis,  TBM’s  can  be  reused  -­‐  perhaps  by  other  cities  along   the  corridor.  4   • In  the  future,  some  or  all  freight  could  be  re-­‐routed  over  the  Dumbarton  Rail  route   (currently  being  studied)  thus  freeing  up  space  along  the  right-­‐of-­‐way  for  other  potential   land  use  options.   • Temporary  space  for  the  tunnel  portal  may  be  necessary  and  could  require  minimal   eminent  domain  that  could  be  returned  to  the  housing  stock  on  completion  of  the   project.     • The  ROW  closer  to  San  Antonio  road  is  much  wider  than  other  parts  of  the  City  (150  ft   wide).  If  the  TBM  was  launched  from  that  end,  then  the  removal  requires  less  space.       To  see  the  space  required  for  extracting  a  TBM,  see  this  video  showing  the  removal  of  the  TBMs   used  on  the  Central  Subway  project  in  SF.  https://bit.ly/2PpntNC    Note  the  size  of  the   extraction  point  is  quite  small.       Summary:       Preliminary  design  of  grade  separations  are  vague  and  costs  climb  when  one  considers  the   issues  of  staging,  prolonged  construction,  utility  relocation,  ground  water  issues,  and   maintaining  operations  on  a  heavily  trafficked  railway  during  construction.  What  initially  seems   like  a  cheaper  solution,  can  become  expensive  quickly  when  these  costs  are  all  tallied  up.  For   this  reason,  we  support  the  inclusion  of  a  short  electric  train  only  tunnel  with  freight  on  the   surface.       If  you  would  like  any  additional  information  or  have  any  additional  questions,  please  let  us   know.         Sincerely,       Nadia  Naik  and  Elizabeth  Alexis   Co-­‐founders   CARRD                                                                                                                     4   https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/services/global-services/tbm-refurbishment.html   1 Carnahan, David From:Lindsay Joye <lindsayjoye@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 2:04 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; 'Mandar Borkar' Subject:Rail Committee Motion Request As a 25 year resident of Palo Alto with a home on Park Blvd. adjacent to the Caltrain Right of Way, I am requesting that  the Rail Committee motion to place the following items on the next City Council meeting agenda for approval:    1. Add the Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train in tunnel and freight at grade) to AECOM’s work plan for  further detailed analysis.      2.  Direct AECOM to explore moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) so that it further reduces impact to  residential properties. This will mitigate visual, noise, and vibration impacts as well as the requirement  to ban trees and  possibly ADU construction in adjacent Park Blvd. backyards to install trench wall anchors.    3.  Eliminate or merge raised options; Eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid;  Spend more time and resource on  studying underground options;    Thank you!    ‐ Lindsay Joye    2 Carnahan, David From:Florence Keller <fkeller@trialanalysisgroup.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 3:58 PM To:Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg; electcormack@gmail.com Cc:Palo Alto Citizens Subject:Charleston/Meadow Rail Crossings Dear Board Members.    First, thank you for all you do.    Thank you also for responding to the sensitivities of Palo Alto Residents by assiduously avoiding invoking eminent  domain in your consideration of how best to address the issues posed by the enhanced numbers of trains projected to  travel though our intersections.  The truth is, however, that for the neighbors most immediately affected by Caltrain (I  do not count myself among these), the notion of having a 14 foot (or 40 foot when there is a train passing),berm or a  Viaduct in their backyard‐‐eliminating even the pretense of pleasure or privacy in one's backyard, may be worse than  eminent domain.  (I choose not to dwell on the horrors of living in these houses during the construction period of  whatever choice you make,) And economically speaking, those folks whose properties immediately abut the railroad, are  about to be slammed.  I noticed this weekend that the sales prices of two houses that are for sale and situated  immediately adjacent to the rails between Charleston and Meadow have been reduced .  I do not believe either of them  have yet been sold.  You worry about what citizens of Palo Alto will have to pay for a trench or a tunnel, but those living  in the neighboring residences will, I expect, end up paying substantially more, financially, acoustically, and visually, if a  berm or viaduct is the solution selected by you.    Palo Alto is too important, and frankly too rich, to make major decisions based primarily on economics.   And, in  considering the various solutions to problems posed by the increased numbers of trains, I hope you will not, as Boards in  the past have so frequently done, put the greatest burden on South Palo Alto residents.  A tunnel, or at least a trench, is  the only humane approach to this problem.    Sincerely,    Florence Keller    4124 Wilkie Way    3 Carnahan, David From:Florence LaRiviere <florence@refuge.org> Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 4:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Caltrain Electrification Dear Rail Committee and City Council members,    I ask you to please add Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train tunneled, freight at grade) to the AECOM work plan  for further detailed review.  Some have suggested that moving the tunnel eastward towards Alma would be a less  impactful location. Please spend the time and resources to seriously study the underground options in this part of  town.  It seems like it is time to eliminate or merge the raised options.    Rail Committee members, we respectfully request that at your meeting tomorrow the above issues be added to the City  Council agenda so that AECOM can proceed.    Thank you for the work done so far in this complex and far reaching project.    Yours sincerely, Florence and Virginia LaRiviere  1 Carnahan, David From:Anne Hessing <arhessing@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 9:01 PM To:Anne R. Hessing Subject:Rail through Palo Alto/Motion to move forward November 13, 2018    Hello City of Palo Alto Officials,    As a 57 year owner/resident of Charleston Meadows, I wish to add my voice in support of a Tunnel/Trench solution to  the Rail through Palo Alto problem.  Only a solution that will be forward looking and respectful of quality of life,  aesthetic, and safety issues is acceptable.     1.  Please add the Charleston/Meadow Tunnel option to AECOM work plan for next level detail.      2.  Please suggest to AECOM moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) to further protect residential properties.    3.  Please eliminate or merge raised options; eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid.  Spend more time and  resource on studying underground options Tunnel/Trench.    4.  Lastly, PLEASE make a motion on Wednesday to add the three points above to the next City Council Agenda for their  approval.  Only then would AECOM be able to work on these.    Respectfully,  Anne R. Hessing  Charleston Meadows 57 year owner/resident  1 Carnahan, David From:Afshan Syed <afsh_z@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 8, 2018 2:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:An unleashed dog chased my daughter Hi,    I am a resident of Palo Alto and I was at Ramos Park with my 4 year old daughter who was collecting leaves in the grass  area, and a big dog ran full speed towards her at which point she ran as well. The owner shouted for the dog to stop, my  daughter fell over and started crying from fright and the dog was jumping around near her at which point we caught up  to them and the dog owner put her dog on a leash. My little one loves animals however there is a leash law for a reason.  Even if someone’s dog is the nicest friendliest dog in the world, we shouldn’t have to take their word for it and risk  getting scared or injured. Dog owners need to comply with the law. I would like the council members to please contact  the police and see if the police can start to do random park checks (maybe a different park a day) as the more the law is  enforced, the more people will abide by it. This could potentially save people or other leashed dogs from getting injured  in the future. If something happens because a dog in the future was allowed to roam free of a leash in Palo Alto  children’s parks I would feel terrible (As I’m sure would you) I really feel that as council members you have the most  opportunity and the responsibility to solve this problem, this may also prompt people to figure out how to perhaps  create a better dog park nearby. Maybe with the money collected from the fines. Luckily my daughter this time wasn’t  physically injured but she was terrified and the next child might not be so lucky. Children should feel safe playing at  children’s parks.    Thank you.  1 Carnahan, David From:Jerry Abbott <jab@techie.com> Sent:Saturday, November 10, 2018 8:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Christine Blasey Ford will receive city proclamation privately Palo Alto City Mayor Liz Kniss are you going to issue a public proclamation about these people who knowingly falsely accussed Judge Kavanaugh? Classmate of Kavanaugh Accuser Retracts Claim She Knew About Sexual Assault in High School: ‘I Have No Idea’ https://freebeacon.com/politics/classmate-kavanaugh-accuser-retracts-claim-knew-sexual-assault-high-school-no- idea/ Kavanaugh accuser referred to DOJ for false statements, Grassley’s office announces Judy Munro-Leighton, according to Grassley’s office, “alleged that Justice Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her ‘several times each’ in the backseat of a car.” Those accusations were made via a "Jane Doe" letter provided to Sen. Kamala Harris, a California Democrat and committee member, Grassley’s office wrote. “Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by ... Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original 'Jane Doe’ letter,” Grassley’s office wrote in a Friday referral to the DOJ. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kavanaugh-accuser-referred-to-doj-for-false-statements-grassleys-office-announces Senate Judiciary Committee refers false Kavanaugh allegation to FBI, DOJ for criminal investigation https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/29/politics/senate-judiciary-committee-kavanaugh-fbi-false-allegation/index.html Man Believes He May Have Been Involved with Christine Blasey Ford Around the Time of Her  Claims Against Brett Kavanaugh 2 “He said that the kiss happened in the bedroom of a house which was about a 15-to-20 minute walk from the Van Ness Metro, that Dr. Ford was wearing a swimsuit under her clothing, and that the kissing ended when a friend jumped on them as a joke,” the report said. The report also summarizes statements from another man who said that after graduating high school in Hampton, Virginia, in 1982 he made several trips to D.C. that summer. During one trip, he attended a house party where he kissed and made out with a woman he met who he believes could have been Ford, the report says. https://www.lifezette.com/2018/11/man-believes-he-may-have-been-involved-with-christine-blasey-ford- around-the-time-of-her-claims-against-brett-kavanaugh/ Christine Blasey Ford will receive city proclamation privately https://padailypost.com/2018/11/09/christine-blasey-ford-will-receive-city-proclamation-privately/ 1 Carnahan, David From:Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 4:05 PM To:City Mgr; PlannerOnDuty; Council, City Subject:Concern regarding commercial deliveries during Construction Projects on Sherman Avenue Dear City Manager, City Planner, and City Council,    Twice in the last week or so I rode my bicycle to the drive‐by mailboxes in the parking area behind the Starbucks on  California Avenue. Both times I encountered a delivery truck parked in front of the mailboxes and taking most of the  space in the alleyway.  I had to get off my bike and lean it against a pole in order to squeeze myself in to put my mail in  the boxes.    This area will be converted next year to a multi‐level parking garage.  I’m very concerned that staff and contractors  might not plan the construction area with sufficient care that (1) our mailboxes are accessible and (2) delivery trucks to  all the restaurants and merchants on Cal Ave have a safe place to park while delivering goods.  Right now, even before  construction starts, there is inadequate parking for deliveries. I imagine this issue might be easy for planners to  overlook when considering all the details associated with new construction projects.   Please make sure that all those  businesses being served with deliveries have adequate space for their large delivery trucks.    Thank you for your attention to the myriad details these big projects entail.    Sincerely,    Shannon McEntee  410 Sheridan Ave.  1 Carnahan, David From:carole/steve eittreim <eittreimcs@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Enhancement for bikers and pedestrians Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council:  Now that Edgewood shopping center is booming, traffic is heavy around the area.  The bike/pedestrian bridge across  101 near the Newell St bridge will soon open. Please consider a good bike/pedestrian pathway from the bridge to  Edgewood shopping center. West Bayshore Rd seems to have room for a nice bikeway with separation from car traffic. It  would also connect people from the Newell St bridge to Edgewood shopping center without going through all the  neighborhoods along Edgewood and other crossing streets with stop signs.  Thanks for thinking about this.  Perhaps  there is a city department this note should be sent to?    Along the same lines of improving access to Edgewood Center, without more cars, the city should  think about improving  transit access up and down Channing Ave, which directly connects Edgewood Shopping Center to PA city center.    Thanks for listening.    Steve Eittreim  Ivy Lane  1 Carnahan, David From:Petra Foerster <pfoersterarnstadt@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 7:52 AM To:Council, City Subject:Ensure Swim4Fitness Program at Riconada Pool Dear Member of the Palo Alto City Council,    I have participated the last 2 months in the Swim4Fitness program at Rinconada Pool, coached by Carol MacPherson. It  was a wonderful experience. Not only did I learn to properly perform the different swim strokes, but Carol also taught  me how to avoid health issues due to wrong stance and breathing. I strongly believe that she helped me learn to  practice and love swimming as the ideal sport to stay fit and healthy until a very old age. I think the program is perfect as preventative health care. I am convinced that within Coral´s many many years of tutoring this program, she provided  many people ‐ young and old – with this wonderful experience.   Please make sure that in future even more people can enjoy this wonderful experience, by ensuring that Carol is able to  continue coaching this program. It would be a terrible loss if her position were not renewed.    With great thanks to Palo Alto to offer this wonderful program.  Sincere  Petra Foerster  2230 Saint Francis Drive  Palo Alto  1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 8:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Your column in this week's P.A. Weekly From: Loren Saxe <lorensaxe@icloud.com>   Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 12:21 PM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Your column in this week's P.A. Weekly    At the suggestion of Jay Thorwaldson I am forwarding the email I sent to him yesterday.  Please distribute to City Council  members and the appropriate city administrators.    Thank you.    Loren Saxe      From: Loren Saxe <lorensaxe@icloud.com>  Subject: Your column in this week's P.A. Weekly  Date: November 10, 2018 at 8:15:46 AM PST  To: jaythor@well.com    Boy can I relate.  My family moved to Palo Alto in 1959 when I was nine.  I have been a resident for all  but 8 (college+) years since and have had three fairly recent similar incidents: (1) a parking ticket in the  California Avenue business district because I did not notice a sign indicating permit parking in a small  section of a 2‐hour lot.  The sign was small and not near my space, (2) a ticket on Forest Avenue  downtown, where I parked for maybe 45 minutes, because my car extended about 3 feet beyond the  line marking on the street. The markings were so faded that I did not notice them at all when I parked; it  looked like open street parking, and (3) (most annoying) a moving violation at a t‐intersection (Channing  and Center).  The (well hidden) officer claimed I did not come to a complete stop at the t.  There were  no cars or pedestrians around and I went through the t at maybe 2 to 3 mph — no matter.  Easy  pickings.  I appealed in traffic court with the expected result.  No exceptions for extenuating  circumstances.    That’s my story and, as you stated, I’m sure we all have them.  Makes you wonder if our limited police  resources wouldn’t be better spent on speeders and red light runners.    Keep up the good work.    Loren Saxe  Edgewood Drive    1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, November 10, 2018 2:47 PM To:Loran Harding; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; terry; Council, City; robert.andersen; russ@topperjewelers.com; jerry ruopoli; Raymond Rivas; Mark Standriff; Joel Stiner; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; Steven Feinstein; beachrides; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; Cathy Lewis; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Mayor; midge@thebarretts.com; Mark Kreutzer; huidentalsanmateo; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; newsdesk; hennessy; info@superide1.com; Irv Weissman; kclark; leager; nick yovino; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; popoff; scott.mozier; Tom Lang; yicui@stanford.edu Subject:Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C-130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 1:10 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                Saturday, Nov. 10, 2018                   To all‐                 I sent the email below on Sun.,Sept. 9, 2018, some two months ago when California had several huge wildfires  burning. I re‐iterate every word I wrote then. Now, Saturday, Nov. 10, 2018, California is burning again. Still not one  word from Governor Brown, Sen. Diane Feinstein, Sen. Kamala Harris, Cal Fire management, the California Dept. of  Public Health, the Calfornia EPA, the U.S. EPA, CDC, NIH, the U.S. Surgeon General about the serious health impact of  breathing wildfire smoke for months on end. These  individuals and agencies have access to that information, and they  are keeping it quiet. They should be sued for that and charged criminally for it. Our government has failed. Maybe we  need a new government.                 On Thursday, Nov. 7, 2018, mighty KCBS in San Francisco, AM 740, was reporting in the late morning a large,  10,000 acre wildfire near the town of Paradise, Ca., near Chico Ca. in northern Calif. I watched the noon news here in  Fresno that day on Ch. 47, the CBS affiliate here. They did not mention this fire. I then called the news room at Ch. 47  and told the man who answered about the fire and suggested that Ch. 47 News listen to KCBS in San Francisco to hear  the news. By 7 PM, Ch. 47 was reporting the fire. Now, two days later, that "Camp Fire" in Paradise, Calif. in Butte Co.  has virtually leveled the entire town of Paradise, Ca. Seven people have died in the fire there so far and it has reached  140 square miles. 6,400 structures have been destroyed. It is already called the most destructive wild fire in California  history. Had Ch. 47 in Fresno reported the fire on Thursday on their noon news, viewers in the Central Valley who had  relatives and friends in Paradise might have called them and warned them to get out.                 Also today, huge wild fires are burning in Ventura Co. and Los Angeles Co., Calif. Thousand Oaks and Malibu have  had a quarter of a million residents evacuate. Two are dead from the fires there, KCBS reported at 11:10 AM this  morning. The "Camp Fire" in N. Calif. is putting smoke into the Bay Area, and, I can attest by looking out of my window in  Fresno, into the Central Valley.                 Because of dry conditions and offshore winds, there is a "red flag warning" in the North Bay Area and East Bay  Area hills until tomorrow night, and in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Spare the Air restrictions are in effect in the Bay Area  2 too. KCBS reported on Thursday that smoke from the Camp Fire could be seen in the Bay Area, 150 miles away. Now,  residents in the Bay Area are breathing it.                  A spokesman for Cal Fire said today that fire crews from all over northern California will be fighting the fire in  Butte Co. for weeks. What if we had 50 747 tankers dropping 19,000 gallons of retardant on these fires with each pass?  The fires would not take anything like weeks to put out. I have heard not ONE comment from Cal Fire or any other  agency, state or federal, in response for my call to buy and convert 50 747s to tanker duty, and to do the other things I  suggest in my email below. Mum is the word! The top people at Cal Fire should all be fired. They are incompetent, or  worse. They prefer to fight these fires with thousands of men with shovels for weeks on end, and with aircraft a lot  smaller than a 747.                 Trump is playing in Paris this weekend. His new "defense" budget is $716 billion. $5 billion would probably buy  and convert 50 more 747s for tanker duty. They could be available in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana,  Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico. These planes can move around at nearly 600 mph. But Trump won't lift a finger to  address this dire situation. He's taking a "Let 'em hang" approach to the California wild fires, as are California's two U.S.  Senators and Governor Brown. As are California's representatives in the House. As are members of the California  legislature. They're all too busy out shopping, I guess, to concern themselves with the health of the people they  represent.                  I predict that the economy of the Central Valley of California, if not that of the entire state, will collapse due to  these unrelenting wild fires. Breathing wild fire smoke is dangerous to one's health. The smoke goes from the lungs into  the bloodstream, and, via that, to the brain, heart, liver, pancreas, etc. Nobody with a big‐gun education who can make  money anywhere is going to stay here and expose themselves to this. If all of the physicians, pharmacists, nurses,  engineers, dentists, professors, management people pull out of here, who will want to live here? Who would locate a  business here? Property values will plunge. When the banks and grocery stores all leave, Fresno will be the Detroit of  the West.                   Cal Fire says that we no longer have a "fire season" in California. The danger is now year‐round. And, it is said, if  you own a home in California, you are now living in a fire zone. When the cost of fire insurance becomes prohibitive, I  guess you are finished as a California home‐owner.                  The people of California should put pressure on their electeds to address the unrelenting wild fires we now have  every few weeks. Those 50 747 tankers, a fleet of small planes looking for fires with IR, smoke detectors in the forests,  might be a good place to start. What we have now is a complete break down of government in California.                  L. William Harding               Fresno, Ca.                                                   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 4:00 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David  Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>,  Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>,  terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, paul.caprioglio <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, Mark  Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, scott.mozier  <scott.mozier@fresno.gov>, <mmt4@pge.com>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>,  3 <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, Leodies Buchanan  <leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>,  huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, <info@superide1.com>, <midge@thebarretts.com>, Steve  Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, steve.hogg <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, robert.andersen  <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, <fmerlo@wildelectric.net>, Chris Field <cfield@ciw.edu>,  <diffenbaugh@stanford.edu>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, popoff  <popoff@pbworld.com>, <mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com>, <blackstone@blastfitness.com>, Steven Feinstein  <steven.feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>, <pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com>, <francis.collins@nih.gov>,  <parsons@brandman.edu>, jerry ruopoli <jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, <russ@topperjewelers.com>, Raymond Rivas  <financialadvisor007@gmail.com>, <shanhui.fan@stanford.edu>, steve.brandau <steve.brandau@fresno.gov>, Tom  Lang <tlang@aquariusaquarium.org>, Jason Tarvin <jasontarvin@gmail.com>, Mark Waldrep  <mwaldrep@aixmediagroup.com>, <yicui@stanford.edu>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:29 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:20 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:29 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 12:56 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 12:08 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>    4   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:53 AM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:42 AM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:39 AM  Subject: Re: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>        On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:                               Sunday, Sept. 9, 2018                   To all‐                  Here is info. re the one 747 "Evergreen Supertanker" used by Cal Fire to fight wild fires. This says it can carry  19,000 gal. of retardant. If true, that is still 4.7 times what the C‐130s will be able to carry, when they have been  retrofitted a year from now.                    https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/07/26/cal‐fire‐supertanker‐battling‐wildfires‐747‐california/                     And here is the "Firefighting Aircraft Recognition Guide" on the Cal Fire website. This is interesting:                     http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/AviationGuide_FINAL_web.pdf                     Here we see some different numbers re retardant capacity for the aircraft.  We see that the C‐130 can carry  3,000 gal. of retardant, not 4,000,  and that the 747 can carry 24,000 gal., not 19,000. The DC‐10 can carry 12,000  gal.  But look at the huge additional capacity of the 747 over any other plane.                I have all due respect for Cal Fire, and I know that they operate on the budget they are given, but we need a LOT  more than the seven C‐130s coming a year from now.  We need 50 of the 747 tankers. Boeing quit producing the 747 a  few years ago when a stretch version did not sell well.  Airlines are getting away from big four engine transports. Two  engine planes are now safe to operate over oceans and no doubt cost less to operate.                   As a result, there are plenty of 747s out there to be bought and converted to the tanker role.  5                  We need 50 747s as soon as they can be bought and retrofitted for tanker duty. California is in a crisis. The  Central Valley is going to become dangerous for human habitation due to the health impact of breathing wild fire  smoke. That might start to apply to more than the Central Valley of California.                   Cal Fire does a great job given the resources it has, but what it has is way too little. It should not take weeks to  put out a wild fire, and that is what it is taking, over and over. We spend almost $2 billion per day on the military, with  no one a credible threat to us. We need to get our heads unstuck and start spending some of that money on critical  needs here in the U.S. Fleets of 747s repurposed as retardant tankers should be a high priority there.                      I know that State employees can only say so much by way of criticizing the Governor and legislature on the  topic of the resources they are provided before they find themselves in trouble. Somehow, though, they should speak  out.                       KCBS SF, broadcasting the truth into California's Central Valley, reports this morning, Sun. Sept. 9, 2018, that  the Mendocino Complex fire in Mendocino, Lake and other counties, is finally under control. It burned for well over a  month and burned 550 square miles(!), making it the largest wildfire in California history. I believe that if Cal Fire had  had 50 747 tankers that the fire could have been contained in less time than it was.                      KCBS SF is also reporting a new fire this morning in Napa County. That will put smoke into the Bay Area as well  as into the Central Valley. And no word on how progress is being made today on the Delta Fire near I‐5 near the Oregon  border.                   We should have a fleet of small planes with infrared equipment patrolling constantly looking for fires. The  Sierras are 400 miles long. They and other areas could be covered by a few planes with infrared. All fire prone areas of  California should be patrolled by these planes.                  We should install sensors in the forests with smoke detectors, cameras, heat and humidity sensors, wind  measurement devices, and GPS to detect and report wild fires early on. We have smoke detectors in our homes and  businesses. Why not in our forests?                    Where is the California Department of Public health with information re the health impact of breathing wild fire  smoke for weeks on end with each new fire?  The federal health agencies are being silent on this, and the state agency is  as well. We need the truth and our federal and state health agencies are keeping mum. People should be fired for this  cover‐up. One Fresno TV station one night had a doctor on who discussed the health impact, and he was talking about  heart attacks from breathing wild fire smoke. More such reports from qualified medical experts should be broadcast by  local TV stations in places like Fresno, or the stations should lose their broadcast licenses.                    Here is the brief information shown on the CDC website regarding wild fire smoke and human health. It seems to  downplay the risk, in my opinion:                  https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/wildfires/smoke.html                 Since "affirmative action" is so great, I want to see frequent, complete and honest ads on TV put out by the CDC  on the impact of breathing wild fire smoke for many weeks on end and year after year, as residents of California's  Central Valley are doing.  Some skimpy information buried on the CDCs website is insufficient warning to the public.                   Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Harris should require our federal health agencies to start warning the public in California  about the health impact of breathing wild fire smoke for months on end every year. I am not aware of any statements by  either of them on this topic. Our representatives in the House should be doing the same.     6              Where is Gov. Brown wrt to getting information to the citizens of California re the health impacts of breathing  wild fire smoke? He has access to every State employee and all outside experts. NOT ONE WORD has been heard from  him on this topic. He is remiss in not providing information here.                  Some people running for Congress are just hopeless here too. One, Janz, says he will fight for water in California  if elected. A third‐grader could have written that campaign slogan, when the State is just being devastated by wild fires. I  don't think much of people running for Congress who have the mind of a third‐grader. Lazy, don't even think, just get  into Congress.  As we saw in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Judge Kavanaugh, many of them are better  than that. BTW, those hearings were so interesting that Congress should make them available, in total, on a DVD.                  Of course, not one word from the Mayor of Fresno or the members of the Fresno City Council. They have budgets.  Why not some information re the health effects of breathing wild fire smoke for months on end after they consult some  medical authorities. I guess we can't expect that when the rich Republicans who put them in office have their on‐air  people at the Fresno TV stations lie about the health impact of breathing wild fire smoke. The Fresno City Council will  soon consider a major expansion of Fresno‐Yosemite Airport. We will indeed need that to enable the residents here to  flee out of here if we cannot better control the wild fires.                    L. William Harding              Fresno, Ca.       ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 2:54 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Dan Richard  <danrichard@mac.com>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, Mayor  <mayor@fresno.gov>, "city.council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>,  esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, "paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer  <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk  <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, kwalsh@kmaxtv.com, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, beachrides  <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, Leodies Buchanan <leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>,  nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, info@superide1.com,  midge@thebarretts.com, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, "steve.hogg" <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>,  "scott.mozier" <scott.mozier@fresno.gov>, "robert.andersen" <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, fmerlo@wildelectric.net     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 2:18 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 2:09 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>    7   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 1:47 PM  Subject: Fwd: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 12:29 PM  Subject: Cal Fire gets some C‐130s with 4000 gal capacity. But needed 747 has 24,000 gals!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>               Sat. Sept. 8, 2018               To all‐                       Cal Fire is getting seven C‐130s given to them by the Coast Guard. They can carry 4,000 gallons of retardant. A  BIG deal is made by Cal Fire that they will be the only fire fighting agency with its own fleet of C‐130s. It was a tough,  big deal that had to be brokered by Senator Diane Feinstein, and it still needs final approval by Congress, this implies.  The 747 tanker can carry 24,000 gallons of retardant, twice what the DC‐10 tanker can carry and six times what a C‐ 130 can carry.               https://www.sfgate.com/california‐wildfires/article/Water‐rescue‐aircraft‐set‐to‐join‐Cal‐Fire‐fleet‐ 13107572.php#photo‐13613987                I am confused as to why this had to be brokered in tough negotiations by Diane Feinstein!!  California is burning,  people are dying, the wildfire smoke we are forced to breath here is dangerous and deadly to our health, and it takes  something like the Paris Peace Accords to get seven old C‐130s for Cal Fire.  Then, they talk about setting records in  that they are the first fire‐fighting agency to have them!! Get off the record‐setting stuff and do your job! Top people at  Cal Fire should be fired. Ironic wordage, isn't it. They should be demonstrating outside the White House and the Calif.  State House, wearing hoods if necessary, and be all over TV denouncing Gov. Brown and Pres. Trump, and demanding a  fleet of the 50 747 tankers. They look so calm and collected! Big rich salaries, great benes, great job security. We, the  people of California, don't like having our health seriously imperiled by wild fires that rage for weeks or months if more  resources would enable you to put them out faster. What, me worry? You folks at the top of Cal Fire, demand 50 747  tankers as fast as they can be bought and readied with a 24‐7 effort. Trump has crowed that the new $716 billion DOD  budget is the largest in history, to enrich his pals in the defense industry, so the money is available. We have a sadist for a President. That can be changed with a good impeachment. On top of everything else, he should be impeached for  ignoring the crisis in California and other western states caused by wild fires. Every expert agrees that this crisis is a  result of climate change, and Trump wants to produce more coal in electoral college vote‐rich states like Ohio.                    We should see AF1 fly into California with Pres. Trump and hear him announce that $25 billion will be taken from  the defense budget and spent to suppress the wild fires damaging people's health in California and other western states.  His failure to do so creates the image of a President hunkered down in the WH trying to lie his way out of an  impeachment, and wasting huge amounts of money to enrich his Republican pals in the defense industry. As stupid as  we may seem to him, we can arrange for an impeachment.                How can Cal Fire officials not have noticed that California is in a crisis with these unrelenting wild fires? Another  huge fire is burning today near the Oregon border, the Delta fire. 24,000 acres burned over 38 sq. miles as of last night,  with zero containment. This fire too will fill the Central Valley of Calif. with deadly wild fire smoke. We've had a few  8 days of clearer skies with the Car Fire, the Mendocino Complex Fire and the Ferguson Fire under control. Here we go  again though.              Rich Republican Trump is REALLY biting now in his display of total contempt for the people with his astronomical  DOD budget. Congress should peel off $5 billion to buy and retrofit 50 747s to serve as tankers in the west fighting wild  fires.                 If the Japanese, Chinese, Russians or Germans airlifted 80 divisions of infantry into the Central Valley some night,  official Washington would react to it. They would at least talk about it. We have a crisis in California now and we don't  even get talk from Washington about this one. We need talk followed by action, and action now, to quote FDR from his  first inaugural. .             Because of the horrific health impact of breathing wild fire smoke for months on end every summer now in the  Central Valley of California, which produces 25% of the food consumed in the U.S., I believe that the CV is rapidly  becoming unfit for human habitation. As that happens, the economy here will collapse, an event of great interest to  rich Republicans everywhere. What company is going to locate facilities here if the air is dangerous to breath.? If their  top people start quitting to get out of here, they will reconsider having operations here. Who would move here now?  Only the IQ challenged, and we have enough of them here now, many of them holding elected office. If all of the big‐ gun physicians leave, who will want to live here? These people can make money anywhere, and they won't endanger  their health and that of their families if out of control wild fires that rage for weeks on end are now a permanent  feature here.             The rich Republican scum who own the TV stations in Fresno are having their on‐air people lie to minimize the  health impact of breathing wild fire smoke for months every year. They do not broadcast in the public interest. They  broadcast in the interest of the Republican business community here, and they should lose their broadcast license for  it. We should see numerous interviews with medical experts being broadcast. Stanford Medical Center has experts who  could lay out the dangers in detail. Stanford is 165 miles from NW Fresno. There are medical experts right here in  Fresno who could do the same.                Here is information about the new re‐fueling tanker plane the Air Force is buying, the KC‐46. It will replace the KC‐ 135. The federal government should convert the retiring KC‐135s to fight wild fires, and do it on a crash basis.                https://www.businessinsider.com/mattis‐warning‐boeing‐air‐force‐kc‐46‐tanker‐program‐2017‐12               I have yet to hear one word from any member of Congress from California about the horrific health impact of  breathing wild fire smoke. They are not doing their jobs. They should issue reports about the health impacts and  demand a hugely stepped effort to control wild fires in California. They should demand that the FCC tell the TV station  owners in Fresno Ca. to stop lying about the health impacts of wild fire smoke on their viewers and threaten them with  and impose license revocation if they don't stop lying about it.               Where is the U.S. Surgeon General on this, the CDC and the NIH? Let's have a stream of reports and warnings  about the health impact of wild fire smoke on the people of California and other western states. People at the top of  these agencies should be fired for their silence. President Trump should order them to issue comprehensive, and  regular, public statements. If he won't do that, he should be fired.                 A $716 billion defense budget is an obscenity, given all that the American people need.                I like some of what Pres. Trump has done: Build the wall to stop unlimited illegal immigration into the United  States. Renegotiate trade deals to stop the outflow of all manufacturing jobs from the United States to Mexico and  China. Retaliate for China's theft of intellectual property.  He is not a big proponent of the Nazi Affirmative Action laws  of the United States. Cause the countries of Europe to shoulder more of the cost of NATO, but his DOD budget does not  reflect that.   9               His enormous $5 trillion tax cut which benefits the wealthy and big corporations is an obscenity. His efforts to end  ObamaCare, destroy the unions, outlaw abortion and contraception, put university education out of reach for all but the  wealthy, are all obscenities.                If he murders 58,000 young Americans, as Johnson and Nixon did, he will be removed from office by the American  people, as were Johnson and Nixon for doing that.                L. William Harding           Fresno, Ca.                            1 Carnahan, David From:Wayne Douglass <waynejdouglass1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, November 10, 2018 11:55 AM To:Council, City ttps://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/11/08/finding-juana So...what the hell is Palo Alto doing to remember Juana Briones except to allow some property owners to modify their house in the foothills, in spite of its historical designation? <QUOTE> Van Tuyl has taught at Juana Briones Elementary School since 1988 and has always told her students about Briones' story. One student pointed out to Van Tuyl that if Juana was an entrepreneur, selling her sewing and owning a cattle ranch, one could only imagine the other women doing business whose names we do not know. "I think we're at a time where people understand that some stories that have been hidden in the shado    Sent from Mail for Windows 10    1 Carnahan, David From:Kim Atkinson <atkinsonkim@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 2:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:Kniss, Liz (internal) Subject:New construction looking right onto Arastradero Open Space trails To the Palo Alto City Council, A few weeks ago you were sent photos of a vast plastic-covered hillside facing Arastradero Open Space Preserve. In that email, to which I have received no reply, were questions for you about the code compliance of this eyesore, which is part of a private estate construction project. In that email, I assumed and mentioned that this plastic sheeting must most-likely be temporary, and I guessed that it was part of some attempt to re-vegetate the hillside. Today, very surprisingly, new construction can be seen from park trails, taking place at the bottom of this plastic-covered hill. See photos below. Having attended and spoken at the city hearings about this private construction project in winter 2017, when you approved the project, I do not recall any presentation to the public that this visible construction at the bottom of the slope would take place. Was this building location made clear to you, facing right into the park at the bottom of the slope? It was my understanding that all building would take place at or near the top of the hill, and would be discreetly shielded from the park with plantings. What was once an esthetic natural hilltop and view focus for hikers is now being completely destroyed. It is even worse than anticipated. Is this what the city of Palo Alto intended when it voted to approve this project ? I would greatly appreciate a response to this letter, asking you 1. what is the nature of this new construction seen today ? what are they building here ? 2. were you aware of this construction location during the public hearings ? 3. did you knowingly approve this specific construction, seen in the photos below ? 4. and most importantly: is this construction compliant with city codes for our park ? This letter is bcc'd to other Palo Alto residents, some of whom spoke at the hearings in 2017. Perhaps they recollect the proposed building plans better than I do. I look forward to hearing from you, Thank you Kim Atkinson 1753 Middlefield Road Palo Alto 94301 November 13 seen from hiking trails in our park 2 3 4 5 6 1 Carnahan, David From:Rice, Danille Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 3:01 PM To:dan.elwell@faa.gov Cc:dennis.roberts@faa.gov; kevin.stewart@faa.gov; kim.stover@faa.gov; trevor_higgins@feinstein.senate.gov; dennis.roberts@faa.gov; Flaherty, Michelle; Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Isaac_Irby@harris.senate.gov; eric.henshall@mail.house.gov; Council, City; Walt.smith@faa.gov; Faviola.Garcia@faa.gov; 9-AMC-Aerochart@faa.gov; Shikada, Ed Subject:Comment Letter to FAA regarding PIRAT ONE ARRIVAL Standard Terminal Arrival Route Attachments:FAA comment letter on PIRAT STAR 11-13-18.pdf Good afternoon Mr. Elwell,  Please find attached letter regarding the City of Palo Alto’s comments on the recently proposed PIRAT ONE ARRIVAL  Standard Terminal Arrival Route.     Respectfully,  Danille        Danille Rice | Administrative Assistant   Office of the City Manager  650.329.2229                November 13, 2018 Mr. Dan Elwell Acting Administrator Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20024 Sent via email to Dan.Elwell@faa .gov Dear Administrator Elwell: City of Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council The City of Palo Alto is writing to comment on the recently proposed PIRAT ONE ARRIVAL Standard Terminal Arrival Route {STAR). These comments are submitted in response to the solicitation of comments set forth on the FAA's IFP Gateway which indicates that comments are being accepted until November 13, 2018. {See https://www.faa.gov/air traffic/flight info/aeronav/procedures/application/?event=procedure.results &tab=coordination&nasrld=SFO#searchResultsTop ) We note at the outset that we understand the request for comments on the IFP Gateway is directed primarily at solicitation of technical comments from air traffic professionals or aeronautical users. The agency has not, however, provided any other mechanism for the public to comment on this proposed procedure. We are, therefore, availing ourselves of this opportunity to ensure that the FAA receives and considers our comments before taking a final agency action pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46110. We are troubled by the lack of community engagement by the FAA during the planning and execution of such proposed changes to routes or procedures. The manner in which the PIRAT STAR has been proposed and the process for solicitation of comments does not comply with the FAA's own Community Involvement Policy as set forth in Appendix 10 to FAA Order JO 7400.2L. Neither has the process complied with current FAA practice to engage the community in any air traffic change which is likely to be controversial on environmental grounds. See FAA Order 1050.lF § 5-2; see also RTCA, PBN Blueprint Community Outreach {2016) (available at https://www.rtca .org/sites/default/files/2016 pbn blueprint community outreach.pdf ) which was approved by the FAA's NextGen Advisory Committee in June 2016. As far as we know, the agency has not solicited non-technical comments, has not widely distributed the proposed draft CatEx document, and has not provided the environmental documentation that was prepared in connection with what appears to be a documented CatEx. See Order 1050.H § 5-3. {The City, through its attorney, has submitted a FOIA request for this documentation but the agency has thus far not responded to the request. We reserve the right to supplement these comments upon the timely receipt of the requested information. We reiterate here, as we did in the FOIA request, that the environmental documentation is essential for the City to determine whether the agency has properly documented the Cat Ex.) The City of Palo Alto has also written several letters to the FAA in the past to which the FAA has been completely unresponsive. We have been left with no viable process for engaging with the FAA regarding the many questions and concerns we have about flight operations in the airspace over our city; this Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2477 650.328.3631 fax communication vacuum is unacceptable. In the present context, in particular, the agency has failed to explain how the proposed PIRAT route addresses our previous complaints and concerns regarding OCEANIC arrivals into San Francisco International Airport (SFO). With that background, we offer the following comments and raise several questions specifically on the proposed PIRAT STAR. Because it has neither provided the environmental documentation to support the CatEx nor responded to the City's FOIA request, the FAA has not communicated whether or how the impacts of the proposed PIRAT route have been studied. We request that the FAA disclose single event noise levels, number of events over grid points on-the-ground and other relevant per-flight-operation noise data on the proposed PIRAT route using the FAA standard AEDT model. See FAA Order 7400.2L § 32-2-1. We also request that the proposed PIRAT route be presented for community involvement per Appendix 10 to FAA Order 7400.2L. We specifically request that preparation of an Air Traffic Initial Environmental Review pursuant to Order 7400.2L § 32-2-l(b). We have several concerns about the potential impacts of the PIRAT route and ask the FAA to clarify the following issues related to routing paths and altitudes; air traffic volume; and noise and other environmental impacts, particularly given that one of NextGen's goals was to "take into consideration, to the greatest extent practicable, design of airport approach and departure flight paths to reduce exposure of noise and emissions pollution on affected residents." While we appreciate the intent to limit flights to 8,000 MSL or higher near the neighborhoods in the Woodside area, we remain concerned about noise and other environmental impacts anticipated from the PIRAT STAR. In particular, we are concerned about the predictable increase in the volume of overflights resulting from the transition of the Pacific 2 Tailored Approach (TA) to a public-use area navigation (RNAV) STAR, and the increased impacts associated with adding Oakland International Airport (OAK) traffic to SFO traffic on this route. We are also troubled by the ambiguity and absence of information about where and how aircraft will be vectored by Air Traffic Control (ATC) between the ARGGG waypoint and final approach at SFO or OAK. The following questions illustrate the current dearth of information available to the public about the impacts of the proposed PIRAT STAR and the necessity for a more transparent public process prior to any implementation decision. Ambiguity of Vectoring's Routes, Altitudes, and Impacts How will Air Traffic Control manage the paths for vectoring from the stated 060 heading from the ARGGG waypoint? Where are aircraft most likely to fly between the ARGGG waypoint and final approach into each airport? When vectoring aircraft from ARGGG, will Air Traffic Control maintain aircraft at or above 6,000 MSL over Palo Alto? What altitudes will be maintained over other neighboring sensitive areas? What are the impacts on the Air Traffic Control workload when all flights must be vectored by ATC after the ARGGG waypoint? Impacts of Increased Volume How many total operators and flights are anticipated to use this public-use STAR compared to the volume limitations of the current TA? Does the FAA anticipate increases in flights on this route because of the increased growth projected at all three international airports in the San Francisco Bay Area? What are the anticipated levels of use by OAK arrivals vs. SFO arrivals on this route? What are the anticipated levels of use, if any, by SJC? What are the implications of the proximity of current and future SJC traffic to the anticipated PIRAT traffic vectored from ARRRG en route to SFO? How has the FAA studied the safety implications of PIRAT in increasingly congested airspace? What are the impacts on efficiency of increased volume? Environmental Impacts What studies has the FAA completed on the noise and emission impacts of the PIRAT STAR procedure, including especially the on-the-ground noise impacts because of increased volume on PIRAT? Some flights currently using the Pacific 2 TA overfly our community during nighttime and early morning hours. What is the anticipated volume and frequency offlights on the newly proposed public route during these disruptive times? The proposed route, and the associated areas most likely to be used in vectoring flights from ARGGG to final approach, would likely direct aircraft over noise-sensitive areas, several wildlife refuges and water storage areas, historic areas, and minority and low-income populations. We draw your attention to the specific obligations of the FAA to consider impacts over such areas even if the agency believes that it has adequate legal justification to use a CatEx. See FAA Order 1050.lF § 5-3 in particular. What has the FAA done to study the environmental impacts of PIRAT flights, including the increased volume of these flights and their required vectoring, over these sensitive areas? Finally, we urge the FAA to creatively partner with airports in the San Francisco Bay Area Metroplex to leverage new technologies to develop improved procedures as part of its Next-Gen journey. Leveraging SFO's Ground-Based Augmentation System (GBAS) is a key starting point. As you know, SFO is linking two satellite-based approach technologies -Required Navigation Performance (RNP) and a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Landing System (GLS) to improve from the approach tools invented 85 years ago, but improvements can only be gained by this technology if the FAA is willing to consider procedures that take advantage of it. Did the FAA team approach the SFO GBAS team to discuss how the new procedure could take advantage of GBAS to reduce aircraft impacts on nearby areas? How has the FAA considered SFO's upcoming deployment of new landing options when designing the PIRAT procedure? Let me be clear that we do not believe that the FAA has adequately disclosed impacts of the PIRAT STAR under its existing orders and policy statements. And, in particular, the manner in which PIRAT STAR has been publicly disclosed violates standard agency practice for enhanced community involvement that has been adopted in the wake of the Phoenix v. Huerta decision. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. We look forward to your response. cc: 9-AMC-Aerochart@faa.gov https://www.faa.gov/air traffic/flight info/aeronav/procedures/application/?event=email.contact&det ails=SF0%20(%20KSF0)%20SAN%20FRANCISC0%201NTL,%20SAN%20FRANCISC0,%20CA%20- %20STAR%20PIRAT%20(RNAV)%200NE%20SAN%20FRANCISC0%20CA%20KSFO&procedureName=STAR %20PIRAT%20(RNAV)%200NE%20SAN%20FRANCISC0%20CA%20KSFO&airportCode=SFO&airportName =SAN%20FRANCISC0%201NTL&airportState=CA Mr. Dennis Roberts, FAA Western-Pacific Regional Administrator Ms. Faviola Garcia, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator Ms. Kimberly Stover, Director, Air Traffic Operations, FAA Western Services Area, AJTW Mr. Kevin Stewart, Acting FAA Aeronautical Information Services Manager FAA Western Services Area Air Traffic Organization Manager Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate Hon. Kamala D. Harris, U.S. Senate Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, U.S. House of Representatives Palo Alto City Council James Keene, Palo Alto City Manager Molly Stump, Palo Alto City Attorney 1 Carnahan, David From:Farzi R. <seflog@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 7, 2018 1:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:The newly announced airplane route -PIROT Hello,  I watched Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure. I also heard that the city staff were  taking actions to address airplane noise.    Last time the subject of pursuing legal options were raised, it was clear that the City had to wait for a new  procedure to be officially published to be able to bring any legal challenge. The announcement of this procedure  means that the opportunity has presented itself.  It is about time that we challenge the FAA and their  unprecedented abuse of authority. Even if we lose, we have put them on notice.       I strongly encourage the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:       Take any and all appropriate legal options   Time to work with other potentially impacted Cities since they will be afflicted with more noise as well to  strengthen the message as well as the law suit   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   I expect to receive regular updates on this action and that the Council would vote on approving or denying  all binding and irrevocable agreements publicly that would limit future options for Palo Altons .    We are fed up with this noise and do not want to just hear about any settlement afterward when there will  be zero change to raise our voices or concerns.       Thank you,  Farzi Abhari  1820 Channing ave                  Sent from my iPad  1 Carnahan, David From:Audrey Jonas <audrey.jonas@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 7, 2018 7:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear Council Members,  I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   Provide updates to and receive Council's input prior to making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options         Thank you for the consideration,  Audrey  2 Carnahan, David From:ursula schulte <wachetauf@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 7, 2018 4:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas  Provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions that limit future options. Ursula Schulte 271 Lowell Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Carnahan, David From:William Brew <wabrew2@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 8, 2018 4:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas  1 Carnahan, David From:Jim Holmlund <jjh2000@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 9, 2018 11:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:New FAA route - PIRAT I sure hope you have are challenging this!    - Take appropriate legal options, if any  - Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  - Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas   By Nov 13!  -- jjh 1 Carnahan, David From:Graham Rodwell <gejrodwell@me.com> Sent:Sunday, November 11, 2018 6:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Sirs,     Airplane noise remains a great annoyance and is highly detrimental to our quality of life in Palo Alto ‐ to the extent, in  my case, that I have deliberately disconnected from attempts to ameliorate it; the frustration is too great, and our family  is simply resigned to the fact that we may leave the area because of it.     Nonetheless, I’ve learned of an additional flight path to SFO that may make things even worse, and I’d like to voice my  support for Lydia Kuo’s efforts to raise awareness. I am currently woken by airplane noise EVERY NIGHT that I sleep in  my own house, from low‐flying airplanes from the west, and we are regularly disturbed regularly by airplanes that loop  over the peninsula covering 3/4 of a circle before approaching SFO. Anything that makes this worse should be opposed.    Respectfully,     Graham Rodwell   Greenmeadow Resident  2 Carnahan, David From:Lee Christel <lee_xtel@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, November 11, 2018 5:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT Dear Council, I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas Thank you, Lee Christel, Rosewood Drive 3 Carnahan, David From:Evelyn Preston <evierp100@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, November 11, 2018 10:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Airplane Noise Subject: PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas  Work with Sky Posse to keep pressure on airports Evelyn Preston 3918 Duncan Place, P. A. 94306 evierp100@yahoo.com 4 Carnahan, David From:Julie Baskind <julie.baskind@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, November 10, 2018 6:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise. Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:  Take appropriate legal options, if any  Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions  Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas Thank you very much,    Julie Baskind  4250 El Camino Real  Palo Alto CA  5 Carnahan, David From:Brandon Corey <bcorey@acm.org> Sent:Saturday, November 10, 2018 7:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to  address airplane noise.    Given how loosely NextGen was implemented with little input from surrounding communities, I think it’s important for  cities like Palo Alto to continue to challenge the FAA.    I would like to urge the council to demand the FAA provide a more thorough review process for PIRAT.  I think it’s  appropriate to enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas, and for the  FAA to provide updates to and receive Council's input before making binding and irrevocable decisions.    Thanks,  Brandon Corey    1 Carnahan, David From:Andy Robin <werdna39@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 12:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:PIRAT I appreciate Ed Shikada’s update to Council on the planned PIRAT procedure, and the actions city staff are taking to address airplane noise.  Based on Palo Alto’s previous experiences and to avoid omissions I ask the City to challenge the FAA in the strongest possible way, including:     Take appropriate legal options, if any   Work with other potentially impacted Cities (when interests are aligned) in order to strengthen the actions   Enlist specialized aviation legal counsel to review PIRAT and identify all viable challenge areas    Thanks,    Andy Robin  Walnut Dr  Palo Alto      1 Carnahan, David From:DAVID MEINHARDT <davidmeinhardt@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, November 9, 2018 2:43 PM To:Council, City; ross-road@googlegroups.com; Ganesh Venkitachalam Subject:Re: Ross road accident I could not agree more. I ride my bik on the sidewalk when I am on Ross Road. Driving on Ross Road with bikes is hazardous. Dsvid Meinhardt On Friday, November 9, 2018, 2:08:36 PM PST, Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com> wrote: There was another car/bike accident on Ross road yesterday. This is the third this year so far (including one hit/run with a kid on the bike). In the previous 10 years, I believe there was one car/bike accident on this road. I have not seen ANY studies from the city with actual stats on how these buildouts on Ross & Louis affect bike safety. Given the data I do have (1 in 10 years vs 3 in 1 year), it is a 30X decrease in bike safety. This after the city spent 8M dollars on this. It is unfortunate, but before someone has a fatal accident, please spend whatever it takes to undo this. This is not safe, and this is really a lawsuit waiting to happen now. --Ganesh -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ross road" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ross- road+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to ross-road@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ross- road/CAKCEE4NUPKv2pdrsmretU773jVL4QKicHKu6Rrhad%2B2SmVzEQA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 1 Carnahan, David From:Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 9, 2018 7:53 PM To:Kniss, Liz (internal); Council, City; ross-road@googlegroups.com Subject:Re: Ross road accident Hello Liz,    With due respect ‐ there's a petition with over 1300 signatures out there. All we have seen is "outreach" efforts and a  public hearing in cubberley which felt like it was all talk to calm things down and no action.     This has been going on for a while. Can there be a timetable on this? Is the traffic department actually going to do  something other than more outreach? I realize this did not become a voter issue this election cycle, but in another 2  years I have no doubt it will be.    ‐Ganesh    On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:11 PM Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Sending on to traffic staff.   I'll follow up,  Liz    Sent from my iPhone    On Nov 9, 2018, at 2:08 PM, Ganesh Venkitachalam <venkitac@gmail.com> wrote:  There was another car/bike accident on Ross road yesterday. This is the third this year so far (including  one hit/run with a kid on the bike).     In the previous 10 years, I believe there was one car/bike accident on this road. I have not seen ANY  studies from the city with actual stats on how these buildouts on Ross & Louis affect bike safety. Given  the data I do have (1 in 10 years vs 3 in 1 year), it is a 30X decrease in bike safety. This after the city  spent 8M dollars on this.    It is unfortunate, but before someone has a fatal accident, please spend whatever it takes to undo this.  This is not safe, and this is really a lawsuit waiting to happen now.    ‐‐Ganesh  1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 8, 2018 2:46 PM To:D Martell Cc:ElectCormack@gmail.com; Kou, Lydia; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Eggleston, Brad; Keene, James; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Becker, Tony; Goodell, Erin; Bates, Amanda; AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; anne.ream@mail.house.gov; richard@alexanderlaw.com; Kleinberg, Judy; Drekmeier, Peter; Jay Thorwaldson; Esther Wojcicki; Bill Johnson; Dave Price; MDianda@bayareanewsgroup.com; Pulcrano@metronews.com; JWadsworth@metronews.com; Minor, Beth; Brettle, Jessica; JRosen@dao.sccgov.org Subject:Re: Stand firm in your principals & honor voter decisions Hi Danielle,    Good letter. I just spoke to Chief Jonson’s administrative assistant. She advised me that the number of PAPD officers is  currently at about 79. And yes, you are correct, the PAPD is currently understaffed by about 13 officers.     Best regards,    Aram James       On Nov 8, 2018, at 2:18 PM, D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> wrote:          TABLE OF CONTENTS      Victory!    Citizen Votes were Cast    Introducing Myself    YIKES! $150,000,000.00 !!    "Government by the People"    Alternative Solutions    City Council is not an Oligarchy | City Manager is not our Dictator    "The Nays Have It" | NO Totally New Police Station 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ͲͲͲͲͲ   0V$OLVRQ&RUPDFN 3DOR$OWR&LW\&RXQFLO  'HDU&RXQFLOZRPDQ&RUPDFN  &RQJUDWXODWLRQVRQ\RXUHOHFWRUDOZLQIRU3DOR$OWR&LW\&RXQFLO    9,&725<  3DOR$OWRYRWHGIRU\RXEHFDXVHZHKDYHFRQILGHQFHLQ\RXWRVWDQGILUPLQ\RXUSULQFLSOHVDQGKRQRUYRWHUGHFLVLRQV   &,7,=(1927(6:(5(&$67  ,Q3DOR$OWDQVYRWHGWR127EXLOGDWRWDOO\QHZ  SROLFHVWDWLRQ  3OHDVHXSKROGYRWHUGHFLVLRQRQKRZWR127VSHQGWKHLUWD[PRQLHV  $WWDFKHGILQGDSKRWRJUDSKRIWKHIURQWSDJHRIRXUORFDOPalo Alto Daily News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ĚŵWĂůŽůƚŽΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ I .. \ .. ~' ' ~ I -" cA. Scientist~ fi nd bravery gene Meek mice are turned into daring creatures Scic111tMs \ 11rf..111t-\\ tlh r1111 ti 11111 I md 111.11 bv rem v111g a ~inrle 111 llll)' c;111111m II llOllll)' dlllflUll~ llOl"1,1I~ lllht 1l\111t1g D ll n11~e tha1 1111." n1111c lltn 1t1 !!')'ii , uni.11111111 ll'Inlvrv •m<l le~~ 1111111111luh•1I I y s:latu~ unol 11111Mi~ 1h111 rhcy havo le.nwd an 111; ,J1111·l·11•m 1111• Ulf1fl(llf!! •ltt;,:11\t!f)', N:ing ~ I 11tl'4y 111 1h1• 11111111al Cell. 1•pcn' a new win dm1 .. ,. him lt".111 worl«• HI rhc bratn e11pe1111 1111 I he 111 \\> 1111111111·~ 11111\ help nucarr.hcrs \1 'II llllY(I 1h1111~ IU llCUI It Wide ilrruy of " \I ftr~f\V(HY GfNE p~ 102 ... l'"llll!llllFP ......... . ' in todq'I lllJlltf Gourmtt stctiotl ... ~"' I ~ PALO A LTO DAILY NEWS Happily serving Menlo Park, Mountain View. Los Altos, Los Altos Hiiis, East Pnto Alto. Atherton, PQflola Valfny, Stanford, S~le ood Woodside NASDAQ 2.220A6 ~S2..S3 • NYS£· t0,720Zl445A6 (650) 327 9090 Noo.urt>er 18, 2005 . -- Police digs may go on ballot llT l4IOH-... Mruc111111of11lut111} 11~" poltcc Ill· 11sc1 l 1d11k lk11rs1ssl.tlf111 111T.111i;c-)L'tir \\Uh ll J'1ttposl11 to hu•lll rhc Cll} ll) "ll' of c.'ornp..l.tl\Oh lkm: -----11.111 1111 l!Achh11l1 11C8••111111ng rlt•hr~ 11 nt'Y. h·l,11110 ~u.1rt' fo.11 ~·h" \Ulff cl,1u11 ll ~111 Cll!l1 $4lj nulh® r•ato Alu.ni. toulrJ rir11l 1hc111•rl\C'\ TI1c 111)1 •rp '""·1r<l .1 ~fMJ7 ~Jn· r1.111•·e111r111 \11th lhL' !\cc nun uuhl lic:a.kju~rtc~ 1•n puhh" and p1wa1i: !I\ cunt11111c \\llh a prl'ltt1 to 1:,\(1 ruJ 111 the hallot llC•\ m 111~1 111·u )••· 1r. 111111 •JOUIJ Ci•mc A.\ 01111 a.~ Mnmlay c 11111pJ11y l1111d lh•nnns G1h11.m 1nil Bnunt and 1c111Jvr.1c lho r~1 ~111 • ro4('.(! \IJ '''''"£ co "PP'••1-e 11 111ul111111ll1 .. n v.hcn the < ·11~ l oune1/ 1~ m:r 111 D.:1r:h1pe.1 < hup Kccn.111 ~h'l'l'ls. KecnJn !':ttJ he L'TiufJ h111lil 11 ho11111 l 11y Hall 111.11 J1h))0.1 li'11ul11 dollflr hc1111f mr:t.'llT<' hll lhr ~nn 1fc"tJ'· v,lw1h~t tr> 1.hrci:1 C11y ~lhn· i1pp111,1d1rd ~It\' nf11,·1,1l• r1bllt1 1h14 1111 1hou1~~X1111lh11n 1112007.l(llhu 0 POL t iTA.JION ~ 116 Movie house set to close Officials ~eep 1 Carnahan, David From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 8, 2018 3:21 PM To:ElectCormack@gmail.com Cc:Kou, Lydia; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Eggleston, Brad; Keene, James; Aram James; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Becker, Tony; Goodell, Erin; Bates, Amanda; AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; anne.ream@mail.house.gov; richard@alexanderlaw.com; Kleinberg, Judy; Drekmeier, Peter; Jay Thorwaldson; Esther Wojcicki; Bill Johnson; Dave Price; MDianda@bayareanewsgroup.com; Pulcrano@metronews.com; JWadsworth@metronews.com; Minor, Beth; Brettle, Jessica; JRosen@dao.sccgov.org Subject:Re: Stand firm in your principals & honor voter decisions     Attention, oops!  I confused my numbers.  The number of PAPD officers is currently at about 79  officers of which only 7 officers are on the street at any one time.   Please excuse.  ‐DM    1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, November 10, 2018 4:27 PM To:Jonsen, Robert Cc:fred Council, City Subject:Re: Towing my RV (my home) Thanks, Chief Jonsen!!     Sent from my iPhone    > On Nov 10, 2018, at 4:09 PM, Jonsen, Robert <Robert.Jonsen@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:  >   > Mr.    >   > I am sorry to hear about the challenges you’re facing and will have Captain Perron and staff work with you to ensure a  compromise is reached.   >   > Chief Jonsen  >   >> On Nov 10, 2018, at 1:42 PM, fred   <> wrote:  >>   >> Dear Chief Johnson,  >>   >> Inadvertently the police are about to destroy me. I live in an RV parked on portage and I've gotten a tow notice telling  me to move Monday. My RV just developed severe engine problems, it's about to throw a rod. So I can't drive it. I'm  working on getting some money together to solve this problem. I figure I need to wait till December when I get my social  security check.  >>   >> So could you hold off on towing my RV ( my house ) or ticketing me until December.  >>   >> I'm 74 years old, am being treated for my  and  at . I've lived in  Palo Alto over 40 years, working most of that time and paying taxes.   >> I'm one of the working poor (used to earn 6 figure salary), homeless, living without heat or electricity. Losing my  "house" abruptly with winter coming on will be very hard on me.  >> Was a software engineer for 30 years but now am considered to old to write software.  >> I've spoken before the Palo Alto City council on homeless issues.  >>   >> I'm currently working at a minimum wage job to supplement social security.  >>   >> Please help by not taking action against me until December.  >>   >> I'm willing to come in and talk with you if you like.  >>   >> Best,  >> Fred    >>   >>  ‐ ‐   >>   1 Carnahan, David From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 7, 2018 5:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re-envisioning El Camino Real Dear Council ‐     It seems to me that much more of an effort should have been made to reach out to the adjoining neighborhoods  regarding the Re‐Envisioning El Camino Real meeting tomorrow evening.  We are the folks who will be most directly  impacted by the local changes (Stanford Avenue to Lambert Avenue) and yet, we received no notice of this meeting!     Why?     Regards,    Pria Graves  2130 Yale St.  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arnahan, David From:Joseph Harwood <joseph.harwood@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, November 9, 2018 4:28 AM To:Council, City Subject:Roundabout on East Meadow and Ross Road Hello,    I go down Ross Road on my way to work every morning.  If I happen to go near school beginning time, there are often  kids riding bicycles through the roundabout at East Meadow and Ross Road.  It's very difficult to see them.  I have no  doubt other drivers have the same problem.  Please have this roundabout removed before kids get hit by cars.    Thank you.    Best,  Joseph    1 Carnahan, David From:jjh <jjh2000@gmail.com> on behalf of Jim Holmlund <jjhstuff@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 9, 2018 12:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:This was a great letter you sent to the FAA https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=68468.56&BlobID=66735    Have you received any response ?   For example, is there any actual evidence that BDEGA east usage has increased?  Any word on doing the BSR overlay?    Thanks  Jim Holmlund    1 Carnahan, David From:Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 3:27 PM To:Council, City Cc:Stump, Molly; Lait, Jonathan; Adam Petersen; Keene, James Subject:Wong and Labor Dispute at 429 University Ave Attachments:Carpenter's Union Protest Developer Wong.pdf Dear City Council Members:  I was walking by 429 University Ave today and saw picketers in front of the buildings.  Wong is being targeted by the  Carpenter's Union for allegedly unfair labor practices and pay.  I've attached photos from the protest and flyers that I  obtained.    Best regards,  Michael Harbour  (650) 224‐4171      2   • has failed to require General Contractors and all of their sub-contractors to pay Carpenter area standard wages and benefits and to provide training and apprenticeship on all jobs, all of the time! • ' . • HURTING WORKERS HURTING FAMILIE , HURTING COMMUNITIES! VOICE YOUR CONCERNS TO THE FOLLOWING: KIPLING POST2 LP Elizabeth Wong, Manager Phone(650)814-3051 elizabethwong2009@gmail.com P.O. Box 204 Palo Alto, CA 94302 We do not seek recognition, nor are we asking anyone to stop working, stop deliveries, or cease doing business with any employer.~"' () •Carpenters Local 405• Rail Committee 11/14/2018 Gary Lindgren ' ~,) I·;. ~M EETING 11/ttj <Ii [ ) _pi'aced Before Me.eting [v(Received at Meeung Many residents are worried that either Palo Alto Ave. or Churchill or both may be closed. There is a way to keep both open. Starting with the hybrid crossing at Palo Alto Ave. and then elevating the track level going past the train station at a 1% '2.-L grade or less, past Embarcadero and reaching track height of ~feet above grade at Churchill. In this case both Palo Alto Ave. and Churchill would be kept open. With these roads open, there would be no need to widen the Embarcadero underpass at this time. Any changes to the area should be consistent with a wider underpass at a future date. The raised viaduct would then continue beyond Churchill, past Oregon Expressway, Meadow, and Charleston and then slowly taper down to grade at San Antonio. I have heard that council has some ideas about changing the University Ave. area. Let us have a complete solution for Palo Alto's grade crossings and include both University and Embarcadero Avenues as part of the solution. The extra time to study this will be well worth it in the long run. Rail Committee -November 14, 2018-David Shen, North Old Palo Distinguished Rail Committee and Staff, ~q' I o group, CAP member -@Gtlllell:. MEETING ltj //S- [ ],)>laced Before Meeting . [vf Received at Meeting I am Dave Shen, representing the North Old Palo Alto group and a member of the CAP. A few points: In support of the residents of South Palto Alto and also of our own NOPA petition of 350 signatures, I'd like to reiterate that we are all opposed to any viaduct options due to concerns about noise and its visual impacts especially to those whose backyards border on the train tracks. In relation to the Palo Alto Avenue crossing, we advocate for more studies of that crossing such that a solution to grade separation can be found. There has not been any discussion surrounding the use of land near the soccer field to the south of Palo Alto Ave. The available space there could be used to shift the road slightly south, thereby giving room for an underpass that does not endanger either El Palo Alto nor the historic bridge. We advocate for such studies to be included in the work plan. We also advocate for detailed level studies of solutions at the Embarcadero underpass. Our group has had a meeting with residents living near the underpass where we discussed some creative options. By not locking ourselves into thinking current road paths must be followed and adding some exit ramps, we can substantially improve on the underpass, taking traffic away from surrounding neighborhoods, and improve access between Alma and El Camino and beyond. Following on the motion made at City Council's June 19th meeting, which perfectly states: 1. study additional options for addressing traffic in the Embarcadero Road underpass area including actions to minimize redirected traffic onto residential streets in adjacent neighborhoods and commit to adopting appropriate mitigations to address the impacts we also advocate that studying these solutions be added to the current work plan, both in design and in further traffic studies to simulate traffic if improvements were added. The study of Embarcadero is critical to us acknowledging that traffic is a system here in Palo Alto and not just individual grade crossings. Lastly, we want to commend and thank staff for maintaining an incredibly aggressive schedule with many moving parts. We appreciate the collaboration and exchange of ideas in a non- divisive manner, as we look towards and desire solutions that do not negatively impact any neighborhood in Palo Alto, but also recognizing that balance must also be considered with forces outside our control. -Thank you-- Thank you, councilmembers for listening to me. [ ) Placed Before Meeting [ v(' Received at Meeting , Oqv•d ~ e '{ii I have lived in Palo Alto for up to 50 years and Palo Alto, I believe is the greatest community. I have the railroad tracks in my backyard so this will impact me directly. It will also impact all the citizens in Palo Alto -I truly believe the Trench is the best option. For the following reasons: Least amount noise and vibration Visually better than the raised options Not dividing the city, and bike safety. I believe the trench is what the community wants. There is a petition out which I believe a majority of the neighborhood signed to not have raised options. All of the community meetings that I have been in most of the people agreed that the Trench is the best option. It was disappointing that in last meeting that the Trench was not a true option. For the City has to overcome the engineering of the creeks and get a 2% grade approved. This is a project that the citizens and future generations will have to live with. I think it is important to make the right decision, the decision that the community wants. I would hope that the City will work to make the Trench a true option. I summed it up in an email I sent a councilmember: The trench may be a hard option but I believe the best option and the City should put forth effort into making it a true option 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto CA 94302 November 6, 2018 Dear Palo Alto City Council, CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 18 NOV -9 AH II: I 6 I am writing on behalf of neighbors in the Barron Park area. Over the recent months there is a group of RV's who park right next to Juana Briones Park on Clemo Street which dead ends on Maybell with an entrance from Arastradero Road. The folks in the RVs seem to be members of the methamphetamine community and have increasingly been causing a sense of uneasiness with their presence. Several neighbors have called the Police to enforce the no parking between 2am-6am clause in hopes that citations would deter them, however it is not a long term solution as those are early hours to call, the RV's simply get tow warnings and move up the same block. One RV has a dog in which he leaves the door open so the animal leaves his feces (without picking up) all along the sidewalk area outside the RV door, as well comes out with no warning, with no leash. There have been BBQ's on the sidewalk, furniture being painted on the sidewalk, mattresses and extra trash dumped in the bushes behind the fire station there, as well as on the street. I am writing this letter as a young member of a young family representing our neighbors here asking for a permanent solution. Enclosed are photos from Latham street (cross street Showers) which shows how the Mountain View City council dealt with this issue that they were having with signs stating "No parking vehicles over 6 feet". Neighbors have been leered at, cat called, and many people feel uncomfortable walking around that area of the park (especially the children). Please help address this situation, as we enjoy our neighborhood and this has become an issue of concern. Thank you, A Representative of the Barron Park Community 11/4/2018 IMG_5870.JPG https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/#inbox?projector-1 1/1 1 Carnahan, David From:Cory Wolbach Sent:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:36 AM To:Carnahan, David Subject:Fwd: PALO ALTO GRADE SEPARATIONS For records.  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Cory Wolbach    M:     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Joan Holtzman <holtzmanjoan@gmail.com>  Date: Mon, Nov 12, 2018, 7:26 PM  Subject: PALO ALTO GRADE SEPARATIONS  To: <>, <>, <>, <>,  <com>, Greg Tanaka <>, <>,  <>, <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>,  <Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Mandar Borkar <mandar.borkar@gmail.com>    TO:  Palo Alto City Council and City Staff:    As a long term resident of south Palo Alto, I urge you to:    * Add Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train in tunnel and freight at grade) to AECOM work plan for next level  detail.      * Suggest AECOM explore moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) so that it further reduces impact to residential  properties.    * Eliminate or merge raised options; Eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid;  Spend more time and resource on  studying underground options    Thank you,    Joan Holtzman  4139 Wilkie Way  Palo Alto, CA 94306    2 Carnahan, David From:Cory Wolbach <> Sent:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:29 AM To:Carnahan, David Subject:Fwd: Charleston/Meadow Rail Crossings For records.  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Cory Wolbach    M:     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Florence Keller <fkeller@trialanalysisgroup.com>  Date: Tue, Nov 13, 2018, 3:58 PM  Subject: Charleston/Meadow Rail Crossings  To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, <>, <>, <>,  <>, <>, <>, <>,  <>  Cc: Palo Alto Citizens <paloaltocitizens@googlegroups.com>      Dear Board Members.    First, thank you for all you do.    Thank you also for responding to the sensitivities of Palo Alto   Residents by assiduously avoiding invoking eminent domain in your   consideration of how best to address the issues posed by the enhanced   numbers of trains projected to travel though our intersections.  The   truth is, however, that for the neighbors most immediately affected by   Caltrain (I do not count myself among these), the notion of having a 14   foot (or 40 foot when there is a train passing),berm or a Viaduct in   their backyard‐‐eliminating even the pretense of pleasure or privacy in   one's backyard, may be worse than eminent domain.  (I choose not to   dwell on the horrors of living in these houses during the construction   period of whatever choice you make,) And economically speaking, those   folks whose properties immediately abut the railroad, are about to be   slammed.  I noticed this weekend that the sales prices of two houses   that are for sale and situated immediately adjacent to the rails between   Charleston and Meadow have been reduced .  I do not believe either of   them have yet been sold.  You worry about what citizens of Palo Alto   will have to pay for a trench or a tunnel, but those living in the   neighboring residences will, I expect, end up paying substantially more,   financially, acoustically, and visually, if a berm or viaduct is the   solution selected by you.    Palo Alto is too important, and frankly too rich, to make major   3 decisions based primarily on economics.   And, in considering the   various solutions to problems posed by the increased numbers of trains,   I hope you will not, as Boards in the past have so frequently done, put   the greatest burden on South Palo Alto residents.  A tunnel, or at least   a trench, is the only humane approach to this problem.    Sincerely,    Florence Keller    4124 Wilkie Way  4 Carnahan, David From:Cory Wolbach <> Sent:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:28 AM To:Carnahan, David Subject:Fwd: Rail through Palo Alto/Motion to move forward For records.  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Cory Wolbach    M:     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Anne Hessing <arhessing@yahoo.com>  Date: Tue, Nov 13, 2018, 9:00 PM  Subject: Rail through Palo Alto/Motion to move forward  To: Anne R. Hessing <arhessing@yahoo.com>      November 13, 2018    Hello City of Palo Alto Officials,    As a 57 year owner/resident of Charleston Meadows, I wish to add my voice in support of a Tunnel/Trench solution to  the Rail through Palo Alto problem.  Only a solution that will be forward looking and respectful of quality of life,  aesthetic, and safety issues is acceptable.     1.  Please add the Charleston/Meadow Tunnel option to AECOM work plan for next level detail.      2.  Please suggest to AECOM moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) to further protect residential properties.    3.  Please eliminate or merge raised options; eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid.  Spend more time and  resource on studying underground options Tunnel/Trench.    4.  Lastly, PLEASE make a motion on Wednesday to add the three points above to the next City Council Agenda for their  approval.  Only then would AECOM be able to work on these.    Respectfully,  Anne R. Hessing  Charleston Meadows 57 year owner/resident  5 Carnahan, David From:Cory Wolbach <> Sent:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:26 AM To:Carnahan, David Subject:Fwd: Rail at E Charleston For records.  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Cory Wolbach    M:     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Edith Lin <eeandylin@gmail.com>  Date: Tue, Nov 13, 2018, 10:15 PM  Subject: Rail at E Charleston  To: <>  Cc: <paloaltocitizens@gmail.com>    Dear Mr. Wolbach,    Thank you for serving as chairman of the Rail Committee. We are residents of Walnut Grove, and our house is situated  just blocks from the railroad tracks. We would like to request that you make a motion at tomorrow's meeting to place  the following on the next city council agenda for approval:  1. Add a Charleston/Meadow tunnel to the AECOM work plan  2. Suggest that AECOM explore moving the trench or tunnel eastwards, towards Alma, to reduce the impact of the  trench or tunnel on adjacent properties  3. Spend more time and resources exploring underground options and eliminate or merge the raised options.     It seems clear that the vast majority of South Palo Alto residents prefer the tunnel option for many reasons including  pedestrian safety, noise considerations and aesthetic considerations. In addition, a tunnel may also avoid the problem of  interrupting the creeks that cross below  the current railroad tracks. Also, the valuable land above the trains could be  used for high density housing, shops, etc.    Current and future residents will be living with the results of these critical choices for many years, so I urge you to keep  the option of putting the trains in a tunnel by bringing a motion to place the above items on the next city council's  agenda.    Thank you for your time and consideration.    Edith and Andy Lin  6 Carnahan, David From:Cory Wolbach <> Sent:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:26 AM To:Carnahan, David Subject:Fwd: Status update and my comments for Wednesday 11/14/2018 Rail Committee meeting Just want to make sure we have this for records.  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Cory Wolbach    M:     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Mandar Borkar <mandar.borkar@gmail.com>  Date: Tue, Nov 13, 2018, 11:07 PM  Subject: Status update and my comments for Wednesday 11/14/2018 Rail Committee meeting  To: <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Rob de Geus  <Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.org>    Good evening Jim, Ed, Rob, and City Council Members (bcc'ed),     Three Topics:    1.  Requests to you.    a.  Add Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train in tunnel and freight at grade) to AECOM work plan for  next level detail.     We would like to remind that the option that we agreed to move forward with was "MCT" i.e.  Meadow/Charleston Trench/Tunnel.  Somewhere in the process, the Meadow/Charleston Tunnel got dropped  off.  We would like to see that reinstated and MOTIONED to be on the agenda for the next City Council for them  to make it an item on the AECOM Work plan.    b.  Suggest AECOM to explore moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) so that it further reduces impact to  residential properties;    We got an update at the CAP on how Trench could affect residential properties.  We would like AECOM to start  looking into ways to minimize impact to residential properties and put forth recommendations towards that.  Our  recommendation is to move the Trench eastward towards Alma and away from residential properties.  We hope  you could put forth this recommendation to AECOM at the meeting tomorrow on our behalf.  This suggestion is  similar to the suggestion AECOM made in the context of Viaduct.  We look forward to recommendations/ideas  from AECOM to make the Underground option a reality.    c.  Eliminate or merge raised options; Eliminate Hybrid and/or merge with Viaduct;  Spend more time and  resource on studying underground options;    7 We would like to focus our energies on making the underground options a reality and reduce the distraction from  the Raised options.    2.  Update on communications/interaction with citizens:    a.  Met with neighbours including Phil Burton and Tony Carrasco who are also on the CAP.  Met with a neighbour  who has been pushing for the Viaduct.  My objective was to understand their perspective and to communicate  ours.      b.  Our petition is now at 580 signatures.  Reminded neighbours to get back focused on the petition we started  and the requests we had communicated to you all back in June 2018.    c.  Organized distributing/sharing the engineering design boards with Nadia, Phil and Megan all on the  CAP.  Thanks again to Rob for making those available to us.    3.  Communicate via Email    I plan to continue to remind you of all the elderly, folks unable to take time from work to attend a Wednesday  8:30 am meeting and disabled people who may not have transportation to make it to the meeting.  In this age of  the internet and cloud, they do take time to send you emails to convey their views and provide their  comments.  They are unable to make it to the meeting and get their 2‐minute slot.      And so I will not be speaking tomorrow like many in my neighbourhood.  I would like our comments given the  same amount of importance and weight as those who come up and speak at the podium.  I would like the City to  adopt an "all‐inclusive process" by better leveraging the available digital technologies.    I will continue to help and support the City Staff toward making our goals a reality.    Appreciate all your hard work, service and your time.    Thank you.  Mandar    To City Staff:  James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org  Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org  Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.org    Bcc City Council: